Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 I am afraid that you seem to have taken the position that it has to be one of those three, to the point of ignoring anything that suggests otherwise. Such as what? If there are other options that you feel I am missing, please feel free to point out what they are. Reading your posts I believe this is to try and prove there is no god, and that is the only answer that you are interested in. I'm interested first and foremost in the truth. Since there is neither evidence to support the case for god nor logical arguments to provide even the most basic foundation of such a proposition, I don't see how it would be very consistent for me to claim to be interested in the truth and accept such a claim simultaneously. Rather than attempt to address any of the points I've raised in previous posts, it appears that you've moved on to personal attacks. An unfortunate, but common, tactic used by creationists. If that is the case then the only answer that would be accepted would be that god does not exist. Since I stated precisely the opposite not once, but twice (most recently in the post you just replied to), I don't see how you could come to this conclusion. What is the case is that if christians want to be consistent in their case for god, at least one part of their story needs to change. From my vantage point, it would seem that "god is not onmi-benevolent" would be the least painful of the three. Without hell, there's no need for jesus. And accepting that there is no god is no longer theism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 To which, I try and answer your questions, however you are not interested in that particular answer. I try and explain why there can be a god and a hell yet you do not wish to listen. And you draw the conclusion that I am a creationist making personal attacks. If you refuse to listen to what is put forward then there is nothing anyone on the forum can do to help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 To which, I try and answer your questions, however you are not interested in that particular answer. The Yahoo! Answers link you posted. I'm not interested in that answer because it's garbage. I try and explain why there can be a god and a hell yet you do not wish to listen. Which post? And you draw the conclusion that I am a creationist making personal attacks. I'm assuming that you're a creationist. The personal attacks isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact. If you refuse to listen to what is put forward then there is nothing anyone on the forum can do to help you. Which implies that I want or need "help". I put forth something for discussion. You're not doing much in the way of "discussing" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all. Or both Evil and Hell are necessary for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I put forward a simple test, the one about dealing with someone who was a problem on the forums. You chose to ignore it which suggests you are not interested in listening to anything that does not fit within any conclusion you may have already made. To ignore attempts to answer your questions and dismiss them as rubbish further implies that point. And I could get involved in an epic flame war over the topic of religion against someone who going by their history here has years of experience making anyone who disagrees with them look like fools. No thanks, I have a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You chose to ignore it which suggests you are not interested in listening to anything that does not fit within any conclusion you may have already made. Yes, that's Achilles' MO, alright. To know him is to love him. And I could get involved in an epic flame war over the topic of religion against someone who going by their history here has years of experience making anyone who disagrees with them look like fools. Hm, you seem to know a lot more about the situation than someone who has all of, what, 15 posts really should. You wouldn't happen to be someone's alt, would you? That's a no-no around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Hm, you seem to know a lot more about the situation than someone who has all of, what, 15 posts really should. You wouldn't happen to be someone's alt, would you? That's a no-no around here. As Totenkopf pointed out it would only require a quick read through of someone's post history to suss out their general habits and style. And I figured I have much better things to do than to get hung up in a debate that no one wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I was sort of kidding, you know. Anywho, if you've read back far enough, you'll know that Achilles does this from time to time in order to hook some naive and unfortunate believer so that he can reel them in, trap them and grind them into dust with his logic, which makes absolutely no sense, given that this is a subject with an illogical answer. Now, I'll leave to your imagination what exactly this accomplishes. He seems to get off on it, though, so that's probably it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I kind of figured you were, but on a serious topic, I'm of the belief that anyone who says god cannot exist if there is hell, for example, well that's just their opinion. I really cannot be bothered to get a fly up my nose about it. I also think anyone who looks to go on a crusade will only destroy themselves...what a waste of logic for someone to do that to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 Or both Evil and Hell are necessary for some reason. Such as? "Necessary" in what way? You mean to argue that an all-powerful god is simply "playing