How much does the Christian God really love us?

[astarath]

Where were you?

 

[Debunker]

You consistently and systematically employ baseless accusations, strawman arguments, false assertions, sophistic rhetoric, condescending remarks, deceitful language, and evident lies to promote your morally bankrupt religion. You then employ the same tactics to try and discredit any reasonable argument or opposition to your religion.

All these facts make you a despicable and intellectually dishonest debater. Your mendacious tactics have been exposed and your fallacious claims have been discredited.

You are nothing but a disgusting liar and a bigot.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

You have called me a liar and a bigot. Calling you a hedonist is not the same thing as calling a person a liar. A hedonist is the same thing as calling a person a rationalist, an idealist, a realist, a socialist, an aristocrat, a realist, an atomist, etc. Without these labels it would be difficult to have a philosophical discussion. I am a rationalist, an idealist, and a realist. You are welcome to call me any of these words or anything else that you think defines
the way you think I think.

In calling me a liar and a bigot, you do with deliberativeness violate the ethics of the RF. I do not care for myself. I can ignore your personal insults but if you have any doubts that what I say, you are welcome to push the red button at the top of each post and bring to the attention what you and I are doing in supposed friendly debate. All the times you highlight my dishonesty as lying in red is a violation of ethics on this forum. I expect you to police your own ethical behavior or I would hit the red button each time you attack me personalty. As I said, I do not really care enough to complain to the monitors on this forum.

For me, my intention is to never attack you personally but your philosophy is anti Christian and I am a Christian apologist. Our ideas are going to clash violently on a loaded thread like this one. It is your thread and I see it as your responsibility to defend your thesis statement as vigorous as you can but always within the ethics of the RF. I will continue to identify the flaws in your philosophy as I see them.

I am human and it is very possible that I can also violate the rules of ethics used here but I promise I will try not to violate these rules. I apologies to you if you think I have, but if I have done so dor do so, it will not be done with deliberativeness.

 

[Debunker]

Evidence doesn't require belief, it only requires recognition.

You did not provide any evidence. Show me where is the evidence?! Where are the posts where you provide evidence that Jesus is the god of the universe? Baseless assertions are not evidence.

Unless you demonstrate that you provided evidence, this would be just another one of your deceitful attempts to substitute empty rhetoric for facts.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

I did. I told you about dabar. You are welcome to research the term and refute it as evidence at your pleasure. I can not force you to accept it as evidence that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe, now can I?

 

[astarath]

indeed you can not

 

[PolyHedral]

I did. I told you about dabar. You are welcome to research the term and refute it as evidence at your pleasure. I can not force you to accept it as evidence that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe, now can I?

You're citing a holy text as evidence of God?

...You can't see how circular that is?

 

[Debunker]

I know what hedonism means, it means regarding pleasure as the highest good. This term doesn't apply to me.

If this was your attempt of proving that I'm a hedonist, it failed utterly. Because I've just refuted another one of your fallacious and malicious assertions.

This is another false premise you're basing your fallacious claims on.

I don't have such a belief. I do not belief that God does not exist. This means that your claim that I'm a hedonist has been discredited and debunked!

I don't believe Jesus is the god of the universe. But that doesn't mean that I believe that the god of the universe doesn't exist. These are two different and unrelated issues. If you conflated these two together, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

I have no reason to believe that Jesus is the god of the universe, because there is no evidence to such effect. Moreover, you claimed that there is evidence, and that you've provided it, but you never did. Which means you were lying.

This is a baseless assertion that I already refuted.

You provided no evidence so far to support such fallacious claim.

Nothing but a strawman argument. Hedonism is not my ethical position. You need to stop lying!

Your false observation comes from the fact that you're a disgusting liar who cannot provide even one logically valid argument, or fact to support your deceitful claims.

This is nothing but a strawman argument that has been utterly discredited and debunked. You cannot defend your own baseless assertions, and you demonstrate this fact repeatedly.
/QUOTE]
I hardly see any viciousness in my assertion that you are a hedonist. Maybe you are a humanist. Humanist do not base their ethics on revealed God rules either. Hedonism and humanism are very kin to each other and go hand in hand with each other in meaning.

