2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2012, 06:32 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Caff -

"IfC would rather have a farcical discussion about the existence of Santa, instead of responding to either of my posts."

I'm sorry, would you like me to put you in the front of the line now? I'll go look for your post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 06:36 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Caff -

Sorry but all I found was two GENERAL questions asked, they weren't directed at ANYONE.

Your other post was a RANT on my answer. I didn't find a question or really any type of call for discussion. I let you have your rant, didn't know I HAD to reply to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(26-09-2012 06:36 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  I let you have your rant, didn't know I HAD to reply to it.

How generous of you to let me have my rant.

What do you believe and why do you believe it are general questions, yeah, so what? You wanna come over and put us on the defensive without telling us what you believe and why? You were content with picking out other questions that weren't directly aimed at you, but not mine.

Did you have no response to my rant? Do you think that coercion and blackmail are acceptable methods of presenting a choice? Did every point I make seem stupid to you, so much so that you thought it wasn't worth responding to? Well let me know why, then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 06:50 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Caff -

"What do you believe and why do you believe it are general questions, yeah, so what? You wanna come over and put us on the defensive without telling us what you believe and why? You were content with picking out other questions that weren't directly aimed at you, but not mine."

---Yep, it's called choice. Last time i checked, I have a choice to which questions I choose to answer. Sorry i didn't answer yours, but there were already a number of mini-threads I was a part of and didn't feel like adding another one to the mix. Your questions were fine questions. I just CHOSE not to answer them.

It was nothing personal, since I don't know you.

"Did you have no response to my rant? Do you think that coercion and blackmail are acceptable methods of presenting a choice? Did every point I make seem stupid to you, so much so that you thought it wasn't worth responding to? Well let me know why, then."

I typically don't respond to rants...they don't lend to actuall discussions, just further rants. if you have a specific point or two you would like redress I certainly would be willing to discuss them. However, as I said, as a general rule i don't reply to rants.

Again, it's a matter of having a choice and being able to exercise that choice - which I have done.

Nothing personal, since I don't know you.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Idiot for Christ's post
26-09-2012, 06:58 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(26-09-2012 06:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Caff -

"What do you believe and why do you believe it are general questions, yeah, so what? You wanna come over and put us on the defensive without telling us what you believe and why? You were content with picking out other questions that weren't directly aimed at you, but not mine."

---Yep, it's called choice. Last time i checked, I have a choice to which questions I choose to answer. Sorry i didn't answer yours, but there were already a number of mini-threads I was a part of and didn't feel like adding another one to the mix. Your questions were fine questions. I just CHOSE not to answer them.

It was nothing personal, since I don't know you.

"Did you have no response to my rant? Do you think that coercion and blackmail are acceptable methods of presenting a choice? Did every point I make seem stupid to you, so much so that you thought it wasn't worth responding to? Well let me know why, then."

I typically don't respond to rants...they don't lend to actuall discussions, just further rants. if you have a specific point or two you would like redress I certainly would be willing to discuss them. However, as I said, as a general rule i don't reply to rants.

Again, it's a matter of having a choice and being able to exercise that choice - which I have done.

Nothing personal, since I don't know you.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Damn well said.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
26-09-2012, 07:03 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(26-09-2012 06:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Your questions were fine questions. I just CHOSE not to answer them.

Can you answer them now that we're both here, please?

(26-09-2012 06:50 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  I typically don't respond to rants...they don't lend to actuall discussions, just further rants. if you have a specific point or two you would like redress I certainly would be willing to discuss them. However, as I said, as a general rule i don't reply to rants.

Is God's method of recruitment (coercion/implicit blackmail) a fair and moral way to present a choice?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes caffeinesoul's post
26-09-2012, 07:16 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Idiot for Christ: Why does God communicate solely through men?

Is it not more likely that men created God, than that God created man?

You see the issue I have, is that it smells of a lie. It could so easily be done by men, you can't tell me that coming up with a few cryptic scriptures and random prophecies is too hard for men, so *why* do you believe it is done by an invisible magic being?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2012 08:20 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(25-09-2012 09:11 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  1. For one, it's a choice to be with God or without God. Of course to be with God one would have to believe in Him first (wouldn't that follow?). Second, if you don't want to be with God, do you believe he should FORCE you to be with him? that wouldn't be very loving, plus it would negate our free will.

2. He didn't. Sin entered the world. It was perfect before then. Sin entered, we fell and continue to do so day in, day out. As to the design of the earth one could say: well I bet you seem to accept it from an evolution standpoint without moral objection, why would or should it be any different for God? Of course there is an argument that the world was not designed as such and that sin corrupted it.

1. It is absolutely not a choice to "be with god", or not, (a "choice" to be with a non-existent being, is what Psychology calls "delusional"), which one completely 100 % honestly is unable to affirm. It's not a choice to affirm a delusion. If the delusion requires assent, then the criteria for assenting to delusions must be established, before any delusions are assented. You have not provided the criteria, for assent to other delusions. Many of us would be more than pleased to remain in religion, however the "moral failure presumption" is simply self-righteousness, and an attempt to explain why 100% honest people, who would give anything if they COULD believe, (as it would mean they could be more comfortable, in their culture and family contexts), cannot, as it is intellectually dishonest to assent to something which is so obviously false. The argument is essentially circular.

2. Neuro-science has debunked the concept of "free will".

3. Theist's OWN theological systems state that faith is a virtue, (capriciously granted by their Holy Spirit). Your Spirit decided to pass over my house, apparently.

4. The "sin", ("evil", the "devil", and it's resultant "salvation"...which BTW Yeshua ben Josef did not preach) paradigm has no proof. It's an ancient attempt to explain what science has shown to be the result of probability, and known behavioral contexts and motivations, which are 100 % natural. There is no evidence that there ever was a preternatural state of perfection. The fact that nature is observed to have been consistently the same since it began on the Earth, proves there never was a "break" from a state of perfection. We know the origins of the "sin" business, and how it developed from the Sumerian "chaos " mythologies. All of Christianity is built on a "goof" which most of it doesn't even know about. Sin corrupted nothing. "Sin" is a mythological explanation system for what is inconvenient, non-productive, misguided, unfortunate, and the result of known factors. It's a childish over-simplification, explanation system, to aviod further investigation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-09-2012, 08:20 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(26-09-2012 07:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  2. Neuro-science has debunked the concept of "free will".

Hmmm, I'd call that an overstatement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 08:28 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(26-09-2012 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 07:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  2. Neuro-science has debunked the concept of "free will".

Hmmm, I'd call that an overstatement.

We've been through this, (not with you, however). Theists use the term with reference to individual ("sinful" acts"). Neuro-science HAS proven that the decision process to perform individual acts is not, (100%) present to human consciousness. That is different from long-term, considered intellectual positions. Theists, (who actually know something about their own systems), assert that a sinful act requires full knowledge and consent. That would exempt an honest "disbelief". This is just another instance of someone who knows nothing about their own system, (and Neuro-science).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: