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

 

[madmug]

The Spaghetti Monster is not made out of spaghetti.
A book that isn't true is conclusive proof of the non-existence of something that isn't related to the book.
If there was a God then things would happen just how I think they should.
Because things don't happen just how I think they should there cannot therefore be God.

How many Atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
No answer yet. Still waiting....they're all too busy arguing that if God exists then we wouldn't need light bulbs because we would have unicorns and fairies and we would sit around singing kumbaya all day and there would be no sorrow and be no pain and we'd smoke cigarettes on Christmas Day. There'd be no happiness or sadness. Einstein would be a hippy and we would never have learned of his theories. There wouldn't have been any world wars. Alexander the Great would be known as Alexander. There would be no Roman Empires because. There'd be no history. No school. No education. The world would be perfect, just like everyone would expect if there was God. What's perfect? Perfect is perfect Duh. Logic and reason!

WTF are you sucking on this morning?

'Logic and reason'?

Q How many Gnostics does it take to light up a room? A Who needs light bulbs?

Anyway, good luck with your journey to, err, to wherever.

 

[Boston tiger]

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.

You don’t think we are going all right ?

 

[Boston tiger]

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, muddled 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.

To define God first define yourself.

 

[Roylion]

To define God first define yourself.

We’re not talking about me. I’ve explained ad nauseum how I define myself in relation to the concept that others call “god”.

Why don’t you define “god”? And we’ll go from there.

 

[madmug]

You don’t think we are going all right ?

Define 'we'.

Define 'all right'?

 

[Gethelred]

**** it.

Chief, where's the dictionary thread?

 

[Number37]

WTF are you sucking on this morning?

'Logic and reason'?

Q How many Gnostics does it take to light up a room? A Who needs light bulbs?

Anyway, good luck with your journey to, err, to wherever.

So we can take the piss out of the religious but we can't take the piss out of Atheists?

 

[Number37]

Dude. Don’t be that guy.

What does that mean?

Have we really sunk that low that we need to misrepresent even the most banal thing?

Yeah? So? What’s your point?

Changes nothing that I wrote.

Here I’ll repeat.

Greek writers did believe in unicorns.

The King James Authorised Version translated “re’em” as "unicorn". Later versions of the Bible translated it as “wild ox”.

Plausible deniability.
How cute.
You need to sink that low that you need to mispresent even the most banal thing.
Good for you.

 

[Number37]

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.

You don't want to engage but somehow you have determined both my motive 'bizarre agenda' and my state of mind 'in a huff'.
You don't want to engage but somehow you know what I wrote in reply to others.

You haven't engaged so your just completely ignorant of the discussion, but you're going to take a pot shot anyway.

You don't want to engage save to tell me that when I post stuff you agree with you don't disagree with what I post.
You don't want to engage and you felt the need to write a post saying no more than you don't want to engage.


This is the 2nd time you've decided to have a go at me, over the same thing.
Nobody is compelling you to engage. I am fairly sure there are rules against posts that are no more than personal attacks.
You can dress up your personal attacks in any way that you want, it is still a personal attack.
Dressing up your personal attacks just demonstrates how duplicitous you are.

A bit of free advice for you.
The worst kind of intellectual dishonesty is misrepresenting someone else's work.
An integral part of intellectual honesty is understanding and acknowledging the limitations of that intellectual body of work.

I'm not talking about my posts, I am talking about you, & others, misrepresenting science.
.

 

[Number37]

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?

Is there a story?

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

You can't make your own arguments, but you want attention.

I think that's the last word as far as you're concerned.

Your new signature?

Are you just going to keep following me around repeating the same thing, over and over?

 

[LFTWNG11]

Number37 are you ok? You sound unhinged, like a religious nut preaching the end of days.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You don't want to engage but somehow you have determined both my motive 'bizarre agenda' and my state of mind 'in a huff'.
You don't want to engage but somehow you know what I wrote in reply to others.

You haven't engaged so your just completely ignorant of the discussion, but you're going to take a pot shot anyway.

You don't want to engage save to tell me that when I post stuff you agree with you don't disagree with what I post.
You don't want to engage and you felt the need to write a post saying no more than you don't want to engage.


This is the 2nd time you've decided to have a go at me, over the same thing.
Nobody is compelling you to engage. I am fairly sure there are rules against posts that are no more than personal attacks.
You can dress up your personal attacks in any way that you want, it is still a personal attack.
Dressing up your personal attacks just demonstrates how duplicitous you are.