You don't have such a belief. What belief do you have? Tell us and we will not have to assume.

You violate the agreed ethics by calling me a disguising liar. Push the red button brother and ask the monitor.
I have given you logic and evidence but you disagree with my evidence that it is evidence.

I think you lose this point.

 

[Debunker]

I have no problem with intellectually honest criticism of my philosophy, but that is not what you're doing.

All you're doing is erecting strawmen that have absolutely nothing to do with my philosophy, and then you demolish these strawmen. The fact that you attribute these malicious and baseless claims to my philosophy is not the same as actually criticizing it. All you're doing is utilizing sophistry and mendacity.

I don't think sophistry and mendacity are a good philosophy of life, but since you're not dead yet, I guess it works well for you.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

So far your rebuffs have been emotional outburst rather than philosophical explanations of what you beliefs are. Saying you do not believe certain things is not saying what things you do believe. If you are not a hedonist, what do you believe in opposition to hedonism? Give me a reason to believe you.

 

[Debunker]

What did you say? Provide a link to your post.

I am not a hedonist. I base my ethics on nature. The core values I derive from nature are honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom. My philosophy promotes life.

Define dabar.

I don't want you to "follow" anyone. Following someone/something is a really vile virtue.

The natural philosophy of life is not about following. It is about understanding the laws of nature and the principles that govern the behavior of living beings. Once you understand these laws and principles, all you need to do is live in accord with those principles. The core principles that guide the behavior of living beings are honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom. When we don't live in accord with these principles, we become destructive to ourselves, our family, our community, our town, our nation, and our world.

You can read about all of these in my blog.

Now, the only God that could exist is the God of Nature. Not a "supernatural" God.

The God of Nature was best defined by Spinoza: "There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God"

Nature and its laws are perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and benevolent.

I can explain exactly how Nature exhibits each of these characteristics, but let's just take perfection:

Perfect means having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics.

Nature is perfect, because nature and it's laws have all the required elements needed for the universe and nature to exist. This is self-evident. If Nature did not have all the elements required to exist it wouldn't exist.

This is also why there cannot be a supernatural God that intervenes/interferes with nature. If anything outside of nature interferes with nature, then it would no longer be perfect, it would be imperfect (it would mean that the laws of nature are insufficient in themselves - which means that they're not perfect). Since God cannot be imperfect, there cannot be a supernatural dimension that interferes with nature. Since there cannot be a supernatural dimension, that means that there cannot be hell, heaven, or afterlife. Which means that Jesus could not be the God of Nature. Jesus was giving us false hope of an afterlife.

Now, Nature doesn't require anyone to worship it. The laws of nature are not hidden from us. Nature is entirely comprehensible. All we need to do is observe it, study it, understand it, and act in accord with these laws. No following or leading.

It is in our best interests to study the laws of nature, and to live in accord with these laws. Otherwise, we're just being self destructive.

I told you where I want to take you. To a better life, with more honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom. And with less self-righteousness, ignorance, hypocrisy, and intolerance.

I don't ask for accommodations. I ask for fair debate. A debate that is based on making logically valid arguments, and claims supported by facts. Not on sophistry, empty rhetoric, or false accusations.

Basically you are saying that you are a pantheist. In the Western World this is a minor belief of little acceptance. Most of us accept the ontological argument for God. Being perfect God is beyond man/s ability to know all of God, who transcends the universe. God created all self evident truths and nature did not create God. God did create nature.

Spinoza was an atheist. (I am aware that people debate this position but that is my opinion) There are two substances, spirit and matter. We are not God. Ontology is God and the universe is cosmology. Rules of science and logic were created by God and not invented by man.

God is beyond nature and is supernatural. Nature is not perfect or else man could not screw it up by your definition of perfection. We do have free will but your definition of God's omni's forbids free will. Idealism is the only logical explanation for the universe and God. The idealism of the Bible is true and Spinoza was a fool.

