Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a small interlude

163 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a small interlude”

1. Ha! So LogicinLife is very unhappy with your post (I haven’t read it in full yet), but all his comments are in the moderated section of my blog. If any of them turn out to be hilarious would you like to see them?

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Oh yes. 🙂 You can cut and paste them here if you’d like. I do like to use Christians’ actions to support my positions.

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. I survived this post 😛
   I think you have all bases covered.
   It has occurred to me this god could have made the tree inedible, Adam and Eve couldn’t have eaten it.
   Better still, A &E could have been made with knowledge of good and bad and they would have known it isn’t good to eat the fruit so their offspring wouldn’t have to suffer or it.
   The believer says parts of the bible are metaphor or allegory except the first verse of Genesis and the part where Jesus resurrects from the dead. Everything in between is open to interpretation. Jokers they all are.
   In what context is it right to kill the baby instead of the parents who has been shagging left right and centre like the case of David.
   And you will be my to go to bible reference. I got bored reading that boring book and stopped.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. “Better still, A &E could have been made with knowledge of good and bad and they would have known it isn’t good to eat the fruit so their offspring wouldn’t have to suffer or it. ”

      Indeed. The Eden story is such a hacked together “just-so” story; it’s not hard at all to come up with a much more intelligent handling of humans.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. and some theists want us to believe it is among the greatest stories ever written. I guess they lack imagination

         LikeLike

3. “Hello my subscribers. I received a very long comment on someone else’s blog and wanted to take the time, and space, to respond to a Christian who is sure I am wrong and that they are the OneTrueChristian.” – Assumption, subjective, meaningless in regards to the conversation.

   “This is just to give our OneTrueChristian some place to chat with me.” – Silly use of a title given through assumptions and subjective interpretation.

   “I certainly do say that there is little evidence that supports the common Christian claim that their god wants free will.” – I never made the claim that there was free will, as I am currently exploring Reformed Theology, which also says there is little evidence for free will. You are merely making assumptions in my hypothetical scenario regarding your eternal life, that is, if there is indeed free will, you are getting what you want; separation from God.

   “It’s true and I have supported my position. I have no reason to believe in the baseless claims of Christians.” – Bias, subjective, displaying incapability to be objective at the presentation of other’s claims.

   “It does not surprise me at all that you cannot cite any evidence for your position.” – You’re still on free will, which I never claimed a position for. So I will skip through the “free will” rambling.

   “It seems that you are also a Christian who is uncomfortable with the idea of hell, with your nice sanitized version “separation from god”.” – Nope, not really, it seems as if you make a lot of assumptions, which there is evidence for in this post. Hell is fire, brimstone, God’s judgement on the wicket and separation from God, for God in the Bible in Holy. Ever read Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God?” I highly recommend it and also recommend that you refrain from making assumptions if you are capable. (http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/je-sinners.htm) Not only did you miss the hypothetical scenario regarding free will, but you missed that I displayed an aspect of Hell, which appeals to your ‘choice’ to have nothing to do with God. Edwards does well, and this is his most famous piece.

   “It is unsurprising that you create your religion to reflect you own hatreds and desires.” – What? Assumption, strawman, appeal to emotions, ad hominem, the amount of fallacies so far is quite astonishing. Please refrain from drawing silly conclusions.

   “You are most likely a decent person who doesn’t like the idea of hell, so have invented something else.” – No one is good, except The Father. Hell, has always been understood by me. Do we sentence men who murder to prison? Do we seek justice when injustice arises? Hell is a place of judgment; it has actually been one of my more comfortable topics.

   “The fact that we are talking about the myth of Christianity is not evidence that your religion is true; that is quite the wishful thinking.” – The fact that we are talking about Christianity is because I replied to your post in which YOU brought up Christianity. Interesting that you said this, though.

   “It seems that you also seem to think that only Christians are good, with your claims about human nature.” – Assumptions concluded from little. Nobody is good except The Father. Total deprivation, as I mentioned in my post, claims nobody is good.

   “That’s rather amusing since one can just look around and see that your claim is utterly false.” – Nearly everything you have said up to this point was subjective nonsense and assumptions, which were all very, very, wrong. Also; what claim? The claim you drew from an assumption?

   “Humans are decent and humane in spite of religion.” – Says the one whom has committed ad hominem throughout this post so – far.

   “Happily, we can talk about religion in the US and on the internet and not be threatened by death from theists because the death grip of religion is receding in the world.” – Actually studies have shown that there has been a rise in spirituality. Or did you miss the new age movement whilst you observed the 2% of atheists in the U.S.A? People are threatened by death because of the “decent” and “humane” humans. This is also a fallacy, as atheism has produced the one of the world’s most mass murderers, Joseph Stalin.

   “Unfortunately, there are plenty of theists who still want such harm to happen to people who do not believe in their particular imaginary friends.” – Unfortunately there are atheists who are changing the united states constitution to “freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion.” Not to mention the atheist community whom supports abortion, which has been a mass murder more than Stalin could have conjured. More fallacies. I should keep count, the number is staggering.

   “I am sorry if a Christian needs to be told chapter *and* verse of their own supposed holy book.” – I asked you to simply cite correctly, I am sorry for that.

   “I will be sure to mention both in the future.” – I am glad to hear it.

   “Again, some Christians claim that their god is love” – I did not claim this, silly argument.

   “and the verses in 1 Corinthians defines love, a definition that your god fails.” – Which you have yet to demonstrate…hopefully you provide a case soon, for this is boring.

   “If love is not jealous e.g. “does not envy”, then if this god is jealous, it is not love.” – Words have more than one definition and I addressed this already, which you simply ignored.

   “That is a very simple if-then construct, which someone who claims to use logic should be able to understand.” – Yet you determine God is immoral in your initial post yet can’t determine the source of morality.

   “If human were created for the sole purpose of “unity” with this god, why did it go through the nonsense of the “fall”, and just take everyone that it made to love it to heaven and live happily ever after?” – There are a vast number of possibilities and the fact that you are divine enough to simplify it is remarkable. Maybe God wanted to ensure, knowing the future, that certain people didn’t indeed reach Heaven. Again, this goes along with total depravity.

   “Again, we have no evidence at all that your god wants free will.” – Again, I never made this claim. Do you always base long-winded responses on assumptions you have come to?

   “I am not a parent but I am a spouse I would indeed be jealous, but no one is calling me pure love as Christians claim about their god.” – I never claimed God was pure love, assumption, again. Also; why are you married? That seems rather silly, especially in the United States.

   “Christians always have a problem when they make the mistake to try to compare us puny humans with their supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god.” – I am slowly loosing hope for you. Can you keep your emotional bias out of paragraph? Also; Always is a childish term since generalizations are rather closed minded.

   “You have asked me to show evidence that your god deceives. I have your bible, is that enough?” – No, that simply shows that you cannot show me evidence, this is a cop out in the argument whilst also showing more biased nature, which is getting old as I read through your “response.”

   “I have read the bible as a Christian, as I was losing my faith and as an atheist.” – You were never a Christian; knowledge of the bible would confirm this, as I did in my post. Also; I read the bible as an atheist as well. Point?

   “I did not depend on some pastor or priest to tell me what they wanted me to hear out of it, and thus know it far better than most Christians do.” – NOW THAT IS FUNNY. So you mean that you were completely allowed to be deceived (as must you know scripture says there is spiritual warfare that calls us to stray), only fixated YOUR emotions and interpretations and on and on. This statement alone completely discredits your post that you know the bible more than Christians do. Are you unaware that major theologians can make you look like a child? You can debate on the Internet, so what? You have an opinion, so what? Should I also draw the conclusion that you call me the “OneTrueChristian” because this is who you were? Of course, you were not a Christian, but I digress. Truly, this comment was very telling.

   Back to your “evidence” regarding, “You have asked me to show evidence that your god deceives.”

   “ 2 Thessalonians 2:11” – Firstly, context: You fail to mention that this chapter is regarding the “the man of lawlessness” You also leave out THE CAUSE for this ACTION: “10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11. It is actually very funny that you bring up this verse the irony here is unmatched. The word delusion means, an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. This particular verse also, in context, mentions the arrival of the anti-christ. God allows evil to use it for His will. As one who was supposedly Christian, this concept should be easy for you. Here is a piece you will ignore because your argument is old and found wanting for this specific verse. (http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj16d.pdf) I must ask, how can you determine that being deceived is a bad thing anyway? Where is your moral foundation again?

   “Ezekiel 14:9” – is, in context, again in response to evil. You’re apparently claiming God’s justice, without having a basis for morality, to be wicked. Here is the verse in context: “Idolatrous Elders Condemned
   …8″I will set My face against that man and make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from among My people. So you will know that I am the LORD. 9″But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel. 10″They will bear the punishment of their iniquity; as the iniquity of the inquirer is, so the iniquity of the prophet will be,…”

   “2 Chronicles 18: 18-22.” – Goes back into suffering, advancing the kingdom and the article that you will most likely not read.

   “Many Christians love to claim that everything can be excused if they pretend that this god has some mysterious “plan”.” – God’s attributes consist of: omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. I think Christians saying that they cannot understand God’s plan it valid. We’re human, limited and cannot fathom the entirety of God.

   “You cannot show that your god exists, much less that it has a plan that excuse harm that happens to people.” – Assumption, I have circumstantial evidence for the existence of God, hence, my conversion. You do like talking about God quite a bit considering you don’t believe in Him. As for suffering for the result of good, my life as an atheist, my upbringing and who I became through it is evidence that suffering can lead to good. While I cannot understand all of the means, I have experiences as an atheist and Christian that show this to be possible, as does most of the population, even without their current worldview focused on God. Suffering on earth is temporary.

   “Indeed, if your god is omnipotent, it would not need to cause harm to people if it can do anything.” – This argument doesn’t even make sense. God allows trials; sin is the cause of death.

   “If the typical Christian claim of heaven is true, then harmful acts are not needed at all for human existence.” – False, total depravity. You are going in circles, chasing your own tail, grasping for straws and on….and on… and on…

   “God is indeed easily angered. This god murders a man for touching his magic box.” – Really? So because you cannot understand the concept of unholy creatures being unable to be in the presence of a Holy God, you claim God is angered? Your arguments are so terrible…

   “This god throws A&E out of Eden because of a single mistake that this god knew would happen because it made A&E that way” – It was the entrance of sin into the world, which equals spiritual death, which goes back to separation from God, which then leads to men dying in the presence of a Holy God. You should focus on a different area to invest time in, truly. It sounds like you are copying and pasting from evilbible which is a terrible source.

   “God murders men women and children for the actions of a man that it is mind controlling. God supposedly causes all mankind to speak different languages because it is afraid of them for building one tall building.” – Simply failure to comprehend concepts that fit together in a big picture. I’m literally falling asleep here, kid.

   “God vanishes for an unknown but long period of time, people forget about it and then it has a hissy fit and kills nearly everything on earth.” – I can’t tell if this is referencing to the 400 years of silence when there were no prophets or the flood where God did not vanish. You are not only making silly claims, but failing to back them up.

   “God kills Anaias and Sapphira for not forking over enough money.” – Now I admit, this is a fascinating one, though they were wicked, selfish and deceitful, God is the judge, I don’t make the law.

   “You claim that this god reaches out to humanity, and you cannot show any evidence it exists at all.” – Back to this? This is a baseless claim, because we HAVEN’T discussed the existence of God, I merely commented on your poorly constructed post opposing the Christian God, and now I am replying to your emotional tantrum. I’m not a psychologist, but I will be happy to discuss the existence of God with you one day.

   “You have claimed that your scripture contradicts the statement that your god keeps accounts of all wrongs. Hmmmm, really? Revelation 20: 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.”” – That is judgment day, God keeps no accounts for those who are deemed justified by Christ. In the book of life, all that is written is the names of those who believe in Christ. Elementary.

   “Your quote of Hebrews is from Jeremiah 31: 31-34, which mentions a messiah and disagrees with the claims of your supposed messiah by saying that there is no original sin, since everyone will be responsible for only their own sins, no one else’s.” LOL what? Firstly, work on sentence structure. Secondly, proof? Hahaha.

   “Both the verses from Jeremiah and Isaiah contradict the verses from Revelation.” – Judgment day for the wicked vs. those reconciled through Christ. Those who are justified, their sins will not be remembered. Come on dude, this is seriously simple.

   “Now, which shall we believe? Are there or are there not records of what people have done? We have no evidence that this god exists, much less “sticks with” anyone.” – There are records for those who are unclean, yet. And again, circles. You may create outlines for your posts so you don’t keep repeating yourself, I’m getting tired of repeating the same things to you.

   “LIL, you seem to be one of those Christians who must pretend that no one but them can define evil and wish to pretend you have some moral absolute in a god that has no evidence for its existence.” – You can’t even claim a source for good and evil…

   “Christians can’t agree on what their god finds good or evil, so I have no reason to believe you.” – Believe me for what? And yes, sometimes things take discernment to understand.

   “Again, you seem to think that only Christians of your type can be good.” – No one is Good but The Father. And again, you go back to your first assumption, which is based off of your own subjective interpretation of my character.

   “I can define evil easily. It is that which harms for no reason; it is that which takes away freedom for no reason. It is attempting to remove the ability of people to make educated choices by lying to them.” – You are clearly getting emotional. You can define evil, cool. Where does it come from, that is YOUR burden, not definitions.

   “Your god says it is responsible for evil in your bible, LIL. Did you miss that verse too? Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” – The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him. Yawn.

   “Now, the typical thing is for the Christian who doesn’t know Hebrew to claim that it really isn’t “evil” but this post does a good job at showing why it does: http://www.daylightatheism.org/page/125” – Meaningless comment, for I haven’t made this claim and your biased generalizations appear thus discrediting your quickly diminishing credibility.

   “I would also point out that you god has no problem in working with evil. In Revelation 21, your god intentionally allows evil e.g. the beast to return *after* your god kills everyone who doesn’t believe in it, and allows it to corrupt more people. You do quote Job, which brings up another time that your god does evil, by intentionally allowing its supposed archenemy to murder Job’s family.” – God ALLOWS evil. It’s different and also goes back to the simple concept of suffering, which you have yet to grasp.
   “I read and understand the bible quite well, thank you.” – No….No you do NOT. Haha.

   “Each Christian wants to pretend that only he understands it correctly and as always, has no more evidence of this than the next Christian who says he’s wrong.” – assumption. Generalization. Bias. Emotions. Subjective.

   “You accuse me of “subjective analysis”. Please do point this out, and contrast it with what you do.” – Read your entire post, man. Absolutely ridiculous.

   “You may have been an atheist and anti-theist. So? I do wonder, what made you convert to Christianity, and not, say, Islam or Hinduism?” – I have my reasons, yet you merely draw conclusions, instead of asking me like a “decent” and “humane” human being. I have considered all you have mentioned and many more philosophies. Your Ignorance is seeping through.

   “You quote Ephesians 4:8 but mean 4:18.” – Your correct, my apologies, regarding this matter.

   “That’s a nice set of false claims by Paul about anyone who disagrees with him. I always wonder about people like him who intentionally bear false witness about others.” – The audacity! Hypocrisy at its finest! Or did you forget how you began this post with, “to a Christian who is sure I am wrong and that they are the OneTrueChristian?” Your entire post is filled with generalization with bears false witness to a lot of people. You wonder about people like him, if you were correct in your analysis of him, all you would have to do is look in a mirror to learn more about people who intentionally bear false witness about others.

   “It is nice to see hardening of hearts, since that’s what your god does so well (Exodus).” – Did you not read this post after you wrote it? Hardening of the heart is a result of sin. Ever think your tantrum isn’t helping?

   “Again, your bible says that it is not our choice to worship this god but its whim to allow some people to understand and some to not (Romans 9).” – This verse rings extremely true while I am speaking to you.

   “Ah, it was about time for the usual claim from a Christian that no one but him was ever a TrueChristian. The verse from 1 John 2 is the usual attempt at trying to claim that the only true Christians remain Christians. Quite a nice circular argument. Now, how does one figure out who are the TrueChristians? Shall we take JC at his word that anyone who believes in him and is baptized will be able to do miracles just like him (Mark 16)?” – There are multitudes of verses that prove that you were not a Christian, you seem offended by this claim, does this bother you? Perhaps you were the one who sowed his seed on the ground with no root.

   “Can you do these things, LIL?” – Only in accordance to God’s will, yes. Do you recall the context for that passage and what those miracles are for?

   “I was a Christian”, No…no you were not.

   “Just like you and that appears to scare you a lot.” – Assumption based off of well, nothing. Lol, no, it doesn’t scare me at all. Your “arguments” are growing increasingly desperate.

   “One can see that you are like a lot of pastors and priests who pick and choose what to say about the bible, figuring no one will actually read it.” – Speak for yourself, picking and choosing verses without context, lol.

   “So you have either intentionally misrepresented your bible or you have shown you are ignorant in what it actually says.” – Again, speak for yourself and consider the hardness of your heart.

   “God certainly supposedly used the pharaoh for his own purpose and we see repeatedly that this character was going to relent repeatedly if not for this god’s interference.” – Okay, are you the creator of human beings and the judge? Even so, humoring you, it doesn’t matter because you don’t make the rules. You appear to have a desire for control over your life, and the fact that there is little evidence for free will in the bible is really eating at you. Maybe I was wrong; maybe you are a Christian, but a lost one right now. I’m sorry that you are struggling with these things and if you are of the body, I hope you find your way back.

   “It’s great to see you make up lies about others to excuse your inability to discuss the issues at hand.” – You merely confirm scripture and commit hypocrisy.

   “My eyes do not glaze over. You ignore the problem of your god’s supposed miracles as interference in free will.” – I never claimed free will existed. I simply pointed out that you were confusing the definition of free will.

   “How not surprising. It’s great to see you offer the usual Christian claim that the creator can do anything he wants with his creation. The greed and selfishness in that claim is always great.” – Why does it matter to you? Without a god your life is meaningless, purposeless, morals don’t have a source therefore are relative or don’t exist. I’m surprised you don’t understand your contradictions.

   “Anyone can object if you are a selfish destructive jackass. I can certainly do so to your god.” – Did you just call yourself a selfish destructive jackass? You again, can’t even explain where good and evil come from.

   “Christians seem to think that they can bluster and brag about their powerful imaginary friend and other people will be afraid.” – I didn’t do that, I merely responded to someone who spends his free time focusing on something he doesn’t believe in.

   “I’m no more afraid of your god than I am of the boogeyman.” – Psychology would say otherwise.

   “I see that you are trying to redefine “free will”. A common Christian tactic is to try to redefine words when they are losing the debate.” – Again? Really? Again? This is not a debate this is you rambling.

   “If this god interferes with my actions, my free will is being taken away. If I cannot do what I wish because a something prevents me by its omnipotent act, I have no free will. Free will is indeed the ability to make choices freely, and the people who supposedly were building the tower could not do what they wanted. This god interfered.” – So you are struggling with the idea that you DON’T have free will. Things are falling into place, now.

   “Having consequences imposed by an omnipotent deity means no free will, because there would be no consequences otherwise.” – lol, again. Holy God, total depravity.

   “I again see that you are ignorant about your own bible, or you have chosen to play ignorant in a bit to delay the inevitable.” – Do you say anything new, or are you on a timer?

   Okay, so it is time for me to go to bed. I don’t have time to go through more of your nonsense. Listen. If you ever decide to come up with actual arguments instead of spewing words into a blog in an obnoxious manner, let me know. In the meantime here are some questions you can answer: (maybe)

   1. What causes the origin of life?
   2. If there is no God, why do you invest so much time in talking about Him?
   3. Where does morality come from? (Do not define evil that is not the question.)
   4. Explain your Christianity to me, if you can.
   5. How old were you when you became a Christian?
   6. How old were you when you became an atheist?
   7. How can you trust that YOUR interpretation of scripture is correct whilst you have claimed to study it only by yourself?
   8. Why do you have a complex regarding free will?
   9. Why do you feel the need to generalize Christians into negative categories? Were you merely not supported in your walk?
   10. Why do you emphasize your assumption that I am a OneTrueChristian, were you caught up in pride to learn that YOU were not that Christian?
   11. You are aware that if you are lost, you can always come back?
   12. You are aware that you present the trademark characteristics of one whose heart has been hardened, right?
   13. Why do you hyper-focus on Christianity?
   14. Why do you use the tactic of insults to throw?
   15. Explain the evidence that disproves God.
   16. Why do you conclude there is no evidence for God when logic, reasoning and circumstantial evidences all points to A God?
   17. Who was harmed that caused you to be angry with God?
   18. Why are you angry with a God who doesn’t exist?
   19. Explain why the earth is fine-tuned for life.
   20. Do you believe that truth is relative or absolute?
   21. Why do you rely heavily on your emotions for interpretation?
   22. Why do you defame my character out of your pain?

   As I said, I am going to bed. In the morning I am getting up early to spend time with my daughter since it is my day off. These questions are mostly FOR you, but some of them are for my curiosity. Since they are personal, feel free to email me your answers at logicinlife92@gmail.com

   I will not be returning to your post, so do what you will with my post. You can email me to contact me, but otherwise, this is going nowhere. I am sorry that you felt the need to lash out to me and I hope that some of the questions I asked help you find your significance or whatever you may be looking for. I know where you are, I have been there and I have felt it. It is, at the core, unpleasant.

   Like I said, my email is open to you and I am happy to chat. If you email me I will most likely send you with my private email so that I can keep track of your messages better where we can discuss the answers to your questions. We are people first and I can see something is happening to you.

   If you were indeed in the faith, it appears that you were trapped in the 2nd mansion of the 7. Ultimately this is where spiritual warfare becomes exceedingly powerful and through this state people whom you expect to support you tell you to “get your stuff together.” The hypocrisy of the church hurts, especially in this stage. Most Christians don’t get out of this stage. Since the church is unsupportive, spiritual warfare is strong and the pressure of being a Christian are all weighing down on you, typically Christians become reclusive, and start to reject scripture because of the warfare. In truth, in this stage Christians need more support than ever but through the doctrine of Grace where we must fully understand God’s mercy. Failure to get through this stage results in the following: 1. Hardening of the heart, 2. Altering perceptions of God’s character, 3. Awareness of sins and rejecting the reality of them, 4. Deeming God as evil as planned by the enemy, 5. Reluctance to accept the doctrine of suffering because of the trials we face in the 2nd mansion and finally, chains of doubt.

   I hope that if you are indeed a Christian that you did not end up where you were because of the second mansion, because it is rough and quite terrible. The church doesn’t teach enough regarding this stage, and neither do they teach enough on spiritual warfare.

   Whenever you read this post, I want to say that by the end of it, I truly feel for you. And If I do indeed come off as rude, I apologize and hope you forgive me. I hope that The Lord shows you the truth, and as I said, my email is open to you.

   If you don’t email me, I wish you the best of luck and I hope you find what you are looking for.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. A lovely long post. These are usually great fun to address. Alas, this one is full of baseless claims with no evidence to back them up. Oh well, I’ll see what I can do with it.
      One hint, LIL, if you are intent on making accusations and claims, you should back them up with evidence. If you can’t, there is no reason for anyone to believe you and plenty of reason to question your actions as a self-described Christian. So, for example, if you claim that I am making assumptions, then you need to say what they are and show that the assumptions are wrong. The same with claims of subjectivity.
      You have claimed that you never made the claim that there was free will. Now, let us go your post that I linked to up in my blog post and see what you said as response to my post:
      I said “There is little evidence that indicates your god wants free choice or love.”

      “You say this, but you choose to remain in disbelief, you want nothing to do with God and thus your eternal soul will get your desire, that is; separation from God.” Here you are saying I am wrong, which means you are saying that your god does want free choice aka will and love.
      “God is jealous because we were created for unity with Him and continue to ignore Him. Are you a parent? Would you not be jealous if your child chose to love someone else as if that person was their parent?” Here you are supporting the idea of free will.
      “Scripture tells us that the Pharaoh had his heart hardened much as you have, and so the question is ultimately, what causes and fixes such?” Again, supporting free will, and being completely ignorant of what the bible actually says.
      “I am afraid you are confusing “free will” with “we are our own gods.” Free will is the ability to make choices freely. As will is “the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action:” The people in babel chose to freely to built the tower, God simply acted upon their actions.” So we know you know what free will is, that the builders had it and you have supported that your god negated the free will of the builders by stopping them. I can also show that you cherry pick defintions: will: a : mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends (merriam-webster.com). This makes your argument questionable since you depend on will only referencing action. The term you use “we are our own gods” seems to mean “we can make the decisions we want without interference. Am I correct? All in all, it seems that you are trying a common Christian tactic, to try to claim you never said that free will exists in your bible or that your god wants it by claiming you never literally said those words. Your claims about my eternal life were not presented as hypothetical, LIL, as we can see from the first quote of yours I used. You are trying to retcon what you said, and that is always an amusing attempt in a written medium that is recorded. There is no “maybe” or “could” in your claim, there is only a statement that something *will* happen. If you did mean it hypothetically, then you need to pay attention to what you are writing.

      I am quite objective when it comes to another’s claims. I require evidence, and I am still waiting for yours. Your claim that I am somehow “incapable” of being objective at the presentation of your claims is wrong. I think the problem may be that you do not know what objective means. It does not mean that I will accept your claims blindly.

      I am also knowledgeable enough to put “seems” when I am making an assumption about you. If I am wrong, that is fine with me. I now know that you are not a Christian who is uncomfortable about the idea of hell and that you think that hell is burning people *and* separation from this god, the last which is again not supported by your bible. I’ve read Jonathan Edward’s sermon in Early American Lit class and it is the usual sadistic fantasy by a Christian, who is sure that he is among the “elect”, dependent on ignorance and fear. It’s always interesting to see Christians cite these Puritans when these Puritans would have considered them heretics and would do their best to chase them away or kill them.

      Spewing out a list of logical fallacies is pointless since you cannot show one instance of any of them, LIL. Please do show examples. If you cannot, this is just more attempts to bear false witness against me. I can and have demonstrated that your version of your religion is simply a reflection of you, as the versions of Christianity claimed by others are reflections of them. Christians can be shown to declare the parts of the bible they like literal and the parts they don’t like metaphor, or simply added by humans. I will indeed refrain from drawing silly conclusions. I won’t refrain from drawing correct ones.

      You claim again that no one is good, something that your bible says but cannot support. You are demonstrably wrong if I just look around at reality. We do indeed sentence men who murder to prison as punishment. We do not sentence them to eternal torture for a finite crime. I can see that hell is indeed one of the topics you like. Again, more evidence that you have created your own version of Christianity in your own image.

      LIL, you seem to think that Christianity is true because people talk about it. Does this apply to other religions people talk about? I’m also not sure what you mean by “total deprivation” which seems to mean a complete state of having things withheld from oneself. In context, your words are meaningless. I’m guessing you might mean total depravity. If so, again there is no evidence of this at all. We see no evidence of humanity being totally depraved: corrupt or evil. This is no assumption, this is from observation. Now, if you want to equate “evil” as not agreeing with LIL, then by that ridiculous definition, there are a lot of people who happily don’t agree with you and your baseless claims.

      Another attempt at accusing me of using an ad hominem and no evidence for this. LIL, you do seem to need to read HessianWithTeeth’s recent posts about logical fallacies.

      We also get to see the claim of “studies” that show a rise in spirituality, and of course no studies cited. It’s amusing to see you claim that religion is increasing, citing that “new age” people are part of it. How interesting that you claim those numbers and also say that those people are wrong and damned. Your percentage of atheists in the US is also off. Where did you get that number of 2%?
      Joseph Stalin was an atheist, he was also a megalomaniac. Now, please continue to show how atheism caused his actions and contrast it with how megalomania did. It’s a shame that Christians continue to use such failed nonsense. Now, since some philanthropists are atheists, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two, can we say that atheism caused their desire to help their fellow man? According to your attempts at claiming causation, we can.

      The US Constitution mentions freedom of religion in its first amendment. This includes freedom from religion, because you can’t force your version of your religion on anyone, even another theist. This is always an interesting thing, because some Christians want to force Christians who disagree with them to obey the first group’s particular version of Christianity. You don’t give a damn about allowing people to follow their conscience or freedom *of* religion, you want control.

      You are more than welcome to count the fallacies I supposedly make. You also need to present them and not make baseless claims. As it stands, we have a number of: 0. Now, we can look at your false claims. There are atheists who do not support a woman’s right to have an abortion, so your claim about some “community” is wrong. Just doing a little research would keep you from making false claims.
      Some Christians do claim that their god is love, so the statement is not “silly” because I did not attribute this to you, LIL. A quick internet search using “god is love” will support my point.
      I have demonstrated that 1 Corinthians 13 defines love. I have shown that your god fails this definition if one claims that your god equals love. I did it here, which you read: https://hessianwithteeth.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-4729 But let’s review what 1 Corinthians 13 says about love: 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

      God is jealous (Exodus 34:14). God is not patient (see Flood, Adam and Eve, killing Israelites, etc). God is not kind (of a sympathetic or helpful nature) (see Exodus, Numbers 31, etc). God boasts and is proud. (the book of Job). God is easily angered (see Flood, Uzzah, David’s son, etc.) God keeps a record of wrong (Revelation). God works with evil. God approves of lying. God does not persevere (see changes in what it wants). We’re racking up quite a score here. If God is not one of the things love is, then it is not love. Again, a simple if then statement. It is very much fun to see you acknowledge that I did make a case by trying to rebut it. So, didn’t I make a case or did I, LIL?

      You claim that “words have more than one definition. Why yes, they do and I have not ignored your point at all, I have shown how your point is wrong. Please show how jealousy doesn’t mean “intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness” or envy doesn’t mean “painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage” in this context. What does it mean supposedly instead? I’m again waiting for your evidence to support your claims.

      Ah, we are back again to the baseless claim that I can’t say that your god is immoral. I can certainly determine the source of morality. The source of morality is humans. Your god is not needed at all, nor is any other god. If you can present evidence that your god exists and that no others do, *and* that this god is the source of morality, please do so.

      There are not a “vast number of possibilities” on why your god supposedly chose not to just make the people it was going to make love it and keep them in heaven. That is a common Christian claim, make a statement of huge numbers in order to sound important. Your one attempt at an excuse is quite interesting: “Maybe God wanted to ensure, knowing the future, that certain people didn’t indeed reach Heaven.” So, how does this work with free will, predetermination and omniscience? If it made people to be certain things, it didn’t have to make the people it didn’t want to get to heaven. If it wants free will, this god “ensuring” anything means that there is no free will. If this god already knows who will accept it, then there is no free will, and already knows that certain people would never be able to get to heaven.
      Why do you think it is silly to be married? You seem to be ignorant of all of the legal protections that go along with being officially married. That’s why I support same sex marriage, because of those legal benefits that I enjoy should apply to everyone who wants them. I have been with my husband for over 25 years now, and I am not so stupid to think that someone’s marriage is any threat to mine.

      Oh darn, LIL is losing hope for me. You do know that I don’t care, right? Hmmm, it’s great to see you say that generalizations are somehow “closed minded” when you use them. Hiya there, pot! Indeed, where is the “emotional bias” in saying that Christians always have a problem when they try to compare humans to their god?

      I showed you chapter and verse where your god lies. It’s so funny when you make such a claim and then address every single verse that I already mentioned, which shows your claim “No, that simply shows that you cannot show me evidence,” to be a lie. Always good to see a Christian intentionally lying. I guess that you haven’t read how much your god hates liars, Romans 3:1-8.

      Please do show that I was never a Christian. First, LIL, you have to show you are one. I’m waiting.

      I’ll address more in part 2.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Part 2
      (a heads up for anyone reading, LIL has decided to leave this discussion for the usual reasons so many Christians give when they realize no one is going to blindly accept their claims. This is not unexpected. I will finish replying to his comment. My responses can be repetitive, due to the repetition of false and/or baseless claims by LIL. Consider yourself warned.)

      LIL, it seems that you think you need an intermediary so you can get the “right” message from this god of yours. Again, more evidence that Christians can’t agree on much at all. Please do show how having a cleric intermediary helps in any way against this “spiritual warfare”. I don’t’ recall any verses that say that people need pastors or priests; one just needs the armor of god and anyone can get it. It does seem that pastors and priests would certainly claim that they are needed. It’s a cushy job if you can get it.

      I certainly do know that bible better than most Christians. I don’t have to believe that someone has to intercede for me at all. Please do show that I was somehow deceived. I’m waiting. And again, please do show I was not a Christian just as good as you, LIL. Show me that you are a Christian.

      “Major theologians” are nothing special, and I have no problem in showing their claims to be as baseless as yours. All you have is an appeal to authority, of people who claim to know more than others but cannot show this to be the case. Present their claims, LIL, and I can address them too. Your “major theologians” have an opinion. So what? They have no evidence for their claims.
      I call you and any Christian the “OneTrueChristian” because you are all claim to have the only “truth” and you cannot show it to be true any better than the next. It’s a term of derision, LIL.
      Here we are at the place where you address the verses that you claimed I didn’t give. How fun!

      The verse in 2 Thessalonians (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202&version=NIV) is indeed about the “man of lawlessness”. This is why I cited chapter and verse, so anyone can read it. The context of the verses is Paul claiming that Jesus will return and punish anyone who doesn’t agree with him, how a minion of Satan will be about, and how your god intentionally lies to people in concert with Satan. Let’s look at what the verse actually says so we can see you are misrepresenting it by including what you have left out: “9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

      This is a very interesting set of verses. We have Paul claiming that JC won’t return until this “man of lawlessness” will return, someone who says that the laws of God are not to be followed. Interestingly, Paul does exactly this. Supposedly this is how Satan works, and there will be all sorts of displays of power, miracles in other words. Rather than stopping its archenemy, Satan, this god gets in on the action and sends its own delusion so people will believe in the works of Satan. Rather than just letting people believe in this nonsense by Satan on their own, this god intentionally makes them believe in what Satan is doing. How nice to see that your god works with its supposed archenemy. So there we have the context of 2 Thessalonians. You, of course, can offer what you think the context is. Please do make sure to cite chapter and verse that supports you. The word delusion does mean what you have quoted, and we have your god intentionally sending this into the minds of certain people. It’s always good to see you claim that your god uses evil “God allows evil to use it for His will.” How does that work with a supposedly perfectly good god that is somehow the source of objective morality? How can one tell if God is using the evil or if Satan is? It’s fantastic that you want to claim that being deceived is a good thing.

      Nice to see that someone who claims that Satan is the great deceiever now wants to claim that a deceiver and being deceieved are good things. A pity that your bible says you are wrong, 2 John 1:7, Job 11:11, Job 12:16, Revelation 13:14, 20:8-10, etc. If you want to say deception is good, please do so. I can determine that being deceived is a bad thing because it prevents me from making an informed decision. I have quite a good moral foundation, it’s built on reality, empathy and civilization. I don’t have to make up a magical god that agrees with me and my personal hatreds and desires.

      The verse from Ezekiel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2014&version=NIV) is much the same as the verses in 2 Thessalonians. This god, rather than allowing people to make their own mistakes, decides to interfere and make people believe in lies. Rather than speaking the truth and changing minds, this god chooses to lie to people. Again, you attempt mispresent the bible, and do not present the actual context, which is quite funny. This god says the following “10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him.” The prophet has no choice, and is damned for no better reason than someone else asked him a question and this god chose to give him a false answer to give.

      I do read the articles you present, and I find them as ridiculous as your own claims. You run to authority to tell you how to believe. The verses from 2 Chronicles (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2018&version=NIV) do have an interesting context. We have a prophet from this god who intentionally lies to the kings of Israel and Judah and must be told to tell the truth. Then we have Michaiah telling the tale of this god asking for someone to be willing to intentionally lie to someone so they die. The person that this god is trying to kill is Ahab, someone that this god put on the throne, if we are to believe the other parts of the bible that claim that this god puts every ruler into their position (Romans 13).

      Thank you for listing what you claim as your god’s attributes, which are of course not agreed upon by Christians. If this god is “everywhere”, then your claim of “separation from God” cannot be true. It’s also hilarious to watch you claim that your god is “omnibenevolence (perfect goodness)” when you have insisted that your god is not love. As it stands, there is no evidence of any of this at all. Christians do love to insist that they can’t understand their god, but when they want to claim they do, it’s no problem at all.

      LIL, you have now claimed that you have “circumstantial evidence for the existence of God.” Okay, present it. Oh and now we get the typical Christian complaint that how dare anyone talk about their god if they don’t believe in it. As Doug has said, one talks about things that are harmful to counter such nonsense. I hear plenty of Christians talk about other religions as false or harmful. Why is that, LIL? Does this mean that you believe in things you talk about? Then we get vague claims of how much you supposed “suffered” for a “good” result. For a god that you claim as all-powerful, funny how it can’t get by without using evil and causing suffering. If I were a omnipotent being, I could do anything,and not need to rely on humans or on my evil archenemy to do it. Suffering on earth is not temporary for many, except when terminated by death. To claim so is the usual ignorance of how people really do suffer, the arrogance of someone who lives in a first world country.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Just so you can’t get the pleasure from your ignorance. Any fool can see that your entire premise is heavy emotional bias. Your methods are insults, including the claim that, “I believe I know everything.” The sad irony is that you speak as if you are indeed the person who knows all.

         Beyond your insults we see your refusal to answer questions that would render your “arguments” useless. You claim my points are baseless but through your countless fallacies and “vast knowledge” you ignore what I have said, and pretend I have made specific claims. You miss the mark when reading my text completely determining that your interpretation based off of your “decency” is correct. As such; your failure to understand concepts make you a lost hope in such discussion. You cannot understand simple concepts such as hypothetical scenarios and determine that’s what I believe.

         You begin your arguments with subjective presuppositions, insults and generalizations which you have tacked on to me. Just because you believe that Christians don’t agree, you clearly fail at realizing that Christians generally believe the same things but with different emphasis on specific doctrine.

         I could rebuke your entire post, but as the evidence shows, you will ignore it, and write a response based off your emotions.

         As for major theologians. They would tear you apart and it just goes to show how foolish your pride has made you.

         Your failure to understand basic theological principals also makes your interpretation of the bible quite childish and it is amazing that you believe you “know the bible.”

         It ultimately is the fact that you merely are a waste of time, not that I can’t answer your messages.

         You are the typical atheist, as I guess I am the typical Christian. Logically, what is more likely is more believable.

         Finally, if you believe there isn’t suffering just because you have lived comfortably your entire life in the United States, you simply prove further how ignorant you are.

         I wish you luck, and I hope you can see how terrible your cases were one day.

         LikeLike

      2. why thanks for calling everyone who doesn’t agree wiht you a fool.

         LikeLike

      3. No. I called YOU a fool. Thank you for again, proving my point that you are incapable of releasing your personal feelings into your interpretations. I thought I was crystal clear on this matter, but twisting of words appears to be your specialty. Sadly, we could have been friends when this was just a discussion on the other block, but your “decent” moral values displayed how you act and you instead of having an actual discussion fluffed up your opinion with insults. Congratulations.

         LikeLike

      4. Again thanks for calling me a fool. It’s such a lovely thing to come from a self-described Christian.

         LikeLike

      5. Ah. Cute. But a sad attempt. We are told to discern, correct, rebuke and so on. As it is, “anyone who denies God is a fool.” According to my “silly” book, you ARE indeed, a fool. Though I must admit I was calling you a fool because you truly don’t seem to see all of your terrible logic, bias and so forth.

         LikeLike

      6. still waiting for the evidence to support your claims, LIL.

         LikeLike

      7. Hmmm, but you’ve accused me already of using my emotions too much in interpretations, LIL. So which is it, LIL? Am I “incapable of releasing my feelings” or am I doing it too much: “21. Why do you rely heavily on your emotions for interpretation?”

         This is very fun! 🙂 No, we could not have been friends. I am not friends with people like you.

         LikeLike

      8. Lol, whatever

         LikeLike

      9. What a clever answer, LIL. Again, you have made contradictory accusations about me, which should I believe?

         LikeLike

      10. Those are also facts. It’s sad that you’re an intelligent person whose so dishonest, especially with yourself.

          LikeLike

      11. evidence of your claims please.

          LikeLike

      12. Speaking of mirrors, I have found something quite interesting. (a late breaking addition: I have found something quite interesting. I have NSC here commenting below who’s email and site is: christisthecure.wordpress.comx same email address (removed by request) 96.8.167.209

          and strangely enough, that matches logicinlife’s email and site: christisthecure.wordpress.comx same email address (removed by request) 96.8.167.209

          it seems we have a sock puppet. Or there is some mysterious reason that LIL changed his name to NSC. )

          LikeLike

      13. You’re also, taking out of context and twisting words, that’s apparently all you’re good at

          LikeLike

      14. Again, please do provide evidence of your accusations.

          LikeLike

      15. evidence of your claims please.

          LikeLike

      16. Thanks for failing again to actually read and understand what I said. You have proven, yet again, that you are controlled by your emotions.

          LikeLike

      17. Also; I just read your conversation with “Potato” at https://clubschadenfreude.com/the-library/

          And go figure, all of his claims regarding your traits, personality and tendencies are EXACTLY the same as my case. I’m truly not trying to embarrass you, but when more than one person says the same exact thing, almost identical, its time to look in a mirror and realize you have some things to work out.

          LikeLike

      18. Shucks, two people who are wrong. How can that possibly be! Let’s see, you also share with Tater a lot of other qualities, like making false and baseless claims.

          Trust me, dear, you aren’t embarrassing me at all. 🙂 No matter how hard you try.

          LikeLike

      19. HAHAHAHAHAHA. So sad. Really, it is. You’re “debate skills” are ridiculous.

          LikeLike

      20. Again, evidence for this claim, LIL?

          LikeLike

      21. Everyone is wrong but ClubS, the all intelligent one who only accepts what she deems worthy. LOL

          LikeLike

      22. Nice attempt to lie about me. Please do show me that I have said that I was all-intelligent. I do indeed accept only that which has evidence to support it. Whether it’s “worthy” is meaningless.

          LikeLike

      23. More false claims. I have not said this “I believe I know everything.” If you wish to claim that, please do quote me, and do include the link to the comment.

          Please show these insults you claim I have written. Please show me what questions I have “refused” to answer. I have quoted your specific claims. It is your baseless claim that I have “missed the mark”. Please show what concepts I have supposedly failed to understand and how, LIL. Your attempt at retconning what you have written is amusing and assumes that no one can understand grammar correctly.

          Please do tell us what “subjective presuppotions” are and where I have used them. Show specific quotes. A wall of text presented and you hoping someone else can find what you claim is there is great fun to watch because it indicates that there is some reason to doubt that there is anything there in the first place since you refuse to present it.

          “I could rebuke your entire post, but as the evidence shows, you will ignore it, and write a response based off your emotions.” Of *course* you could, LIL. 🙂 Sure, there’s no reason to doubt someone who insists he could so all sorts of great things but funny how he never does them. You of course offer more lies since I have yet to ignore your posts. I have responded to them quite thoroughly. You also lie again that I supposedly write responses based off my emotions, and then we have seen you complain that I don’t use my emotions enough. Which is it, LIL?

          Still waiting for names of these “major theologians” and evidence that they would “tear” me apart. I do note that you don’t name them. Are you afraid if you mention one by name, I could actually address what they said and show that they are wrong?

          What is a typical atheist? Please do show your work. And I do believe that there is suffering. I have already said so, when I noted your apparent view of suffering. Nice attempt to try to misrepresent me again, LIL. I am sure you do “hope” I can see your baseless claims are true. You certainly haven’t been able to demonstrate it yourself.

          Brave brave Sir Robin 🙂

          LikeLike

      24. Oh so now your complaining that I’m supposedly misrepresenting you. What a joke. Go look in a mirrorn

          LikeLike

      25. yet another clever reply and no evidence to support your false accusations. It is always good to see that self-professed Christians are no more concerned with their bible than I am. You do recall that your god doesn’t like liars, correct? Not even if you think you are lying for its supposed benefit, Romans 3).

          LikeLike

      26. Lol I haven’t lied, but I’m also in no position to judge your eternal life. But how desperate you are to save your pride. Grasping for straws in lies, twisting words, meaningless points, all to breath under the water and hide how ugly you have shown yourself to be. Your attempts are futile and I see your intentions. I am confident you are not an elect, and God opposes the proud which is clearly your best friend.

          It’s been an interesting conversation, but my interest has shifted.

          LikeLike

      27. Again, evidence for your claims. I see you can write hundreds of words, but can’t provide one piece of evidence. So much for your claim that you could take apart all of my arguments but if you only had the time 🙂

          Hmmm, are you sure you don’t also want to use the excuse “I want to spend more time with my family” a good one that politicians use when they also can’t defend their claims?

          And oooh, I’m not an elect. Oh my, whatever shall I do? 🙂 There’s no reason to think you are either, LIL/NSC. It’s people like you who always are sure that they are the elect and will declare themselves such, while at the same time prating on how much they aren’t in a position to judge others. You sure can judge youself, eh? Nice to see again that christians can’t agree on what their god “really” meant *and* some are quite sure that they are the only TrueChristians.

          LikeLike

      28. Lol you really are terrible at debating. Do you actually have points to make? And yes. I have a daughter, and a wife whom I like spending time with

          LikeLike

      29. More baseless claims, LIL/NSC? How expected. I have made points. You are welcome to do your best to support your claims, including this new one that somehow I have made no points. I’m waiting. 🙂

          LikeLike

      30. When you have a daughter, wife, work 40 hours a week and go to school full time, you don’t have time to deal with people who are a waste of time, which would be you. Lol

          LikeLike

      31. But you do have time to make excuses and not present evidence. 🙂

          LikeLike

      32. On the contrary, I’m responding, but don’t have time to get on my computer and share my research. As such, I’m about to go into work and I have been talking to you on my phone. I believe in quality work which is very difficult to produce on my phone, especially when I produce typos on mobile and that is just frustrating to me. Anyway, I have little interest in pushing forward. I do respectfully ask that you have the decency to take my email down from your website, use my username all you want, but it’s my personal/work/school email which is why I use my other as my “blog” email. Feel free to share that email instead; logicinlife92@gmail.com

          I wish you the best and I apologize our conversation was so fruitless, as such, I apologize if any of my words may have been particularly unkind.
          However, the questions I gave you,that you shared as a post, were specifically for you and as such I find it distasteful that you used them since they were taken from the context of our conversation.

          Call this my closing statement, I intend on retiring from this post, and I will say I enjoyed your posts pertaining to culinary arts (as my wife and I love cooking as well). Enjoy your weekend. 🙂

          LikeLike

      33. Again, hundreds of words. I will take you email address down.

          I do not accept apologies from people who seem to think its easier to ask forgiveness than simply avoid telling falsehoods about me to begin with.

          You posted to a public comment area. Those questions were for the public to see and are for the public to see. It doesn’t surprise me at all that you find it “distasteful” to having your words displayed more prominently that perhaps you wished so that others could see just what a Christian’s questions can consist of. And I didn’t take them from context, I posted a link to go right to the conversation. The context was a contentious debate that you chose to continue by using loaded questions and using misrepresentations of me.

          Enjoy your weekend too.

          LikeLike

      34. You can think, and feel how you wish. Thank you for your kindness regarding my email. As such, you are correct, it’s a public comment area and you have the right to do what you wish with what is presented. Though, truly, those questions were for you alone, based off of my psychological analysis from our conversation. As for context, you are correct as you posted the link, I fear that others will fail to view the context. Though, it does seem as if you are receiving some good conversation and if that’s all I can provide in the midst of our situation (which we could have both handled better), than so be it.

          And I will, 🙂 despite a final being due on Sunday, my little girl and I will be pleased with my getting off early on Saturday. Well, I can only assume she’ll be pleased since her response to me being home is only a smile since she is 7 months old.

          Thank you – again, it has been interesting. 🙂

          Formally,

          N.S.C,
          Nick

          LikeLike

      35. Well, we can all then know your “psychological analysis” of me was completely wrong and you used loaded questions to try to get answers you wanted. It is your fault that you used such obviously loaded questions and I can understand why you would wish that no one else would look at them or question them.

          Again! we see you making more baseless claims. Sorry, Nick, but trying to slip in that I could have handled the argument “better” is bullshit, and just another way for you to try to cast baseless aspersions on me. I don’t much care if you think you could have handled it better or not. You have made baseless claims, posted walls of text in some ridiculous attempt to get people to do your work for you, lied about me, claim that your “psychological analysis” has any validity, etc.

          It’s cute that you try to claim that you provided anything. Taking credit for things you didn’t do is rather sad. I’m not sure why mention your little girl, but if I were a fairy god-mother I would give her a wonderful life. I hope you never kick her out of the house for being different than you wanted, like some of my friends suffered from their theist parents and love her for who she is and will be. May your family have the best of luck.

          LikeLike

      36. Wow, just pathetic

          LikeLike

      37. LIL/NSC,
          You’ve done a great job in repeatedly avoiding showing any evidence for your claims.
          Unsurprisingly, you avoid answering questions that show your claims to be false.
          I again request evidence for your claims and answers to the questions that have been posed to you by another:
          “Christians were the ones who led the fight against slavery in the US, while that is true….tell me what religion were the people who were the slaveholders? HRRRRMMMMM??????”

          Still plenty of time to insult me, I see, but no time for evidence. I could hope that you are commenting on Christian parents who kick their children out of the house for not being what they wanted.

          I do wonder, what makes you qualified to supposed psychologically analyze me or anyone else? Your educational background seems to not support any training in such things. I hope you know how silly it is to try to diagnose someone over the internet.

          LikeLike

      38. Funny, I said I was retiring from your post and you keep posting. Amazing how low you have sunk to feel superior. How moral of you 😉

          LikeLike

      39. Yep, you said you were retiring. Funny how you keep posting. I never said I was going to stop posting on my own blog and comments.

          It is always great fun to watch someone like you try to do convince me to stop addressing your posts. It is not to feel superior, it is to show that your claims are still unsupported and to address the claims that are outright false. I will agree it is very morally good of me since allowing baseless claims to stand is not a good thing, because presenting false information does no more than attempt to remove the freedom of one to make an educated choice.

          No one is making you post here, LIL/NSC. You may leave any time you wish. You can always expect to be addressed here.

          LikeLike

      40. Show me to unsubscribe to your ridiculous posts, and I’ll be happy to allow you to continue to bash my character while I’m out of the game. Figures, your just fitting the stereotypical architecture.

          LikeLike

      41. Ah, so if you see something you have no choice to respond. Poor thing. As far as I know, you cannot unsubscribe because you chose to participate in a discussion.

          Is there something wrong with someone showing you are wrong without you knowing about it?

          LikeLike

      42. Idk you tell me, since you’re clearly wrong lmao

          LikeLike

      43. oh my. So we have how many comments that you have made since you have whined that I shouldn’t respond to you? 🙂

          I’m sorry that you “don’t know” the answer to “Is there something wrong with someone showing you are wrong without you knowing about it? ”

          LikeLike

      44. Hey if you can’t provide evidence and persist on fallacies go for it, I’ll just incorporate it into my next post 🙂 I already have enough evidence from this post. Your hanging yourself

          LikeLike

      45. I have provided evidence. And please do blog away.

          LikeLike

      46. I’ve seen no evidence. You advocate slavery, you can’t explain morality, you make false claims, you believe in Pokemon, you claim you have understanding of the bible and no evidence. Lol

          LikeLike

      47. A most excellent summary of the false claims you have made about me. Thank you for saving me the work.

          LikeLike

      48. The slaveholders were nearly every civilization known to man, what point did your friend make? None. Shall I call you a Slave owner because your ancestors lived during the United States slave trades? It’s merely terrible logic. And your friend has posted the worst, and I mean the absolute worst responses I have ever encountered.

          LikeLike

      49. Way to go, LIL/NSC, in doing your best to avoid answering a straightforward question. It’s always fun to watch someone insist that America was and is Christian majority, and then decide that “every civilization” was in American holding slaves. Evidence of this please.

          Christians held slaves and advocated slavery in their churches. This is not to say that some weren’t abolitionists and did the right thing. The point is that you are trying to rewrite history in trying to claim that Christians were not slaveholders and did not advocate for slavery. You may be interested in reading this: http://www.recoveredhistories.org/pamphlet1.php?catid=109 and this: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/warren/warren.html

          You have claimed that I have no idea where evil comes from. You have tried to claim your bible and your god is the font of it. You have tried to claim that since some Abolitionists were Christians, this means that good comes from Christianity. However, we can see that Christians can make arguments from their bible to support slavery. If slavery is bad, and it seems that you agree, then your bible is not the arbiter of good and evil since Christians cannot agree on what their god really meant. Was it pro-slavery or pro-freedom?

          LikeLike

      50. Lol you weren’t even able to write that coherently. Where did they advocate slavery? Also; slaves in those times were typically criminals, debtors and prisoners of war. Some people even willingly became slaves to have a good home, much like when African Americans didn’t all leave their owners because they were good. Christianity merely said, treat your slaves well.

          Nice try though

          LikeLike

      51. Again, evidence of your claims. Great to see that you didn’t bother to read the links I gave. If you had, you wouldn’t have made such outright lies that Christians didn’t advocate slavery. Both pamphlets were Christians advocating slavery. But again, I have ceased to be amazed that you are a liar.

          Christianity did not “merely say” treat your slaves well.

          “1 Peter 2: 8 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

          What a wonderful way to get slaves not to seek their freedom by telling them that God doesn’t want them to.

          So, are you telling me that everyone from Africa was a criminal, debtor and prisoner of war? Does this make it alright to enslave them?

          LikeLike

      52. So all Christians advocated slavery based off of two fliers? Logical fallacies: ambiguity, bandwagon and burden of proof.

          LikeLike

      53. Nice attempt to claim that I say “all Christians”. I didn’t and your attempted attack depended on that one point.

          LikeLike

      54. Merely doing what you do, making assumptions, as the evidence shows. I’ll be providing more proof for your folly since you want to flaunt around in your deluded pride. I’ll be providing evidence for my claims, which aren’t baseless, since ya know, you want the evidence so bad. Have fun with your fallacies and I look forward to providing more evidence for your failures.

          LikeLike

      55. Again, evidence that I have done anything like this.

          Oh, and now you claim that you *will* provide evidence for your claims. I’ll be waiting.

          LikeLike

      56. Evidence that you make assumptions? All over your post lol. You barely went two sentences without an assumption. Or did you forget that? I’ve already provided evidence that you make wild assumptions. My evidence is merely in your words.

          LikeLike

      57. In the original post the author (ClubS) begins with, “I received a very long comment on someone else’s blog and wanted to take the time, and space, to respond to a Christian who is sure I am wrong and that they are the OneTrueChristian.” There are immediately two assumptions here, 1. “who is sure I am wrong” and 2. “that they are the OneTrueChristian.” In response to the assumption number 1, the original post (which I believe can be accessed by clicking ‘very long comment’) was simply a response to a number of claims (with no proper citations or evidence).

          LikeLike

      58. This post from LIL/NSC was caught in spam:

          In the original post the author (ClubS) begins with, “I received a very long comment on someone else’s blog and wanted to take the time, and space, to respond to a Christian who is sure I am wrong and that they are the OneTrueChristian.” There are immediately two assumptions here, 1. “who is sure I am wrong” and 2. “that they are the OneTrueChristian.” In response to the assumption number 1, the original post (which I believe can be accessed by clicking ‘very long comment’) was simply a response to a number of claims (with no proper citations or evidence).

          LikeLike

      59. “It seems that you are also a Christian who is uncomfortable with the idea of hell, with your nice sanitized version “separation from god”.” – ClubS. This assumption was rather funny. Not only is ClubS letting her personal opinion on the stereotype of Christians affect her writing , but she assumes I am uncomfortable with hell. I simply replied, (as you can read in the comments) Hell is one of my most comfortable areas regarding Christianity and I especially enjoy the writings of Jonathan Edwards (Sinners in the hands of an Angry God).

          ClubS’ next statement immediately follows the previous I have provided, “It is unsurprising that you create your religion to reflect you own hatreds and desires.” Not only is this an assumption, but ClubS is actually basing her opinion on the assumption that I am “uncomfortable with the idea of hell.” This is particularly sad and I am not sure how one who is uncomfortable with hell would be reflecting hatreds and desires anyway. It seems as if one who says “everyone should go to hell” would be reflecting their hatreds and desires. Here you can see ClubS’ subjective analysis of my Character as a tactic in the argument.

          LikeLike

      60. and one more of LIL/NSC’s posts that got caught in spam. Not sure why. Seems like WP does this every so often.

          No idea why he finds it necessary to repost what he has already said other than to waste space and time. Claims do not magically become more true the more you repeat them.

          LikeLike

      61. Or is the evidence not worthy to your subjective analysis?

          LikeLike

      62. This post by LIL/NSC was caught in spam.
          Submitted on 2015/02/14 at 8:27 pm | In reply to clubschadenfreude.
          Or is the evidence not worthy to your subjective analysis?

          LikeLike

      63. Also, this was talking to slaves. You’re so dishonest. Of course it wasn’t telling slaves to treat slaves well. Lmao

          LikeLike

      64. I didn’t not say that anything said tha tslaves to treat slaves well. Let’s look at my post again:

          “Again, evidence of your claims. Great to see that you didn’t bother to read the links I gave. If you had, you wouldn’t have made such outright lies that Christians didn’t advocate slavery. Both pamphlets were Christians advocating slavery. But again, I have ceased to be amazed that you are a liar.

          Christianity did not “merely say” treat your slaves well.

          “1 Peter 2: 8 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

          What a wonderful way to get slaves not to seek their freedom by telling them that God doesn’t want them to.

          So, are you telling me that everyone from Africa was a criminal, debtor and prisoner of war? Does this make it alright to enslave them?

          So, where was I dishonest, LIL/NSC?

          LikeLike

      65. Yes you did. You provided evidence that masters are told to treat their slaves well by showing a verse that tells a slave to be a good person in spite of their masters.

          LikeLike

      66. Let’s take a look at this part of the discussion:
          You said ” Lol you weren’t even able to write that coherently. Where did they advocate slavery? Also; slaves in those times were typically criminals, debtors and prisoners of war. Some people even willingly became slaves to have a good home, much like when African Americans didn’t all leave their owners because they were good. Christianity merely said, treat your slaves well.

          Nice try though”

          I said “Again, evidence of your claims. Great to see that you didn’t bother to read the links I gave. If you had, you wouldn’t have made such outright lies that Christians didn’t advocate slavery. Both pamphlets were Christians advocating slavery. But again, I have ceased to be amazed that you are a liar.

          Christianity did not “merely say” treat your slaves well.

          “1 Peter 2: 8 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

          What a wonderful way to get slaves not to seek their freedom by telling them that God doesn’t want them to.

          So, are you telling me that everyone from Africa was a criminal, debtor and prisoner of war? Does this make it alright to enslave them?”

          You said: “Also, this was talking to slaves. You’re so dishonest. Of course it wasn’t telling slaves to treat slaves well. Lmao ”

          So we have you making the false claim that the bible only says to treat your slaves well. I did not disagree with this. I have pointed out that we see that the bible says that slaves were not treated well, because the bible must say that slaves should stay with bad masters.

          I have shown that Christians, and I did not say all, advocated slavery and I presented two documents written by Christians doing exactly that. You proceeded to ask Where did they advocate slavery?” which would have been obvious if you had read the documents.

          you also did not answer my question: So, are you telling me that everyone from Africa was a criminal, debtor and prisoner of war? Does this make it alright to enslave them?

          LikeLike

      67. Why do you use a verse that is irrelevant to the discussion? I see no evidence of advocating slavery, also, while you’re at it, show me evidence that you “understand the bible.” That is a claim you made, show me the evidence. And after you show me evidence for your claim that you understand the bible, please show me evidence as to why your interpretation is correct over millions of theists whom contradict your interpretation. Please provide evidence for this claim lest your entire post whilst using scripture be discredited.

          LikeLike

      68. Interesting, you have made claims that Christianity “merely” says to treat your slaves well, and when I can bring up a verse that has that this is not the case and that Christianity tells slaves to obey bad masters no matter what, and to not seek their freedom. You claim that a verse dealing with slavery is irrelevant to the discussion of slavery.

          If one does not say that no one should keep slaves, then one is advocating slavery when one says that slaves should never seek their freedom and when one of your primary leaders returns a slave to his owner.

          I have shown that I understand the bible quite well and have demonstrated so by discussing it with you and that you understand what I have said and have replied. The fact that you do not like that my understanding does not agree with your does not mean I do not understand it.

          “And after you show me evidence for your claim that you understand the bible, please show me evidence as to why your interpretation is correct over millions of theists whom contradict your interpretation. Please provide evidence for this claim lest your entire post whilst using scripture be discredited.”

          My interpretation is not based on an a priori assumption that the bible is somehow a magical book from a magical being that cannot be shown to exist. I use archaeology, psychology, anthropology, linquistics and literature to analyze the bible and follow the evidence where it leads, not where I want it to go. There is not one scrap of evidence of any of the essential events in the bible.

          Now, that I have done so, I ask you to do the same: “please show me evidence as to why your interpretation is correct over millions of theists whom contradict your interpretation. Please provide evidence for this claim lest your entire post whilst using scripture be discredited.”

          I also have asked you to answer the questions that you posed to me. If they are so neutral and psychologically accurate, you should have no problem.

          LikeLike

      69. That is regarding personal integrity. That’s not evidence for your claim. Please produce evidence that they advocated slavery. It’s a slavery quote explaining the Christian principals from the viewpoint of being a slave. Fail again.

          Most slaves returned to slavery by their own free will, take a history class. So you’re advocating slavery? You haven’t said “no one should keep slaves.” So by your logic, you believe in slavery and are advocating it.

          You haven’t provided evidence that you understand the bible. I don’t care what you think is acceptable, I want evidence, observable evidence. Provide it. Your interpretation (not understanding since you cannot provide evidence) is 2% of Americans’ interpretation while 70% say otherwise. The statistics are against you, kiddo.

          So your interpretation is based on your assumption that the bible is a magical book from a magical being that you believe cannot exist? Sounds like a bias presupposition.

          Archaeology confirms accuracy of the bible, you clearly don’t know the bible not archaeology.

          Psychology is needed for interpreting the bible? Also, how are you qualified to interpret the bible by these means?

          Literature? Yet you fail to observe context, historical background and the actual mundane setting of the New Testament especially when talking about slavery.

          Really? Lol show me. They just found records of the exodus buried underneath layers of past foundations in Egypt. One example.

          You haven’t shown me any evidence, I’m still waiting. Show me evidence that you understand the bible, so far you are at 0% congrats!

          LikeLike

      70. I have provided documents written by Christians advocating slavery. Saying I haven’t doesn’t not make the links go away. I shall post them again: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/warren/warren.html http://www.recoveredhistories.org/pamphlet1.php?catid=109 I have cited the verse from the bible that says that slaves should remain with their masters no matter what. I have asked you to show verses from the bible that say that no one should keep human beings as property. You have not done so.

          I have taken quite a few history classes in getting my degree, world history, history of religion, early American history, history of the Vietnam war, etc. Not one of them said that “Most slaves returned to slavery by their own free will” You are welcome to cite evidence for this claim. What class did you hear this in? I would like to know where it was taught and the teacher so I might confirm this. I am not advocating slavery, and I have never said so. I have indeed said no one should keep slaves, and I never have said that slaves should remain with their masters no matter how bad they are nor have I returned a slave to his master as your bible also describes.

          I have provided evidence that I understand the bible. Coming to a different conclusion than you is not evidence of someone not understanding something. You have been unable to show that your understanding of the bible is the only true one. In that you have read and responded to my posts, you have observable evidence, evidence that you can see and experience. Again, you come up with percentage numbers that you have evidently made up. I have asked before where this 2% claim has come from, and now I ask where says that 70% of Americans agree with you and your version of Christianity and what the bible “really” says. Made up statistics aren’t against me. Nice appeal to imaginary authority there 🙂 Again, you attempt to lie about what I have said. I have not said that my interpretation is based on an assumption “that the bible is a magical book from a magical being that you believe cannot exist?” The bible is a compliation of myths created by humans. I can analyze it (interpret it if you will) using linguistics, psychology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. There is no evidence for any of the essential events of the bible.

          You claim that archaeology confirms the accuracy of the bible. I know the bible and archaeology very well. You may present evidence of your claim. I will proceed to show how archaeology does not support the claims of the bible. There is no evidence of a world-wide mountain covering flood that wiped out a civilization at any time in the history of the earth. We have no artifacts in sediment at any time period claimed by beleivers nor does the geology support this myth. There is no huge world wide layer of sediment sorted coarse to fine with all physical items of similar hydrological characteristics piled together e.g. there are no humans mixed with similarly sized dinosaurs.

          There is no evidence of a massive disruption in any civilization in north east Africa at any time that believers try to claim as the period of the “exodus”. We can find no such disruption anything like this in Egypt’s ancient history at all. There is no evidence that Egypt ever lost its entire army do to one cataclysm. There is no evidence of all first born dying and there is no evidence that the people who became Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt much less that they numbered in the hundreds of thousands and spent 40 years in an area the size of half of Pennsylvania. No encampments have been found, no records from other civilizations in the area mention this. Nothing has been found despite the best efforts of Christians and Jews to find such things.

          There is no archaeological evidence that mankind had a uniform language and then mysteriously had completely different ones.

          Your god claimed that it had destroyed the city of Tyre so that no one will remember it. The city of Tyre is still an occupied city, they know it’s been around for a long time and can show archeological sites that show where it has grown and shrunk over the centuries.

          The bible claims fantastical temples and palaces with hundreds of concubines and huge armies. No evidence of these things has been found. A single small pomegranate carved from ivory has been claimed to be “evidence”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_pomegranate which is decent evidence for Jews but not for the existence of a temple as described in the bible or a god. No other civilization has been shown ot have carried off anything from these temples. There is no evidence they existed.

          The bible claims that there was a Roman census that forced everyone to return to the place of their birth. There is no evidence of this. The bible claimed that there was a massacre of infants as an act by one of the Herods. His worst detractors never mention this supposed heinous act in contemporary writings. The bible claims that there was a strong earthquake, darkened sky, and the dead walking the streets. Christians cannot agree on when this happened and there is no contemporary mention of these things happening on the same day nor is there any evidence for such things; earthquakes leave evidence that can be marked in time.

          There is no evidence that a Roman legion’s worth of men, plus women and children gathered just outside of occupied Jerusalem as the bible claims. One would think that the Romans would notice.
          Christians have no idea where the tomb of their supposed savior is. The constestants cannot be shown to be associated with a magical being at all, and the gospels give conflicting claims about the tomb and what occurred there.

          Shucks, LIL/NSC, you claimed that you could psychologically analyze me through the internets using my writings. Does this mean your claim was false? One can analyze the claims in the bible by knowing what moves humans do to things.

          Yes, LIL/NSC, one can use literature to study the bible, to know how it was written, what forms were used and how to determine who wrote what. Bible apologists say that they do this all of the time. Were they lying?

