I just want to sin!!!

[BilliardsBall]

Atheists are mathematically and logically correct. Is that arrogance?
Snobs? You feel attacked. You have no reasonable or logical response. You know you are not critically analyzing facts. So you name-call.
Still waiting for a reasonable defense of theism. For thousands of years people have told stories and sought simplistic, unevidenced "answers." It got us nowhere, and sparked endless war and conflicts. Unlike the scientific revolution of the last century there has been no theological progress.

Of course there are reasonable defenses of theism:

1) The Bible is proven prescient

2) Jesus is the most influential person of all time

3) Jesus's love in exemplary

4) Born agains have numerous life changes

5) Skeptics troll forums to disprove "fairy tales" like the Bible--I've never been in an anti-Middle Earth or Grimm's forum, ever

 

[BilliardsBall]

He describes himself as one.

He is not a born again Christian. He is sniffing around the edges.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I guess you don't see how you are confirming my assertions. Once again, you begin with the assumption that atheists are horrible people, and create exaggerated and demeaning versions of what was actually said to you. According to you, atheists are arrogant and snobbish. Also, that they call you stupid. That's not correct - you were called unskilled in critical thinking, which is closer to being untrained in the art than stupid.

It's also not surprising that you failed to try to rebut the claim, but rather, embodied it. Nor that you ignored the criticism that you omitted logically possible options, or that faith corrupts reason. I guess that you didn't consider any of that worth thinking about or discussing, or even acknowledging that you saw or understood those words - am pretty common phenomenon on these threads when dealing with many theists. It's not just that they can't reason well. It's that they can't even participate in a discussion if the word means more than writing meaningless posts that don't address what was said or help to propel the interchange onward.

All you did was object to being told that your thinking was flawed with hyperbole. Do you not see that you are being the theist described above? Let me share an allegory of what it is like trying to have a constructive discussion with somebody who won't even acknowledge what is written to him.

I have two dogs and a knotted rope chew toy. One likes to play tug-of-war and I play that with him. If I get the rope out of his mouth, I throw it, and he brings it back. It's a cooperative effort, and we both enjoy it.

The other dog either doesn't know what to do or else isn't interested. I can't tell which, because she doesn't speak. I offer her the rope and she doesn't even look at it. I throw it, and she stands there. At first, I would go get the toy and throw it again, and maybe again. But she simply wouldn't engage. Obviously, there was nothing in it for me to keep throwing the rope and have her ignore it, so I gave up hope that she ever would. Too bad, because I think we both would have enjoyed it, but it's a cooperative effort, and one can't do it alone.

That's what these discussion are like. I've also compared them to an attempt to play ping-pong with somebody who serves, but doesn't even try to hit the return. He doesn't even look at it. There is no evidence he even was aware that a ball was returned. He likes serving, so he just serves another ball, ignores the return, and repeats the same process again and again until the other guy says that that doesn't resemble the game he enjoys, and gives up on the hope of a cooperative effort ever appearing.

I hope you don't find the allegory condescending. I respect my dogs, and mean no disrespect to you by comparing my multiple attempts to get you to engage with me in vain with throwing the rope and having to retrieve it myself for lack of cooperation from the dog, but the allegory is apt. You made a comment (serve), I answered responsively with a rebuttal (return), which you ignored and went off on an unrelated tangent (served again). I returned that as well with this post, but we both know what will follow from you, don't we? Well, I do.

It's not an assumption--atheist forum trolls are horrible people. I've not spent any time, ever, on anti-Middle Earth or Grimm's forums.

Religion is always a fairy tale. Why do you protest constantly, endlessly, verbosely, rudely about God on forums?

 

[ppp]

One could also say "If God, using his knowledge tells you truthfully that you are NOT going to eat a ham sandwich at 12pm EST Feb 1, 2023" ...

Yes. You certainly could. I guess that you think that is somehow a refutation of my point.

 

[ppp]

I am claiming that although I understand the NTS fallacy,

That was more of a special pleading fallacy.

it is unlikely (as Peterson said) that most people who've ever lived have been wrong about the divine.

You have no way of knowing that, Neither does Peterson. It is based on your wants, not on any type of rational process.

 

[Valjean]

Of course there are reasonable defenses of theism:

1) The Bible is proven prescient.
No more than many other works, religious and secular. It is also self-contradictory and full of errors.

2) Jesus is the most influential person of all time
That could be claimed by a number of persons, and is no evidence of divinity, in any case.

3) Jesus's love in exemplary
Huh? How was he any more loving than many other people? How is this evidence of divinity?