That is my opinion. I told you before that our basic beliefs clashed and we are not likely ever to agree. I am pleased that you are finally coming clean with what you believe is really believe. I still think you are a hedonist; you just don't know it.

 

[Debunker]

You're citing a holy text as evidence of God?

...You can't see how circular that is?

Of course. That is what this thread questions. The God of the Bible is the God of the universe. That is the crux of the debate. Tell us how that is circular. Spinoza is what is circular, don't you agree?

 

[Enoughie]

You have called me a liar and a bigot. Calling you a hedonist is not the same thing as calling a person a liar. A hedonist is the same thing as calling a person a rationalist, an idealist, a realist, a socialist, an aristocrat, a realist, an atomist, etc. Without these labels it would be difficult to have a philosophical discussion.

I have no problem with labels. I have a problem with labels that are based on false claims, and not supported by any evidence. You did not provide even a shred of evidence to support the fictitious claim that I'm a hedonist.

I am a rationalist, an idealist, and a realist. You are welcome to call me any of these words or anything else that you think defines
the way you think I think.

You are also a mendacious sophist. These are labels that fit you perfectly.

These labels are based on the fact that you consistently and systematically employ baseless accusations, strawman arguments, false assertions, sophistic rhetoric, condescending remarks, deceitful language, and evident lies.

If you don't like these labels. You should take back and apologize for all the posts where you used these mendacious tactics. Then I'll be able to label you an honest debater.

In calling me a liar and a bigot, you do with deliberativeness violate the ethics of the RF. I do not care for myself. I can ignore your personal insults but if you have any doubts that what I say, you are welcome to push the red button at the top of each post and bring to the attention what you and I are doing in supposed friendly debate. All the times you highlight my dishonesty as lying in red is a violation of ethics on this forum. I expect you to police your own ethical behavior or I would hit the red button each time you attack me personalty. As I said, I do not really care enough to complain to the monitors on this forum.

I was not aware of these rules. I'll take that into consideration.

For me, my intention is to never attack you personally but your philosophy is anti Christian and I am a Christian apologist. Our ideas are going to clash violently on a loaded thread like this one. It is your thread and I see it as your responsibility to defend your thesis statement as vigorous as you can but always within the ethics of the RF. I will continue to identify the flaws in your philosophy as I see them.

But you have already conceded that my OP was correct. Here it is:

"The question was: how much does the christian god really love us? As is evident from what you wrote, the answer is not much!"

Your comment:

I agree, that does apply to you, IMO.

So I don't see what is the purpose of the rest of your attacks (which are not based on any logically valid arguments, but rather on sophistry).

I am human and it is very possible that I can also violate the rules of ethics used here but I promise I will try not to violate these rules. I apologies to you if you think I have, but if I have done so dor do so, it will not be done with deliberativeness.

I have no intention of violating any rules here. I am interested in have a fair debate about the topic. A debate that is based on facts, and logically valid arguments.

When I see people employing baseless accusations, strawman arguments, false assertions, sophistic rhetoric, condescending remarks, or deceitful language as a debate strategy, instead of being honest debaters, I call them out on it.

You have already conceded that I am correct in my argument that the Christian God doesn't love us much (everyone, not just Christians).

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Enoughie]

I did. I told you about dabar. You are welcome to research the term and refute it as evidence at your pleasure. I can not force you to accept it as evidence that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe, now can I?

Show me the post where you talked about dabar. You haven't done so yet.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

So far your rebuffs have been emotional outburst rather than philosophical explanations of what you beliefs are. Saying you do not believe certain things is not saying what things you do believe. If you are not a hedonist, what do you believe in opposition to hedonism? Give me a reason to believe you.

I can easily demonstrate why I am not a hedonist. But the burden of proof is not on me. It is on you. You're again trying to divert attention from the real issue here. Which means that you're continuing with your dishonest debating strategy, instead of being an honest debater.