          You have claimed that “They just found records of the exodus buried underneath layers of past foundations in Egypt”And of course you present no links to support that claim. Let’s see if I can find some. Okay, I’ll search “records exodus buried foundations Egypt”. Your use of the word “just” would seem to indicate that this may have occurred in the last few months, but let’s give it a year. There is nothing in the search of recent finds, and you can look at what I looked at: https://www.google.com/search?q=records+of+the+exodus+found+in+egypt+foundation&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGNI_enUS516&gws_rd=ssl

          Now, LIL/NSC, who found these records, what were their names? Where were these records (evidently written documents, yes?) found, what city was the closest by? Who funded the dig? Where is the evidence of your claim? As always, you are asked to provide it.

          Darn, I guess this post won’t be showcased on your blog, where you pick and choose what to show of my comments and where you don’t post where your claims have been shown false. Best hope that no one comes to my blog and reads things for themselves.

          LikeLike

      71. Again, where is the bible speaking against slavery?

          And again, I did not say that the bible did not say that masters should treat their slaves well. You are the one who said that was all the Christian bible said about slavery. That is demonstrably false.

          LikeLike

      72. Freedom from slavery to sin through Christ. That’s speaking against slavery, lol.

          And you advocate slavery, how moral of you

          LikeLike

      73. Wow, really? You now want to claim I am advocating slavery in response to me showing that Christians advocate slavery and the bible never speaks against it. Nice attempt to move the goalposts, rather than support your claims about Christians not supporting slavery as shown in the documents I have linked to which were written by Christians in support of slavery, the real kind where one human controls the actions of another and treats them as property.

          There is no evidence of “sin” or slavery to it, nor of your Jesus Christ nor of your god. Please to provide evidence of these things if you wish to claim that I support slavery to sin, a concept that is solely dependent on a god that I do not believe in and you cannot show exists. Since sin, or JC or your god cannot be shown to exist, there is no way to be a slave to it or to advocate such.

          LikeLike

      74. oh, and if Doug uses such “terrible logic” and “worst responses” why it should be easy as pie for someone like you to refute his claims, shouldn’t it?

          LikeLike

      75. I did, lol. And if you actually believe his responses were at all worthy than you’re not as intelligent as you can play it. Of course your arguments are just assumptions and defamation of character.

          LikeLike

      76. Thanks again for more baseless insults. They do show you to be an exemplary Christian. Please do show evidence for your claims. I’m still waiting.

          LikeLike

      77. I’m still waiting for evidence from YOU. Burden of proof fallacy

          LikeLike

      78. Burden of proof fallacy? Here’s the proof of your insult:

          “I did, lol. And if you actually believe his responses were at all worthy than you’re not as intelligent as you can play it.”

          I have shown I am quite intelligent. If you wish to dispute the fact, show that I am not. If you wish to claim that I am not intelligent because I do not agree with you, please do. 🙂

          Hilarious that you accused me of a tu quoque fallacy. I suspect my response on your blog won’t make it past moderation:

          here is what a tu quoque fallacy is:

          “Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent’s position based on criticism of the opponent’s inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.” Wikipedia.

          You have claimed that you did not have time to answer me and that you wanted to spend more time with your family. I have not said that your argument was wrong because of this, which is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy. I have made the observation that you have made a claim and that particular claim is not true. 🙂

          LikeLike

      79. Lmao so because you believe there’s inconsistency based off your assumptions your innocent of this? Thank you for clarifying that you committed this fallacy AND continue to make assumptions

          LikeLike

      80. Evidence please.

          LikeLike

      81. Waiting on yours

          LikeLike

      82. I have no idea what your first sentence is trying to say. I have said nothing in this particular part of the conversation about inconsistency, and I have no idea what this has to do with your making an unsupported claim that I have used a tu quoque fallacy. You have claimed I am not intelligent. I can and have shown I am.

          You have claimed I have used a tu quoque fallacy. I will post the definition again:

          “Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent’s position based on criticism of the opponent’s inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.” Wikipedia.

          You have claimed that you did not have time to answer me and that you wanted to spend more time with your family. I have not said that your argument was wrong because of this, which is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy. I have made the observation that you have made a claim and that particular claim is not true.

          You are welcome to show where I have said that your arguments are invalid because you have claimed you have no time and where you have demonstrated you have this time. Cut and paste is very easy, LIL/NSC. Why do you not use it since if there are parts of my posts that support your claims, you could use them so easily? Your refusal to use such easy evidence, if it indeed exists, makes one wonder why.

          LikeLike

      83. Mirror

          LikeLike

      84. yet another clever reply, and no evidence. Tsk.

          LikeLike

      85. Speaking of mirrors, I have found something quite interesting. (a late breaking addition: I have found something quite interesting. I have NSC here commenting below who’s email and site is: christisthecure.wordpress.comx same email address (removed by request) 96.8.167.209

          and strangely enough, that matches logicinlife’s email and site: christisthecure.wordpress.comx same email address (removed by request) 96.8.167.209

          it seems we have a sock puppet. Or there is some mysterious reason that LIL changed his name to NSC. )

          LikeLike

      86. I changed my username, great job Sherlock.

          LikeLike

      87. why you sure did!

          LikeLike

      88. Lol what else would you conclude, oh deluded one?

          LikeLike

      89. it seems that you have no use to be identified as logicinlife anymore. I can offer several reasons why you might suddenly change your name in mid discussion, after being censured on one blog and being called out on another. Only you can explain why.

          LikeLike

      90. I’m changing the entire look, feel of my blog, and as such I wanted to switch to my initials. Mostly because of my readers from Facebook who know me by name. It is ultimately for marketing so that there’s no confusion when people are looking for the blog associated with my name on Facebook. Though, I can see your suspicion now and it does seem fishy. I assure you, I only realized that now. The name logicin life used to be associated with my blog whenever I was an atheist and as such I wanted a fresh start which includes the little things, which I feel matters greatly. I changed my name specially when I was drafting my “about the author” for my blog and thought, “I should just use my initials.” It just seemed to make more since. I hope that cleared up the confusion.

          LikeLike

      91. Rather convenient, but if you say so, we can take you at your word. I do have some doubts remaining and will expound about them. You have repeatedly claimed that you use logic reason, etc for your religious belief. This seems to indicate that your name “logicinlife” was not something from your atheist past, but something you were quite proud of claiming when you were sure that your supposed logic and reason were unassailable.

          LikeLike

   3. Part 3

      We’re at part 3. LIL has tried to claim that his god is not the cause of death; “sin” is. Your god is the cause of death, LIL. If you read the bible, you will see that this god decrees sin and thus causes death. Cause and effect seem to elude you. God causes people to die, if you believe in your myths. For example, in the story of Exodus, we have people ( and animals, the “first born) being killed by angels commanded by this god, not because they did anything wrong, but because this god mind controlled a man to refuse to allow a group of people to leave. Again, if your god is omninpotent, then it can do anything, which would include not having to kill anyone it doesn’t choose to. Unless, you’d like to claim that it cannot, and thus is not omnipotent. Do you?

      Repeating “total depravity” doesn’t address the question of why your god can have humans in heaven with no problem. If your god created humans, it chose to create them with this supposed “total depravity” or it needed to. Are humans “totally depraved” in heaven? If they need suffering, is there suffering in heaven?

      Here we go again with your claim that I somehow don’t understand your god or your bible but you do. As I noted above, Christians do love to claim that they understand their god, except when its inconvenient. Also, you have claimed that your god is omnipresent, so by definition “unholy creatures” are always in the presence of your god. Uzzah wasn’t unholy, he tried to keep your god’s magical box upright, and was often in its presence. You did not refute that your god is easily angered, and again we get to see that you are answering my post and evidence that you have tried to claim I didn’t offer.
      I also note that you have not addressed the problem of your god already knowing what would happen with Adam and Eve (great fun if you are a Calvinist). We have an omniscient (you remember: “all knowing”) god that made people exactly the way it wanted, and then was “shocked, shocked” that they did exactly as it already knew they would. The “entrance of sin” was per your god, no one else. And again, with an omnipresent god, rather hard to be separate from it. I do agree that evil bible isn’t the best, especially when they use the more hilarious translations of the bible, which of course are claimed to be with your god’s help. I don’t use them, sorry. I go right to the source and show how it’s ridiculous.

      I do like how you are trying to demean me by calling me a kid. How Christian. Again, you make vague claims and no explanation. Tell us of the big picture and how mind-controlling someone, as your bible repeatedly describes, works with murdering people because a man did exactly as an omnipotent being made him do.

      You can’t tell what I mean when I say that your god vanished and then kills nearly everything on earth? Well, since there was no mass genocide after the period of no prophets, I think it should be pretty clear. Again, Genesis 6 has that your god did vanish. Or shall we say that it was overseeing how its “sons” were screwing around with humans, and it did nothing about this “wickedness”?
      I am glad that you find the story of you god killing people, Anaias and Sapphira for money “fascinating”. It’s no surprise that suddenly you declare it’s god’s fault, not yours. “I don’t make the law.” No, you don’t make any laws but you approve of it and we’re back to the circular argument that anything your god does is “good” just because god does it.

      You have claimed that your god all of these attributes, that it is the judge, it reaches out to humanity etc. You have claimed it exists. When asked to show that it does, then you complain and again avoid producing any evidence. Again, you try to make false claims about me. Sorry, no tantrum here. I do wonder what you not being a psychologist has to do with discussing the existence of your god.

      It really is great to see you deny your bible’s words. There is nothing in it that says that your god doesn’t keep a “book” on everyone. It says all who have died before this god returned have a book, it does not leave out some “justified”. Indeed it says it directly that everyone has a “book” that keeps account of their actions. Here it is again: Revelation 20: 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” It’s amazing what Christians will add to their bible for their very own sect of Christianity. .

      “LOL, what?” is such a lovely attempt to avoid an answer. The sentence structure is quite fine, it is a complex sentence with multiple clauses. An opponent’s attempts to attack grammar are always fun to watch. I have no idea why you mention “proof”.

      Yes, the verses from Jeremiah and Isaiah contradict the verses from Revelation. Again, Revelation 20: 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” Your claim that some sins will not be remembered is unsupported and is directly contradicted by your own holy book. You are still making things up.

      I don’t much care how “tired” you are. The verses contradict each other and you have made up nonsense to try to excuse the fact. I have no problem in repeating the truth again and again, and will not stop because you complain. No one is making you do anything, LIL. You’ve chosen to debate with me.

      You wish to claim that I cannot claim a source for good and evil. Of course, I can. It’s us humans. It’s our definitions, its our culture that determine what we find good and evil. Again, I can watch you insist that your version of Christianity is the sole arbiter of good and evil, from a god that you can’t show exists.

      I have no reason to believe anything you say about your religion or you god, LIL. As always, you wish to claim that you have some magical “discernment”. Christians all claim this magical nonsense and as usual none of you can show that your “discernment” is any better than anyone else’s. You prate about how “no one is good” but you sure are sure that you are the only “right” person and the only one who know how to worship your god “correctly”. I have said you are likely a decent person when I have mentioned your character.

      I know you really really wish I was getting “emotional”. That is a fantasy on your part, and evidently ginned up to allow you to ignore my points. You have claimed I cannot define evil and it’s quite funny to watch you trying to be sarcastic when I have done exactly that so.

      The context of Isaiah 45:7 is indeed this god punishing and rewarding. It brings evil, which is not limited to natural disasters as many Christians claim. Again, in context we have references to light and dark, good and evil, which are repeatedly used as synonyms of each other. Now, you seem to be saying that this god blesses with good and punishes with evil. However, we know that this is nonsense since Christians do not have better lives than anyone else or that non-Christians suffer more. The bible appears to fail in its supposed promises again. There is also the problem that most interpretations of this say that the verses indicate that this god gives good and evil to everyone equally. Which theist shall I believe? I’ve been an atheist for quite a while, and my life is very good. Why is this, LIL? Shouldn’t I be suffering if your claims are true?

      And we’ll go to part 4 in a bit.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   4. Part 4
      You have claimed that the word “evil” really doesn’t mean evil. So it is quite a meaningful comment to point out that it takes a bit of ignorance to have your position. Please do show my “biased generalizations”. Still waiting.

      God doesn’t just allow evil, God works with evil. You have said that god uses evil, which seems to indicate it needs evil. If it is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it doesn’t have to “allow” anything, but evidently it chooses to for no more reason than allow more people, believers in this god, to be corrupted by a powerful, supernatural being, far more powerful than any human. “It’s different.” Isi quite a rebuttal.  Nothing like special pleading. If your god needs suffering, is there suffering in heaven?
      It’s quite fun to watch you make more baseless claims. I do understand the bible quite well. If I disagree with you and can show how you are wrong, that doesn’t mean that I do not understand it.

      It is not an assumption at all that each Christian wants to pretend that he is the only OneTrueChristian. It is quite well supported by Christians who attack each other and who try to convert each others’ adherents. Repeating baseless claims doesn’t make them magically true. You need evidence of your claims, or they are just more false witnessing. You of course refuse to provide any evidence and wish to claim my “entire post’ is this. Ah, vague claims and hoping others will do your work for you.

      I have asked you why you converted to Christianity and asked why you didn’t convert to Islam or Hinduism. It is no surprise that you refuse to answer the question and accuse me of drawing conclusions when I have not. I have asked a question, just about as opposite a concept as can be to drawing a conclusion. How odd. Why are you trying to avoid answering?