4) Born agains have numerous life changes
So do soldiers, ex-pats, drug users and converts to any other religion. Born-agains' life changes aren't always for the better. And how does this lend credence to the Bible?

5) Skeptics troll forums to disprove "fairy tales" like the Bible--I've never been in an anti-Middle Earth or Grimm's forum, ever
Believers use forums to preach and make baseless assertions about science, metaphysics, morality and truth. We just respond.

 

[ppp]

2) Jesus is the most influential person of all time

I think that the people who first made ale, bread, and discovered fire were more influential

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not an assumption--atheist forum trolls are horrible people.

Your church has taught you well. It has taught you hate. I don't hate you like you hate me. I just disapprove of your bigotry and call you out on it when I see it. I am an antitheist, and it is largely because of theists teaching hatred of atheists and gays, voting for decadent and anti-democratic people, and attempting to pierce the church-state barrier. So, I will always point out what you do. Look at our recent exchange. It is all atheophobic bigotry from you. You despise atheists

Religion is always a fairy tale.

The garden story and the flood story are no different than other morality fables like the fox and the grapes or the boy who cried wolf, except that many people believe the former. Sorry that you don't like to read that, but you don't bother to rebut it, either.

Why do you protest constantly, endlessly, verbosely, rudely about God on forums?

I don't protest God. I protest organized, politicized religion. I condemn faith as a path to truth. And I condemn religious bigotry.

Nor do I care what a person who calls others horrible considers rude, which obvious includes just being challenged. You have no standing there any longer. You have undermined your moral authority. If you think you hold the moral high ground because you are religious, you are wrong.

Take a tip from secular humanism, where we advocate the Golden Rule. Try treating atheists with the respect that you would like to receive rather than continually complaining about them just for disagreeing with you. Try treating me at least as well a I have treated you in this discussion. Your comments are all derogatory and directed at atheists. Mine are more respectful. They are not personal attacks. You have not been called horrible, although bigotry is that.

Consider my comment to you: "I hope you don't find the allegory condescending. I respect my dogs, and mean no disrespect to you by comparing my multiple attempts to get you to engage with me in vain with throwing the rope and having to retrieve it myself for lack of cooperation from the dog, but the allegory is apt. You made a comment (serve), I answered responsively with a rebuttal (return), which you ignored and went off on an unrelated tangent (served again). I returned that as well with this post, but we both know what will follow from you, don't we? Well, I do."

Here I was being respectful to you, as well as predicting that you would not cooperate in this discussion - that you would disregard most of it, and offer no rebuttal. You didn't disappoint.

Incidentally, who is trolling here? Your every comment has been written with the intention of insulting atheists. I'm merely calling you on it, not trolling. I don't write to provoke you. That's just your natural reaction to being disagreed with by an atheist. Your emotional responses are your responsibility.

Look at how you answered my post. Apparently only one word in my post caught your attention - horrible - which you addressed not with a rebuttal, not with examples of this horrible behavior, but with another unsupported smear. That's what I mean by not returning the ball (ping-pong metaphor)

Now look at my response to you. It addresses each of your major points with a rebuttal. I rebutted your charge of trollery and pointed out why that term applies more to you. I explained what religion and fairy tales have in common. And I rebutted your claim that I am either rude or protesting your God. That's an attempt at dialectic, but it can't become that without your cooperation.

How about trying again. Identify the major points in this response by highlighting them as quotes, and address them with a rebuttal if you disagree. Do you think that your posting is not hateful? Explain why your insults aren't hatred. I don't mean merely disagree. Explain why you disagree if you can. Then explain how biblical myths are different from other fictitious stories if that's how you feel. Then explain, if you disagree, why I actually am protesting "God" rather than condemning faith and religious bigotry. Then you can address my prediction that you would drop the ball (fail to return the serve). Then, you can defend your claim that I am trolling, and defend against the idea that you are in fact the one trying to be provocative. I treat you as I would like to be treated. Can you do the same? Return the ball hit to you. Be responsive. Be constructive. Be cordial. Is that possible? Is that an option for you?

Or not. You could also just ignore it all and make another derogatory comment letting the world know how little you like atheists or me again.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. You certainly could. I guess that you think that is somehow a refutation of my point.

It depends which way you look at it..
If G-d tells you that you are going to hell, then that's where you'll go. 'if'
Would it be G-d's fault? No. He isn't holding a gun to your head.

You are free to make smart, confusing arguments. It doesn't change anything. You can't escape your destiny. You can only make effort to ensure it is not bad.

 

[Sheldon]

Ah, ah, ah.
Haven't I just said that it makes no difference whether the future is known or not known?
Free-will has nothing to do with whether the future is known or not.

