Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm just calling it my "ethical hypocrisy".

Making claims you can't support?

You'll fit right in with the other fantasists in this thread.

Is that a matter of ethics? Or a matter of fact where you don't have the facts?

It's not ethical hypocrisy. You simply can't support your own claims about the historical record.

Agreed?

Tell us again that cool-story-bro about how you oppose animal cruelty in no substantive way, at all, ever.

Is there a story?

There are many things I dislike that I don't actively oppose.

 

[Roylion]

Cool.
God can be called the spaghetti monster.
And that changes it how?

You keep mentioning "God". Yet you won't define what you keep bringing up.

And you were the one that said:

"Actually the flying spaghetti monster can't be an explanation.

Atoms were created as part of Big Bang.
Anything that is made up of atoms can't possibly be an explanation for something before atoms were created."

It doesn't change it at all.

Change what?

But you calling it the spaghetti monster is just you admitting that you can't use logic, reason and science

I'm afraid it's you who cannot use reason, logic and science. Add to that coherence. What you present are little more than illogical, ill-thought, muddled rants.

but you have to say something that makes it less than because of your insecurities.

Do tell. And what "insecurities" would they be? Is that your new buzzword? Makes a nice change from "strawman" I suppose.

Took you how long just to accept just a basic fact. A single basic fact.

You have no idea. Take a deep breath, calm down and do a search on my comments on agnostics. I've been saying for years that whatever "God" is, "God" is unknowable.

I'll help you along. Here's what I said, thirteen years ago in 2008.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Roylion you're expecting a conversation where someone makes a claim and then supports that claim with relevant information or rationale.

Number37 can't connect the dots like that.

You could ask him about his favourite colour and he'd struggle to string two sentences together that make sense.

You know when your phone is low on battery, so the screen is a bit darker and everything takes longer to load? He's like that but in human form.

In cognitive terms, he needs the gutter cushions when he goes bowling.

 

[Number37]

You keep mentioning "God". Yet you won't define what you keep bringing up.

And you were the one that said:

"Actually the flying spaghetti monster can't be an explanation.

Atoms were created as part of Big Bang.
Anything that is made up of atoms can't possibly be an explanation for something before atoms were created."



Change what?



I'm afraid it's you who cannot use reason, logic and science. Add to that coherence. What you present are little more than illogical, ill-thought rants.



Do tell. And what "insecurities" would they be? Is that your new buzzword? Makes a nice change from "strawman" I suppose.



You have no idea. Take a deep breath, calm down and do a search on my comments on agnostics. I've been saying for years that whatever "God" is, "God" is unknowable.

I'll help you along. Here's what I said, thirteen years ago in 2008.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion you're expecting a conversation where someone makes a claim and then supports that claim with relevant information or rationale.

Yes, I guess I'm expecting too much. I would hope relatively rational conversations could be had with most on these boards.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, I guess I'm expecting too much. I would hope relatively rational conversations could be had with most on these boards.

Nah.

He just says whatever makes him feel good at the time and then wets his pants if you ask him to substantiate any of it.

That's not hyperbole.

 

[Evolved1]

So we can't/shouldn't discuss it?

I find it interesting the many different views that come with that discussion.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with people sharing a diversity of views as long as we recognise that not all views are equal.

 

[Number37]

Roylion you're expecting a conversation where someone makes a claim and then supports that claim with relevant information or rationale.

Number37 can't connect the dots like that.

You could ask him about his favourite colour and he'd struggle to string two sentences together that make sense.

You know when your phone is low on battery, so the screen is a bit darker and everything takes longer to load? He's like that but in human form.

Hey Siri what's ethical hyprocrisy?
I've found 2 links for what's ethical hypocrisy.
Do you want me to read the first one?
Ethical hypocrisy is a load of shit made up by some doofus on Bigfooty.
Do you want me to read the 2nd one?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with people sharing a diversity of views as long as we recognise that not all views are equal.

Like how the Taliban is preferable to the Australian government, for example.

Because Australia armed and funded the mujahideen.

Except they didn't.

That's what we're dealing with here. Basic argument-premise-support structure. And he can't process it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hey Siri what's ethical hyprocrisy?
I've found 2 links for what's ethical hypocrisy.
Do you want me to read the first one?
Ethical hypocrisy is a load of sh*t made up by some doofus on Bigfooty.
Do you want me to read the 2nd one?

Give me a second.

I'm still collecting myself after the revelation that you can read.

 

[Evolved1]

Do I?

Yes. Frequently.

I just comment on the various RWNJ-obbery that happens everyday of the week.

Is it really that hard to admit?

I don't usually start threads ranting about RWNJs.

This thread was started by a Christian.

Most of the time I just mock them.

Is there anything wrong with mocking religion?

Could be insecurity??

Undoubtedly.

Maybe I secretly want to be a RWNJ?

Envy.

Could be quite fun just making sh*t up, complaining about the most mundane insignificant things, or being as dumb as a fence plank.

Are you having fun?

 

[Number37]

Give me a second.

I'm still collecting myself after the revelation that you can read.

What revelation?
That was Siri reading.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Could be quite fun just making sh*t up, complaining about the most mundane insignificant things, or being as dumb as a fence plank.

Either you're operating already in "deep cover" or this should be your new signature.

 

[Number37]

Is there anything wrong with mocking religion?

I'm all for 100% free speech.

 

[Number37]

Either you're operating already in "deep cover" or this should be your new signature.

Hey Siri

do rhetorical questions need answers?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hey Siri

do rhetorical questions need answers?

That's as witty as you get.

 

[Opine]

Do you also believe in unicorns?

I mean, you're at least open to the possible they exist, right?

Complete lack of evidence should be no barrier.

A narrow-minded person may be more likely to imply that literal interpretation is the sole, or even preferred, means of construing abstract communication. Until now, you haven't struck me as that sort of monkey.

It's a visual model for expressing ideas about socially relevant norms at a particular moment in time. It's been more than merely effective at doing that; that's the function of art, to deliver ideas. Initially, it illustrated a conservative concept of sexuality reflective of another era. Recently, the same image, or verbal depiction of such, has been open to expressing liberal notions of sexuality indicative of modern norms; rainbow manes and tails etc.

Here you go, reluctantly, I'll apply the rational "standard test" outlined by one of my favourite authors, Steven Hawking, to that image so as to appease you: unicorn has been adaptably elegant, needed little to no adjustment to accommodate changing norms, communicates existing observations about its subject, doesn't need to make predictions because its function is to illustrate subjectivity. So, who gives a rats, It's art.

Leave you to it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So we can't/shouldn't discuss it?

I find it interesting the many different views that come with that discussion.

But here’s the thing mate, you don't discuss it.

You ask a question on here and when people ask you to clarify what you mean, you go straight into snarl mode and say that everyone is twisting your words.

eg, you were saying that atheists "rail against god" in an apparent attempt to clarify the thrust of your question, and I, and several other posters, pointed out that if atheists "rail" against anything, it is against the belief in an unproven god, which is a very different thing to railing against god. Atheists simply don't rail against god.

But not once did you acknowledge that point in your march to high dudgeon.

And now I log on this morning and see things have deteriorated down the all-too-predictable path. Getting het up because people raise religion in answer to a question about god in a thread titled "Ask A Christian". I mean, FMD.

Sorry mate, you don't get to play by a different set of rules to everyone else here. You are a really good poster on so many topics but you've come in here with some bizarre agenda and a complete inability to own your own posts, let alone clarify them without getting into a huff. Which is why I say I'm not going to engage.

Define "god" and some people might engage.

 

[madmug]

IMO.

Not a single Atheist will concede that it might be a possibility.

Which is why we have Agnostics I guess.

You can believe in what you like, just don't come knocking on my door with it.

The way that religious beliefs are used to cause so much hate & hurt in the world, over the Millenia, surely must create doubts as to the existence of some omnipotent creative force in the first place. Surely if that is the creator of all, something would happen to help 'Man' some 2000 years after his 'Son' had visited the place. A bit like a check on a rental property! I guess we might yet get a 'notice to quit!!!

Thats the Christian bit, Its only 2000 years old. So where was 'God' before that for the last 13billion years? Or before the big bang?

Clearly the bible has skipped a few chapters about all that.

 

[Coopers]

Roylion you're expecting a conversation where someone makes a claim and then supports that claim with relevant information or rationale.

Number37 can't connect the dots like that.

Sure he/she can, there's no way he/she can be this much of a troll unintentionally.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A narrow-minded person may be more likely to imply that literal interpretation is the sole, or even preferred, means of construing abstract communication. Until now, you haven't struck me as that sort of monkey.

It's a visual model for expressing ideas about socially relevant norms at a particular moment in time. It's been more than merely effective at doing that; that's the function of art, to deliver ideas. Initially, it illustrated a conservative concept of sexuality reflective of another era. Recently, the same image, or verbal depiction of such, has been open to expressing liberal notions of sexuality indicative of modern norms; rainbow manes and tails etc.

Here you go, reluctantly, I'll apply the rational "standard test" outlined by one of my favourite authors, Steven Hawking, to that image so as to appease you: unicorn has been adaptably elegant, needed little to no adjustment to accommodate changing norms, communicates existing observations about its subject, doesn't need to make predictions because its function is to illustrate subjectivity. So, who gives a rats, It's art.

Leave you to it.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Opine]

What a load of rubbish.

Yeah ok, that’s one hell of a rebuttal, Mr rational.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah ok, that’s one hell of a rebuttal, Mr rational.

There was nothing sensible or rational enough to rebut at greater length.

What about leprechauns? Do you believe in those as well? What about the tooth fairy?

Lack of evidence is clearly no obstacle for you.

 

[Opine]

There was nothing sensible or rational enough to rebut at greater length.

What about leprechauns? Do you believe in those as well? What about the tooth fairy?

Lack of evidence is clearly no obstacle for you.

About as much intellectual punch as a stale wet lettuce.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

About as much punch as a stale wet lettuce.

Maybe you could furnish us with a list of the mythical creatures you believe in?

God is on the list. What else?

Give us a rundown.