      I seem to have shocked you by saying that Paul makes false claims. There being no evidence to support Paul’s nonsense, they are indeed false and no more than rather sad propaganda. Yep, you make similar false claims and you are as sure as the character Paul is that he is the OneTrueChristian. Paul is so afraid of other Christians that he tries to curse them, Galatians 1:8-9. Please do show where I have lied or bore false witness. Still waiting.
      Hardening hearts is a result of your god’s action. Shall I quote what you god says it does? Exodus 4: 21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’” It’s nice for you to claim I am having a tantrum. One more false claim from a self-described Christian.
      It appears that you do agree that Romans 9 indicates no free will. So, how can anyone be held accountable for what they do, LIL? If I am created to be an atheist, it is not my fault. Do we go back to that attitude that God can condemn whatever it wants to eternal torture?

      You claim that there are “multitudes of verses” that prove I was not a Christian. Again, we see you intentionally lie about numbers to make believe you have a preponderance of the evidence. I am not offended by anything you say, LIL. I just take my time in refuting your baseless claims. Now, how can we tell if you are a Christian as you claim? Per the bible, it is god’s will that anyone who believes in JC and was baptized can do the things in Mark 16. It is not dependent on instance, you should be able to heal people anytime. Why is it that this “omnibenevolent” god never has its believers healing anyone? No one shows up at VA hospitals, children’s hospitals, refugee camps where kids have had their limbs hacked off by machetes. The context of the passage is that those magic powers are to identify who the real Christians are, while they are out preaching. JC said that was why he did miracles too (John 10:34-38) So, are there no real Christians, despite your claims?

      LIL, saying “nuh-uh” makes nothing true. I was indeed a Christian just like you are. I realized that there was nothing special about the religion and thus, I was just one more human being. I did not have a imaginary friend that approved of all I did. I did not know secrets of the universe.
      I have presented context and direct links to the verses I have used. So again, your claim that I have not is false. I do note that you have not rebutted the evidence that you pick and choose. I do indeed speak for myself, and your claims about me are intentional falsehoods.
      You accuse me again of having a hardened heart. Well, if there is no free will, and you agree with Romans 9 showing no free will, why should I consider the hardness of my heart if I can’t do anything about thanks to your god? You do need to decide if there is free will or not, LIL, so your arguments don’t contradict each other. I can understand the desire to not support one view or the other, since both are fraught with problems for your religion.

      Again, rather than give evidence against or rebut the fact that your bible says directly that your god mind controls the pharaoh and then punishes people for doing exactly what it made them do, you again claim I can’t judge your god and its actions. I can judge a mythical character with no problems. You wish to claim that this god “makes the rule” and again, nothing supports that. I do not buy into the “might equals right” nonsense that so many theists use as their reason to call their god(s) good.

      Now, you want to change your story. Now, you want to pretend I’m *still* a Christian. That’s rather amazing. Now, what caused that change, LIL? How can someone be a Christian and say that your god is a vicious myth, Jesus Christ is a legend and the holy spirit is a figment of your imagination, less than worthless? Is it the tendency for Christians to try to pretend everyone is “really” a Christian just so they can pretend they have lots of external validation? I do like control over my life. And I don’t need to pretend some god is in control, when this god does nothing.

      For someone who claims now that he wasn’t supporting the idea of free will, you sure have done a great job of making claims that it exists so far. Do I harden my heart or not, LIL? Hmmmm?

      LikeLike

      Reply

   5. Part 5

      You take refuge in one more false claim that Christians often make to make themselves feel superior, that atheists have no meaning in their lives. Morals can be objective even without your god, and even if they are relative, I still follow those that I find important. Morals certainly do exist, so playing pretend they don’t is quite the attitude. I make a choice to be a good person, rather than claim that some god made me that way and I had to do nothing. I also have quite a lot of purpose in my life. I am not limited in the purpose that something supposedly made me to do. I do not believe that humans have free will. However, I think we do live as if we have free will since we have yet to be able to completely comprehend how everything affects us and we can be taught how to think in other ways rather than that which we were brought up with. Still waiting for you to show me my supposed “contradictions”.

      No, I did not call myself a selfish destructive jackass. For someone who complains, mistakenly about grammar, you have done a spot on job of ignoring grammar in an attempt at an insult. Repeating that you believe that no one but you can explain where good and evil come from is not an answer to my statement that anyone can object to your god and its actions.
      And we’re back again to the common Christian complaint no one should talk about their god because they don’t like it. So you try to make it wrong to discuss the actions of this god if I don’t believe in it. As Dough has said, the belief in the actions of this god is why non-Christians discuss the Christian god and religion, for such belief is based on nothing but myths and it harms people constantly. Again, Christians discuss other religions too. Does this mean that you believe in those religions? Should you not be allowed to talk about them?

      You claim that “psychology” would say that I am afraid of your god. Please do tell us how it does this. Or is this just one more baseless claim that uses an appeal to authority? We also get to see LIL again ignore the point and make more vague accusations rather than providing evidence for his point of view. You have tried to redefine the meaning of “free will”, which is always entertaining.

      I am not “struggling” with the idea that I don’t have free will. I know I don’t, but I act as if I do. So, your claim that “things are falling into place” fails because you have made an incorrect assumption. It’s hilarious that you have taken an explanation of how free will is not in the bible because of your god’s actions and somehow have tried to twist it. I guess that’s because you cannot counter the facts of what is in your bible.

      Still with that “total depravity”. Please do show that your claim is true. Still waiting. And more inane responses.
      It’s always great fun when a Christian decides that they have no time to avoid actually participating in a discussion. They always have plenty of time when they think they have a soapbox where no one will counter their nonsense. You of course make more baseless accusations, that I have somehow not presented an “actual argument” and that I am “obnoxious”, so you can run away from the actual argument that have been presented. The problem with this tactic is that you are not fooling anyone, not even yourself, LIL. That’s the great benefit of a written discussion, false claims are so easily demonstrated.

      Your list of questions is the same old nonsense that has been answered many times before. Doug did a lovely job of it, and I will take some time to answer them too. I know you really really hope no one can answer them and are running away so you don’t have to acknowledge the answers, depending on willful ignorance to retain your version of your religion. I have no interest in emailing you, but will post my answers on my blog, so you and everyone can see them who wishes to.

      It surprises me not at all that someone who thought he could win a discussion with an atheist and who has failed, has now decided to run away from the discussion. If you were willing to “chat” you would not be making false claims about me to give yourself an excuse to run away. We can chat here as well as in email. But, I will also send them to you and then I will decide if I want to publish your response on my blog. If you object to that, why? I am wondering, do you not like having your claims being publicly shown wrong?
      The questions are not personal at all, and the answers to most of them have already been posted in some form or another on my blog long ago. You seem to think I would be afraid of answering and of course are wrong again.
      The discussion is going nowhere only for you, LIL. You tried to refute a comment of mine on another blog, insisted that I was wrong and when you cannot demonstrate this, you want to claim that I am doing things I have not done. I have not “lashed” out at you. You are quite the drama queen, needing more excuses on why you are running away. I have countered your false claims. None of the questions you have asked have helped anything, being the same old nonsense that depends on fear and ignorance on your part. I have known my significance a long time ago, so you have no claim on that either. There is nothing unpleasant about where I am. I quite enjoy it. I’m sorry if you did not. You also fail in your false claim that “something is happening” to me. Ah, wishful thinking, isn’t it swell?!

      I do love to see you backpedalling on your claims that I never ever ever was a Christian. Again, you give lots of woo about “spiritual warfare” and of course have not one scrap of evidence to support this idea that you are so important. I’ve seen a lot of wannabee soldiers have the same fantasies. The hypocrisy of the church, and you, are just one more thing to look at when you make false claims as you have. And more claims about hardening of the heart. Why, LIL, are we back to free will again? You pretend that you and only you know this god’s character correctly. You and only you think you know what sin is and what your god “really” meant about this, just like other Christians who have the same evidence as you: none. The bible itself shows this god as evil; so did Satan change the bible to make this seem true? How does that work when the bible claims it is entirely from this god?

      I’m not so stupid and selfish to accept suffering without trying to ameliorate it, in some delusion that it’s okay for people to suffer and me to do nothing. You can go for that, LIL, I want no part of it. Your good ol’ Tess of Avila is part of that church that you said is hypocritical and there’s no more reason to accept her version of Christianity than yours. I do like her words here: “Let us endeavour to do our best: beware of the poisonous reptiles–that is to say, the bad thoughts and aridities which are often permitted by God to assail and torment us so that we cannot repel them. Indeed, perchance we feel their sting! He allows this to teach us to be more on our guard in the future and to see whether we grieve much at offending Him.” A god that needs to test? How does that work with being omniscient and omnipresent?

      I have no reason to forgive someone who has lied to me and about me. You have chosen to do both repeatedly, despite being called on it. I will email you my answers to your list of questions when I am done.

      LikeLike

      Reply

4. Consummate, as always.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. thanks, John. 🙂 I’ve just released LIL’s first comment here.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply

5. Ooh look LIL Uses Argument Ad Hom, No True Scotsman(in spades…in spades!!!), ignoring the counterevidence(like every concrete example you gave,) begging the question; “Where does evil come from?” Here’s a thought LIL, evil is a subjective social construct. I.e. Some people might consider slavery evil…but not the ancient Israelites. So many more.

   1. What causes the origin of life?
   Something natural. I may not know exactly what origin you are talking about as Christians mix up cosmological origins, abiogenesis, and evolution a lot when asking this question, so I’ll address all three. But it is something natural. Why would I come to that conclusion? In the entire history of mankind, not even once, when the cause of something was fully studied was the answer “magic” Never. Whenever supernatural agency has been evoked, when science advanced to point that it could be disproven, it has been disproven. I simply have taken a hint from the last 5000 years of progress.

   2. If there is no God, why do you invest so much time in talking about Him?

   I equally do not believe in unicorns. Notice I don’t talk about them much. Notice however, no wars, murders, making certain scientific research forbidden, public laws, shifting of tax burden, and so forth that negatively affect the quality of life are based on the belief in Unicorns. Religion however does do these things.

   3. Where does morality come from? (Do not define evil that is not the question.)

   A combination of natural empathy from an extended selfish gene that includes others in my gene pool. Notice people generally naturally act more moral to their family and the least moral to people who are visually extremely different from them. The answer being genetic based is pretty obvious.

   10. Why do you emphasize your assumption that I am a OneTrueChristian, were you caught up in pride to learn that YOU were not that Christian?

   Because, get it through you extremely thick skull, EVERY BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS THE SAME. THEY HAVE EXACTLY THAT SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE FOR THEIR CLAIMS.

   11. You are aware that if you are lost, you can always come back?

   Condescending piety? Last resort of the beaten

   12. You are aware that you present the trademark characteristics of one whose heart has been hardened, right?

   The trademark characteristic being “I don’t agree with you and will call you on your BS”

   13. Why do you hyper-focus on Christianity?

   Notice this is in English. Which religion is the most popular in the English speaking world? Hrrrrmmmmmmm??????

   14. Why do you use the tactic of insults to throw?

   Mirror

   15. Explain the evidence that disproves God.

   Give a logical definition of God that is falsifiable and I’ll do so.

   16. Why do you conclude there is no evidence for God when logic, reasoning and circumstantial evidences all points to A God?

   Do you really have your head that far up your own ass? Epicurus had a logical disproof of God a few centuries before you were born.

   17. Who was harmed that caused you to be angry with God?

   I am not angry with God and more than I am angry with Darth Vader. However, I can read or watch the story and conclude that each character is a dick.

   18. Why are you angry with a God who doesn’t exist?

   See above

   19. Explain why the earth is fine-tuned for life.

   A puddle’s shape is fine tuned for the hole it is in for the same reason.

   20. Do you believe that truth is relative or absolute?

   Both. False dichotomy.

   21. Why do you rely heavily on your emotions for interpretation?

   Because the term “interpretation” when applied to literature pretty much necessitates it.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Thanks Doug. I’m working on a response but haven’t even read the whole thing yet. LIL is using the good ol’ throw shit at a wall trick.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. “Ooh look LIL Uses Argument Ad Hom, No True Scotsman(in spades…in spades!!!), ignoring the counterevidence(like every concrete example you gave,) begging the question.” – As you failed to notice, your buddy committed those fallacies 10 fold, in fact, I have little reason to believe she is capable of doing otherwise.

      ““Where does evil come from?” Here’s a thought LIL, evil is a subjective social construct. I.e. Some people might consider slavery evil…but not the ancient Israelites. So many more.” – So asking a logical question should be condemned? Amazing. You forget as well that Christianity was the leader in our country for freedom from slavery. Evil is not subjective social construct, if you did some research into sociology you’ll find that most civilizations had a base of moral principals. How they expressed those principals are different, but moral law is self evident.

      “1. What causes the origin of life?
      Something natural. I may not know exactly what origin you are talking about as Christians mix up cosmological origins, abiogenesis, and evolution a lot when asking this question, so I’ll address all three. But it is something natural. Why would I come to that conclusion? In the entire history of mankind, not even once, when the cause of something was fully studied was the answer “magic” Never. Whenever supernatural agency has been evoked, when science advanced to point that it could be disproven, it has been disproven. I simply have taken a hint from the last 5000 years of progress.” – Congratulations, you didn’t answer the question, but you did however add in a lot of words. If your answer is “something natural”, than there wasn’t even a point for you to answer this question. Something natural can be interpreted a multitude of ways. Just because you perceive a creator as “magic origins” does not mean that it is so. A creator in fact could be natural, as a painting has a painter. Common logic.

      “2. If there is no God, why do you invest so much time in talking about Him?