You made the following false accusations:

You do not learn these things from natural philosophy but from your personal premises of pleasure being the main objective of knowledge

Natural philosophy teaches you about God and all that other stuff is pure hedonism or better known as the pig philosophy.

I believe your belief is based on hedonism and not on what the Bible says

You now are trying to make hedonism a respectful way of life.

It is because he is a hedonist. Sexual pleasure means everything to him.

Your pig philosophy is so much better, right?

you have been exposed as a hedonist. You use hedonism as your base for reasoning and I use the ontological argument for my base of reasoning

You do base life on the pleasure factor

Unless you can prove, demonstrate, or provide evidence for how these accusations are true (ie. that I'm a hedonist), the accusations above are nothing but baseless personal attacks. Which means that all you're doing is mendacious sophistry.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Luminous]

This is a religious forum. I assume that speaks to your reason for being here. It boils down to how one defines religion. Religion and philosophy seek the truth.

How do you define agnosticism to be a "truth" when agnostics doubt that one can even know the truth

. because you can't doubt that you doubt...or can you?

I think agnosticism is universal scapegoating.

in what way?

 

[Debunker]

I have no problem with labels. I have a problem with labels that are based on false claims, and not supported by any evidence. You did not provide even a shred of evidence to support the fictitious claim that I'm a hedonist.



You are also a mendacious sophist. These are labels that fit you perfectly.

These labels are based on the fact that you consistently and systematically employ baseless accusations, strawman arguments, false assertions, sophistic rhetoric, condescending remarks, deceitful language, and evident lies.

If you don't like these labels. You should take back and apologize for all the posts where you used these mendacious tactics. Then I'll be able to label you an honest debater.


I was not aware of these rules. I'll take that into consideration.



But you have already conceded that my OP was correct. Here it is:

"The question was: how much does the christian god really love us? As is evident from what you wrote, the answer is not much!"

Your comment:



So I don't see what is the purpose of the rest of your attacks (which are not based on any logically valid arguments, but rather on sophistry).


I have no intention of violating any rules here. I am interested in have a fair debate about the topic. A debate that is based on facts, and logically valid arguments.

When I see people employing baseless accusations, strawman arguments, false assertions, sophistic rhetoric, condescending remarks, or deceitful language as a debate strategy, instead of being honest debaters, I call them out on it.

You have already conceded that I am correct in my argument that the Christian God doesn't love us much (everyone, not just Christians).

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

Context is everything brother. You keep twisting things. I surrender nothing to your way of thinking, Your unethical way of thinking is not excused because of your being unaware of the rules, especially since you continue your unethical tactics. You only prove my point that you do not present a followable philosophy but only an emotional rant. Emotional catharses makes you feel better but it also puts you on a different plain other than logical debate. You are playing into the hands of all the Christians who have pleaded with you to see things differently. You have exposed yourself as an emotional pundit with a marginal philosophical knowledge and weak on intellectual ethics. If you want to appear that way, we will allow you to self destruct. Keep up the good work.

 

[Enoughie]

Basically you are saying that you are a pantheist. In the Western World this is a minor belief of little acceptance.

I am not a pantheist. I'm an agnostic. I neither believe that God exists, nor believe that God does not exist. I recognize the fact that a supernatural god cannot exist, because anything that interfere with the laws of nature (physics) would make nature imperfect.

Most of us accept the ontological argument for God.

What most people accept is irrelevant to what is true.

At some point most people accepted that the world is flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That is irrelevant to the truth.

Being perfect God is beyond man/s ability to know all of God, who transcends the universe.

God may "transcend" the universe, but God cannot interfere with the laws that govern the universe (nature's laws/god's laws), because that would mean that nature is imperfect.

God created all self evident truths and nature did not create God. God did create nature.

If nature IS God then neither god created nature nor nature create God. They are one and the same.

Spinoza was an atheist. (I am aware that people debate this position but that is my opinion)

Spinoza believed in God, therefore he cannot be an atheist. You consider him an atheist because he did not believe in YOUR "supernatural" god (which I demonstrated cannot exist).

There are two substances, spirit and matter.