A bit of free advice for you.
The worst kind of intellectual dishonesty is misrepresenting someone else's work.
An integral part of intellectual honesty is understanding and acknowledging the limitations of that intellectual body of work.

I'm not talking about my posts, I am talking about you, & others, misrepresenting science.
.

By your own words ...

"I'm not going to engage"...

So your post was what?
You not engaging?
A warning?
Friendly advice?

In the same post that you accuse me of wanting to only play by my rules you demand that I do something so that people engage.
Together with your claim that you will only engage under certain conditions....sounds to me a lot like you wanting to only play by your rules.

I won't bother engaging with you anymore.

I rest my case.

 

[madmug]

So we can take the piss out of the religious but we can't take the piss out of Atheists?

Taking the piss is fine. Its the rock on which BF is based. So go for it. As long as we can understand your posts.

Religion of course is hardly a laughing matter. All too often its 'deadly' serious.

It'd be interesting to see whether over the human journey whether Religious intolerance or Pandemics have killed more people?

Anyway.

 

[Roylion]

Plausible deniability.

What on earth are you talking about? You don't make sense.

You need to sink that low that you need to mispresent even the most banal thing.

Misrepresent what?

The link you posted changes nothing that I wrote. What was your point?

Greek writers did believe in unicorns.

The King James Authorised Version translated “re’em” as "unicorn". Later versions of the Bible translated it as “wild ox”.

And?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, there is another God; he goes by the earthly name “Sam Walsh”. But you could never understand this.

Let me know when Carlton play finals.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Are you just going to keep following me around repeating the same thing, over and over?

Huh?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

To define God first define yourself.

So deep.

 

[Chief]

What does that mean?

Just being rude and argumentative with a person who, as I see it, has not argued in bad faith on this topic in the 20 or so years he has been on BigFooty.

 

[carltonchelsea]

The Spaghetti Monster is not made out of spaghetti.
A book that isn't true is conclusive proof of the non-existence of something that isn't related to the book.
If there was a God then things would happen just how I think they should.
Because things don't happen just how I think they should there cannot therefore be God.

How many Atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
No answer yet. Still waiting....they're all too busy arguing that if God exists then we wouldn't need light bulbs because we would have unicorns and fairies and we would sit around singing kumbaya all day and there would be no sorrow and be no pain and we'd smoke cigarettes on Christmas Day. There'd be no happiness or sadness. Einstein would be a hippy and we would never have learned of his theories. There wouldn't have been any world wars. Alexander the Great would be known as Alexander. There would be no Roman Empires because. There'd be no history. No school. No education. The world would be perfect, just like everyone would expect if there was God. What's perfect? Perfect is perfect Duh. Logic and reason!

So the life experience on earth is as it is, with or without the Abrahamic creator dude?
Then why invoke it, if nothing changes with or without it?
Your post has me utterly confused.

 

[carltonchelsea]

To define God first define yourself.

Ridiculous

 

[Number37]

Just being rude and argumentative with a person who, as I see it, has not argued in bad faith on this topic in the 20 or so years he has been on BigFooty.

To the extent that it is just more of the same, sure it's not bad faith.
However, a segway to unicorns via misrepresentation of the etymology of the word unicorn isn't bad faith?
But it's rude and argumentative to disagree with a misrepresentation of the word.

What did it contribute to the discussion?

 

[Number37]

So the life experience on earth is as it is, with or without the Abrahamic creator dude?
Then why invoke it, if nothing changes with or without it?
Your post has me utterly confused.

You'll have to be a little clearer.

 

[Number37]

What on earth are you talking about? You don't make sense.



Misrepresent what?

The link you posted changes nothing that I wrote. What was your point?

Greek writers did believe in unicorns.

The King James Authorised Version translated “re’em” as "unicorn". Later versions of the Bible translated it as “wild ox”.

And?

The Scomo defence. I never said what I said.

 

[Roylion]

The Scomo defence. I never said what I said.

What are you talking about? Do you lack basic comprehension?

Here is exactly what I said.

 

[Number37]

Taking the piss is fine. Its the rock on which BF is based. So go for it. As long as we can understand your posts.

Religion of course is hardly a laughing matter. All too often its 'deadly' serious.

It'd be interesting to see whether over the human journey whether Religious intolerance or Pandemics have killed more people?

Anyway.

More importantly...
How long before Atheists take up arms?