by the rules"? Whose rules would those be? I put forward a simple test, the one about dealing with someone who was a problem on the forums. The analogy was poor then and it's poor now. You were invited to provide a better one and opted not to. That certainly isn't my problem. And I could get involved in an epic flame war over the topic of religion against someone who going by their history here has years of experience making anyone who disagrees with them look like fools. I certainly cannot take credit for the indefensible positions of others. Speaking of... Anywho, if you've read back far enough, you'll know that Achilles does this from time to time in order to hook some naive and unfortunate believer so that he can reel them in, trap them and grind them into dust with his logic, which makes absolutely no sense, given that this is a subject with an illogical answer. "naive and unfortunate believer". A lot of people post here. None of them seem either able or willing to provide solid argumentation for their positions. By your own description, are they all "naive and unfortunate believers"? And hopefully you saw this coming: "a subject with an illogical answer". If you're conceding that there is no logical argument for god, then why are you here? Spam? That's a no-no too isn't it? Now, I'll leave to your imagination what exactly this accomplishes. Perhaps nothing. Or perhaps from time to time I say or present something that causes someone to 2nd guess a position they've always held but never questioned. Maybe that person eventually gives up their crutch and the world becomes a better place for it. Or maybe my efforts are nothing more than a means for you to increase your post count. I suppose we may never know for sure. Regardless, at least I can tell myself that I do something potentially constructive with my time here. Much the same way I imagine you get a feeling of accomplishment in the tech forums. I kind of figured you were, but on a serious topic, I'm of the belief that anyone who says god cannot exist if there is hell, for example, well that's just their opinion. You're welcome to point out where anyone (other than you) suggested this. I can point out twice where I've clearly not. I really cannot be bothered to get a fly up my nose about it. I also think anyone who looks to go on a crusade will only destroy themselves...what a waste of logic for someone to do that to themselves. Ok, so you'll be on your way now? Toodles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You like Chef Aid don't you? You're a big fan of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 My guess is that he feels that God should be a doormat b/c that's his concept of perfect love. It still mazes me, if only slightly, that he even cares what theists think about the existence of God, nevermind the ramifications in an "imaginary realm". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 It still mazes me, if only slightly, that he even cares what theists think about the existence of God, nevermind the ramifications in an "imaginary realm". Given that how theists thinks about God/hell tend to affect others to some extent, I don't see it as strange at all. In adition, if someone holds a possision you see as ilogical, you'd probably point it out yourself. Add that he sees religious belief as harmfull to society, and he has just as much motivation to point out what he sees as flaws with their belief as a believer in hell has to convert others. Note: I'm only equating your motivation with that of a theist, Achilles, not the source of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It still mazes me, if only slightly, that he even cares what theists think about the existence of God, nevermind the ramifications in an "imaginary realm". Christians vote don't they? I think Congressman John Shimkus proved Atheists concerns over the “imaginary realm” valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I didn't say that any one group has no vested interest in another's beliefs, just that some parts of one person's belief system are more esoteric than other parts and don't really matter. I seriously doubt achilles wastes any time really worrying about whether God "loves" his subjects, as the ramifications of that speculation really only involve a realm he's consigned to fiction. When it comes to politics, sussing out the whys of someone's belief system pale in comparison to the whats. Just ask anyone in a rigid theocracy. re Shimkus: are you referring to his beliefs about "global warming"? Had to look it up as I'm not familiar w/this congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 "Necessary" in what way? I wouldn't pretend to know. The book of Job is probably the closest thing to an explanation for the Satanic challenge of senseless evil as fallen man will ever get, and even there God states that we would not understand the answer. You mean to argue that an all-powerful god is simply "playing by the rules"? He would be hypocrite if He didn't. Whose rules would those be? His, of course. "a subject with an illogical answer". If you're conceding that there is no logical argument for god... There is no logical argument for our existence either, but, then, here we are. ...then why are you here? Spam? That's a no-no too isn't it? No more so than starting dozens of threads over the years obsessively hammering away at the same point; a point which you cannot conclusively prove (namely that God doesn't exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 I wouldn't pretend to know. The book of Job is probably the closest thing to an explanation for the Satanic challenge of senseless evil as fallen man will ever get, and even there God states