These are your baseless assertions. There is no evidence for the existence of any spirit. And I explained why the existence of a supernatural dimension defies logic - it is self-contradictory.

We are not God. Ontology is God and the universe is cosmology. Rules of science and logic were created by God and not invented by man.

These are again assertions, that are not necessarily consistent with logic. No one said that the laws of nature were created by man. So this is yet another strawman argument.

God is beyond nature and is supernatural.

A "supernatural" god that interferes with the perfect laws of nature (physics) renders the laws of nature imperfect. Which means such god cannot exist.

Nature is not perfect or else man could not screw it up by your definition of perfection.

The laws of nature (physics) are perfect. Man cannot defy or screw up the laws of physics. Therefore the laws of nature (physics) are perfect.

We do have free will but your definition of God's omni's forbids free will.

The claim that we have free will is another baseless assertion. You derive it from your religion, but it has no basis in reality. Nature is deterministic, and we are part of nature. Free will is nothing but an illusion. We are bound by the laws of nature (physics).

Idealism is the only logical explanation for the universe and God.

Another baseless assertion. My explanation of the God of nature was entirely logical.

The idealism of the Bible is true and Spinoza was a fool.

Yet another baseless assertion that you have to provide evidence for, and then an ad hominem attack, since you cannot refute the argument.

That is my opinion. I told you before that our basic beliefs clashed and we are not likely ever to agree. I am pleased that you are finally coming clean with what you believe is really believe. I still think you are a hedonist; you just don't know it.

Unless you show evidence for your fallacious claims, your accusations are nothing more then mendacious sophistry.

You have not provided any evidence to justify your ad hominem attacks.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Debunker]

Show me the post where you talked about dabar. You haven't done so yet.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

Go back and read your threads. It will be good for you to read your own stuff.

 

[Enoughie]

Context is everything brother. You keep twisting things. I surrender nothing to your way of thinking, Your unethical way of thinking is not excused because of your being unaware of the rules, especially since you continue your unethical tactics. You only prove my point that you do not present a followable philosophy but only an emotional rant. Emotional catharses makes you feel better but it also puts you on a different plain other than logical debate. You are playing into the hands of all the Christians who have pleaded with you to see things differently. You have exposed yourself as an emotional pundit with a marginal philosophical knowledge and weak on intellectual ethics. If you want to appear that way, we will allow you to self destruct. Keep up the good work.

Again. Please provide evidence for your fallacious ad hominem attacks.

You asserted that I am a hedonist. Where are your evidence?!

As of this moment, you are nothing but a mendacious sophist.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Go back and read your threads. It will be good for you to read your own stuff.

The burden of proof is on you. Unless you provide evidence, you are nothing but a mendacious sophist.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Debunker]

I can easily demonstrate why I am not a hedonist. But the burden of proof is not on me. It is on you. You're again trying to divert attention from the real issue here. Which means that you're continuing with your dishonest debating strategy, instead of being an honest debater.

You made the following false accusations:

Unless you can prove, demonstrate, or provide evidence for how these accusations are true (ie. that I'm a hedonist), the accusations above are nothing but baseless personal attacks. Which means that you are nothing more than a mendacious sophist.
QUOTE]

It is your thread so the burden of prof is on you. That you are a hedonist is based on the things you said about homosexual behavior and sex in general. Don't you know what you said about you living for pleasure in this life? If you don't. it is only because you have a selective memory. Being under fire like you are can cause that. You will be reviewing your threads looking for dabar so keep an eye out for your hedonistic statements.

As for giving you prove or demonstrating the validity of my so called accusations I only have to refer you to your own testimony of how you live your life. Your own wors define your lifestyle so why should I try?

When you say: "Which means that you are nothing more than a mendacious sophist." you do violate the ethics of the RF which you promised to follow. To be ethical you should have said: "You use dishonest sophistry." If you disagree, push the red button at the top of your post or else bare the shame of your violation of your ethical code of conduct.

 

[Debunker]

. because you can't doubt that you doubt...or can you? in what way?

In the way I just implied.