You talk about a "single outcome" ..
..as if it is not a single outcome if the future is not known!
You are just talking yourself into it by your thoughts being "stuck in a rut".
Try lateral thinking .. that might help.

Try thinking rationally, it's only multiple outcomes until it happens, then it is a single outcome, if a deity knows that single outcome, before it happens, then we have no free will to change it. Your ad hominem as is always the case, just indicates you have no rational argument and are lashing out.

 

[ppp]

You are free to make smart, confusing arguments.

Just because you are confused, doesn't mean my comments are confusing.

 

[Sheldon]

Christianity and Islam are not against scientific development, no.
However, it is against usury that underpins modern capitalist philosophy.

You mean because there are no wealthy Christians or Muslims?

Now you still have not said:

1. What are you replacing capitalism with, when you destroy usury?
2. How is religion, and not science, going to solve climate change, as you claimed?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Oh I'm not an atheist because countless theists imagine countless different deities, or because theists imagine countless versions of the same deity. I am an atheist because there is no objective evidence for any deity.

That was my contention once as well.

So you don't care anymore that there is no objective evidence? Well that's your choice of course.

 

[Sheldon]

You are free to make smart, confusing arguments.

As opposed to your unsmart, and confusing arguments.

 

[Sheldon]

You can't escape your destiny.

Hilarious, your claims for free will just evaporated.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Try thinking rationally, it's only multiple outcomes until it happens..

No it isn't. If you speak about a future, then it can only be ONE OUTCOME
It is true that we don't know what it is. It is hidden from us. We perceive that it has not happened. We are effectively trapped in time-space.

if a deity knows that single outcome, before it happens, then we have no free will to change it.

No .. "before it happens" assumes that time is absolute and rules all. Time is not that simple. We say the speed of light is a constant. We can then see that time passes at different rates, even in this universe, let alone outside it.

It is true that we can't change what G-d knows. That is because G-d knows what we will choose. It is not because we can't choose what we want to choose.

Now, you can hypothetically say that "what if I want to choose something different? I can't".

No. You can't. G-d knows that you won't want to choose something different.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course there are reasonable defenses of theism

Christians don't have a monopoly on the term theism.

1) The Bible is proven prescient

No, it's filled with non-specific language, much like Nostradamus quatrains, that is so vague you can apply to it to very many things.

2) Jesus is the most influential person of all time

That proves nothing. And I'd argue others have been more influential. Like the Greek philosophers who built the foundations of Western society.

3) Jesus's love in exemplary

Not really. He's very judgemental, very authoritarian, and very much "my way or the hkghway" and fully supportive of his father's endless punishment of those who won't worship him.

4) Born agains have numerous life changes

So does everyone. Literally. People who don't even have gluten sensitivities or allergies even claim such things even though this is all in the head and there is no physiological reason for this.
Converts of all religions get this. People joining new groups get this. Hell, it's so much how we are that studies have shown that even with material purchases we are undecided on we will focus on the pros of the purchase we make to make ourselves feel better about the purchase we made.

5) Skeptics troll forums to disprove "fairy tales" like the Bible--I've never been in an anti-Middle Earth or Grimm's forum, ever

Some, not all.
And on the flip side Christians as well have trolled forums, including this one, in order to judge others, condemn them, preach and proselytize, and they even do it here despite agreeing to not do it here as it's against the rules.

He is not a born again Christian. He is sniffing around the edges.

It's not your place to judge. If Jehovah exist then it is his exclusive right to decide this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't escape your destiny.

Destiny is incompatible with free will.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course there are reasonable defenses of theism:

1) The Bible is proven prescient

2) Jesus is the most influential person of all time

3) Jesus's love in exemplary

4) Born agains have numerous life changes

5) Skeptics troll forums to disprove "fairy tales" like the Bible--I've never been in an anti-Middle Earth or Grimm's forum, ever

1) No it isn't, though it does have passages that make claims about this.

2) That doesn't evidence any of the bible's supernatural claims about him.

3) Is it, according to the bible, it was gentle Jesus meek and mild that brought us the notion of Hell, and torturing humans forever after they die.

4) So what?

5) Most fictions are innocuous, thus arguing against them is moot, and this is a public debate forum, so the first claim is idiotic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. What are you replacing capitalism with, when you destroy usury?

It is not a case of replacing capitalism. It is a case of not being involved with usury.

You could say "what are you going to replace prostitution with?"
The answer is nothing.

2. How is religion, and not science, going to solve climate change, as you claimed?

I don't think climate-change is going to be solved per se.
There is destruction ahead which ever way you look at it.

It is valuable knowledge, to know what is the cause [major sin - usury],
even if you can't prevent it.