that we would not understand the answer. Obviously, we (this includes you) do pretend to know a great many things when it comes to morality. Yet our standards of "moral" and "immoral" differ from "his". The book of job itself makes this obvious. He would be hypocrite if He didn't. Afraid you not only missed the point, but managed to contradict the first part of your post. If god is all-powerful, then why is he beholden to rules unless they are rules that he himself made. Why would he create rules that limit his options? And why would our rules (rules that most people would consider to be more moral than those demonstrated by god) be "better" than his? The "we can't know god" defense is either absolute or it is not. It seems more than a little dishonest to use it when it's convenient but ignore it when we think we're justified. It's called "trying to have it both ways". His, of course. Okay. So he's responsible for hell? You are putting forth that they are necessary via his rules and he cannot change them (even though he is allegedly "all-powerful"). So remind me again how this does not contradict the idea of an all-loving god. There is no logical argument for our existence either, but, then, here we are. Of course there is No more so than starting dozens of threads over the years obsessively hammering away at the same point; a point which you cannot conclusively prove (namely that God doesn't exist). I don't need to. Surely, you've been here long enough to see at least one or two posts re: the burden of proof. You also seem to be way off on your assumptions regarding my motivations. Since you have been around for a while and are so clearly obsessed with what I post, you also know that I've never once stated that I believe that god can be disproved (so your comment above is either dishonest or simply dead wrong). I'm not here to disprove something I believe can be disproved. I'm here to educate, inform, and hopefully, every once in a while, persuade. Same thing your good buddy does with his israel/palestine threads, etc, etc, etc. In fact, I would argue that it's what most people who actually contribute to the serious discussion thread attempt to do. The fact that you single me out is just another amusing reminder that if I do in fact have OCD, I'm suffering in good company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 You also seem to be way off on your assumptions regarding my motivations. You seem to forget that you've subjected me to your "methods of persuasion" before. They revealed to myself and anyone who was paying attention that your motivations are not even remotely as wholesome as you'd like everyone to believe. Your continued attempts to paint them as such are laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I have to wonder which laws you're referring to. The laws that allow abortions for the sake of social convenience? The "law of the jungle" that most parts of the world adhere to? The laws that constrain your speech on the spurious notion that someone might just be offended by it? How about the laws the allow the state to decide, godlike, that you have to die for offenses against "humanity"? Yeah, we're so much better than the God you clearly revile. Which goes to the next point. Whether God/god exists, you're clearly more than a disinterested party that seeks only to educate, in your words, people about the question. You don't bother to argue, it seems, the proof of God's existence because you've already stated He/he is fiction. Also, b/c as you realize, you are incapable. But your inability to disprove such existence doesn't axiomatically settle the issue. Perhaps God exists, perhaps not. It's clearly irrational, though, to contend that He is fiction when you're incapable of demonstrating that conclusion. You clearly enjoy trying to have it both ways yourself, hiding behind a procedural tactic to absolve yourself of having to have conclusive proof of the irrefutability of your stance. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 You seem to forget that you've subjected me to your "methods of persuasion" before. They revealed to myself and anyone who was paying attention that your motivations are not even remotely as wholesome as you'd like everyone to believe. Your continued attempts to paint them as such are laughable. Your decision to hold me accountable for what you say is as perplexing as it has always been, however it is far from my problem. Needless to say, you aren't the only one who is amused. Yes, part of my "methods of persuasion" is to point out when people say things that are logically inconsistent and/or directly contradict other things that they have said. You make this sound like a bad thing. Some people are able to see when they are wrong, re-examine their viewpoints in light of new information, and occasionally, change their minds accordingly. Others are not. Which category you opt to place yourself in is no doing of mine. And the fact that your britches are twisted because you got caught saying something less-than-well-thought-out is also not my problem. So did you have something to contribute to the topic or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Moderator note: Stay on topic. Member's motivations, wholesome or no, are not the topic. If you have an issue with a person's method of argumentation, point that out instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockhead Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I'm not here to disprove something I believe can be disproved. I'm here to educate, inform, and hopefully, every once in a while, persuade. You're seeking to try and help build a master race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.