      I equally do not believe in unicorns. Notice I don’t talk about them much. Notice however, no wars, murders, making certain scientific research forbidden, public laws, shifting of tax burden, and so forth that negatively affect the quality of life are based on the belief in Unicorns. Religion however does do these things.” – As does Atheism, or have you failed to notice that your belief system supports the murder of millions of unborn babies, your belief tries to oppress those who believe in a God and so on and so forth. As such; these questions weren’t even intended for you, they were personalized to the writer of this blog and the fact that you answered them is also silly.

      “3. Where does morality come from? (Do not define evil that is not the question.)

      A combination of natural empathy from an extended selfish gene that includes others in my gene pool. Notice people generally naturally act more moral to their family and the least moral to people who are visually extremely different from them. The answer being genetic based is pretty obvious.” – Empathy doesn’t produce morality in fact empathy can be used to take advantage of people. Just because people have empathy doesn’t mean that there is an obligation to treat others well. That is a silly claim and history displays that. Morality in the family is due to love and respect in most cases, not empathy. Your presenting your personal philosophy, which is contradictory to the observable world. Morality has also been proven to NOT be based on genetics, this too is a major flaw in your philosophy.

      1″0. Why do you emphasize your assumption that I am a OneTrueChristian, were you caught up in pride to learn that YOU were not that Christian?

      Because, get it through you extremely thick skull, EVERY BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS THE SAME. THEY HAVE EXACTLY THAT SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE FOR THEIR CLAIMS.” – Really? Your buddy who posted this initial post says that every Christian says DIFFERENT things, so who is right? You or her? Atheism has failed to prove anything otherwise as well, they merely stay contained in a naturalistic box while failing to address HOW we got here; WHERE morality actually comes from (though science has disproven itself most of the atheists claims for morality) and so on. I could use more examples if you had an actual opinion on the origins of life, but you didn’t think that far. But, truly, do we say the same things or do we all believe different things?

      “11. You are aware that if you are lost, you can always come back?

      Condescending piety? Last resort of the beaten.” – Your interpretation is FALSE. Please refrain from twisting my intentions, this was a heart-felt point that I wanted to share with the woman who these questions were made for. Again, why are you answering questions that were made for her?

      “12. You are aware that you present the trademark characteristics of one whose heart has been hardened, right?

      The trademark characteristic being “I don’t agree with you and will call you on your BS”” – The one who began this post by trying to point out my fallacies resorts to emotional nonsense. Well done. *clapping”

      “13. Why do you hyper-focus on Christianity?

      Notice this is in English. Which religion is the most popular in the English speaking world? Hrrrrmmmmmmm??????” – Islam is the second most popular religion in the united states. There are European countries that speak english. The philosophy of Buddhism is also popular in the United States. If you mean, Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, yes, I would agree and your point would be valid, but you failed to hit the target.

      “14. Why do you use the tactic of insults to throw?

      Mirror. ” – Were my insults from the lack of objective reasoning from your emotional friend? If you can’t look objectively at the way your friend wrote this post than your silly for just saying, “mirror.” If morality is subjective than the golden rule should be applied here, what would you expect then if my retaliation had some snark while your friend tried to tear down my entire character? If insults are pointing out failed logic, than we live in a sad time.

      “15. Explain the evidence that disproves God.

      Give a logical definition of God that is falsifiable and I’ll do so.” – I have, so I see that you haven’t read through the entire post. That is typical.

      1″6. Why do you conclude there is no evidence for God when logic, reasoning and circumstantial evidences all points to A God?

      Do you really have your head that far up your own ass? Epicurus had a logical disproof of God a few centuries before you were born.” – Epicurus’ logic has been proven faulty BEFORE YOU were born. How is this a valid argument? And how credible you must be to say, “do you really have your hear that far up your own ass.” Really shows that morality you hold, doesn’t it?

      “17. Who was harmed that caused you to be angry with God?

      I am not angry with God and more than I am angry with Darth Vader. However, I can read or watch the story and conclude that each character is a dick.” – I can suspect from my degree in psychology that you merely mirroring your personality onto God, that would seem accurate due to the way you’re speaking. Again these questions were tailored for your friend.

      “18. Why are you angry with a God who doesn’t exist?

      See above.” – see above

      “19. Explain why the earth is fine-tuned for life.

      A puddle’s shape is fine tuned for the hole it is in for the same reason.” – That is the MOST pathetic answer I have read. I have never, in my life, seen a more sad attempt. You did not answer the question at all. A puddle fits into a hole because of its structure, so your saying the earth is fined turned because of itself? Bravo.

      2″0. Do you believe that truth is relative or absolute?

      Both. False dichotomy.” – So you mean that you will refuse to answer? Either there is absolute truth and people’s perceptions or all truth is relative. A persons perspective does not make something true.

      “21. Why do you rely heavily on your emotions for interpretation?

      Because the term “interpretation” when applied to literature pretty much necessitates it.” – Now you’re just being dishonest. Interpretation simply means, the action of explaining the meaning of something. You can read a book and interpret it correctly or wrong. Same goes for interpreting data. Would you just say that scientists haven’t tried to interpret data objectively because interpretation requires being heavily emotional? Terrible answers.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. again, evidence for your accusations, LIL. Still waiting.

         LikeLike

      2. So many thing LOL says that are so wrong they aren’t even wrong.

         (a)
         ““Where does evil come from?” Here’s a thought LIL, evil is a subjective social construct. I.e. Some people might consider slavery evil…but not the ancient Israelites. So many more.” – So asking a logical question should be condemned? Amazing. You forget as well that Christianity was the leader in our country for freedom from slavery. Evil is not subjective social construct, if you did some research into sociology you’ll find that most civilizations had a base of moral principals. How they expressed those principals are different, but moral law is self evident

         A loaded question is not a logical one…in fact it is the opposite…it is a logical fallacy. You fail. And then you sidestep my example of “evil being a social construct” with a red herring…and a rather questionable one at that. Christians were the ones who led the fight against slavery in the US, while that is true….tell me what religion were the people who were the slaveholders? HRRRRMMMMM??????

         (1)Something Natural. I.E. I did answer the question actually, if not with a level of exactness that would exceed all of mankind’s knowledge. Aww are you all pouty that I didn’t fall for your little trap????? Secondly If God are natural, then they would be measurable and falsifiable….so much for your attempted sliming that little piece of BS unnoticed.

         (2)
         As does Atheism, or have you failed to notice that your belief system supports the murder of millions of unborn babies, your belief tries to oppress those who believe in a God and so on and so forth.

         (2)Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That’s it. Secondly unborn babies???? If there such thing as unborn babies…then you are a predead corpse. Or a predecomposition bit of top soil. And therefore a predead predecomposed pregerminated lawn. Wait a second that lawn could be eaten by a baby goat. So you are a predigest part of a goat by the same reasoning.
         And a little hint for you NOT GETTING EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS NOT OPPRESSION, STOP ACTING LIKE A SPOILED BRAT.

         (3)Morality has also been proven to NOT be based on genetics

         Hahahahaha….so you like to deny all of history and genetic research in order to support your magic worldview….good one.

         (10)Holy shit you’re dense or intellectually dishonest. Every Christian claims the same thing of “We are the most correct” what they are saying is correct varies. Both her and I are saying that

         (12) So I was right…a hardened heart in your opinion is someone who calls you on you BS. Thank you for proving my point.

         (13)How is pointing out that a focus of Christianity would be inevitable in a blog done about non belief in a country that one and only one religion that outnumbers the next most popular one by a factor of 19 “missing the mark” except in your attempt to make me wrong, reality be damned?

         (15)Still waiting for that definition.

         (16)You might THINK Epicurus’ logic has been proven faulty BEFORE YOU were born, but you’d be wrong.

         (17)
         I am not angry with God and more than I am angry with Darth Vader. However, I can read or watch the story and conclude that each character is a dick.” – I can suspect from my degree in psychology that you merely mirroring your personality onto God, that would seem accurate due to the way you’re speaking.

         So you know what’s going on in my head better that I do?….amazing talent there Crecin, you should take it to Vegas.

         Yes that means I think that statement is full of shit…did you read my mind on that one too?

         (19) Damn you’re dense. A puddle fits it hole because it will conform to its hole. The artic circle is “fine tuned” to support Penguins by the way you are reason, which is wrong. See all of evolutionary theory.

         LikeLike

      3. Lol, wow.

         LikeLike

      4. “A loaded question is not a logical one”
         – So the question of morality and where is comes from is a loaded question…or you can’t answer it. It is a valid question and philosophers over centuries have drawn conclusions, if it isn’t a valid question, why would some of the worlds greatest minds try to tackle it?

         “…in fact it is the opposite…it is a logical fallacy.” -In FACT you just committed a logical fallacy by sidestepping a question.

         “And then you sidestep my example of “evil being a social construct”” – How so? Please explain how my point that civilizations have basic moral standards but are expressed differently is sidestepping. It’s observable. History can prove it.

         “with a red herring…and a rather questionable one at that.” – Do you even know what red herring is?

         “Christians were the ones who led the fight against slavery in the US, while that is true….tell me what religion were the people who were the slaveholders HRRRRMMMMM?????? ” – Try nearly every civilization until the united states abolished slavery because of Christian principals. Again, your response is answered through basic understanding of world history.

         “(1)Something Natural. I.E. I did answer the question actually, if not with a level of exactness that would exceed all of mankind’s knowledge.” – No, you did not. Also you believe in the theory of evolution, why didn’t you just say, “evolution?”

         “Aww are you all pouty that I didn’t fall for your little trap?????” – A valid question is a trap now?

         “Secondly If God are natural, then they would be measurable and falsifiable….so much for your attempted sliming that little piece of BS unnoticed.” – Does a painting have a painter? Is it natural to assume intelligent design when you see a painting?

         “Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That’s it.” – Atheism is a philosophy that questions the existence of gods. Atheists merely state this as a cop-out.

         “Secondly unborn babies???? If there such thing as unborn babies…then you are a predead corpse.” – Babies who reside in the womb of their mother are unborn. Babies are alive, your analogy fails here as terribly as your response to a fine tuned earth.

         “Wait a second that lawn could be eaten by a baby goat. So you are a predigest part of a goat by the same reasoning.” – So your trying to insult the point being made, yet you neither refute my point nor actually insult me. Congratulations.

         “And a little hint for you NOT GETTING EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS NOT OPPRESSION, STOP ACTING LIKE A SPOILED BRAT.” – What are you talking about?

         “Hahahahaha….so you like to deny all of history and genetic research in order to support your magic worldview….good one.” – Firstly, wheres your evidence for this claim? You apparently have it, please share, it should be quite easy to do. Your claim that there is proof for genetic morality is questionable at best. You laugh, but do you always take inconclusive research seriously? As such, morality is genetic in that of nurture, opposed to nature. This is a classic debate, oh look, heres a link of this debate: http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-morality-genetic

         “Holy shit you’re dense or intellectually dishonest. Every Christian claims the same thing of “We are the most correct” what they are saying is correct varies. Both her and I are saying that.” – Really? Am I intellectually dishonest or are you incoherent. You made that claim and your save was a fail. Atheists seem to think “we are all correct” and there is evidence for that, is this a valid point in our discussion? No. It’s a logical fallacy. Next.

         “So I was right…a hardened heart in your opinion is someone who calls you on you BS. Thank you for proving my point.” – Lol, mirror. And how were you right? Please share? It’s convenient that you leave out certain parts of my text while showing others.

         “How is pointing out that a focus of Christianity would be inevitable in a blog done about non belief in a country that one and only one religion that outnumbers the next most popular one by a factor of 19 “missing the mark” except in your attempt to make me wrong, reality be damned?” – Please elaborate, I have neither the patience or focus to read a run on sentence of that magnitude.

         “Still waiting for that definition.” – That definition, was from dictionary.com. LOL, I just didn’t quote, nor cite it. Look it up. Intellectually dishonest is, in this case for you, that you pretend to conduct research when you can’t realize that my definition is straight from a source of definitions.

         “You might THINK Epicurus’ logic has been proven faulty BEFORE YOU were born, but you’d be wrong.” – Why the emphasis on “BEFORE YOU?” That seems silly. I’d be wrong? Funny, the debate regarding the existence is alive and well throughout the earth.

         “So you know what’s going on in my head better that I do?….amazing talent there Crecin, you should take it to Vegas.” – You provided a silly point and I humored you with a subjective point.

         “Yes that means I think that statement is full of shit…did you read my mind on that one too?” – The first time you provide evidence and it only confirms MY thoughts. Irony.

         “Damn you’re dense. A puddle fits it hole because it will conform to its hole.” – Duh

         So the earth fine tuned itself, based on your analogy.

         “The artic circle is “fine tuned” to support Penguins by the way you are reason, which is wrong. ” – Really? Than why have so many animals become extinct? You would think that the earth would continue to fine tune itself to sustain life.

         “See all of evolutionary theory.” – Evolutionary theory is questionable as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I&feature=share

         LikeLike

      5. sigh.

         “So the question of morality and where is comes from is a loaded question…”

         No it is not. Loaded question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

         and no the earth did not fine tune itself. Again, we fit the earth, the earth did not fit us. Doug’s analogy is that the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around which is what you are claiming, the hole fits the puddle.

         And really? you wonder why animals become extinct? The environment changes faster than physical attributes change. It is only rarely that there is a major mutation that can be beneficial to a drasticly changed environmentl. The earth isn’t conscious and doesn’t fine tune itself to match animals, it is the other way around. Again, great to see someone claiming evolutionary theory is wrong and has no idea what evolutionary theory actually is. Willfull ignorance isn’t your friend.

         quite the thrashing around here.

         The theory of evolution is not questionable. We know it works and you benefit from how we know it works because we use it in modern agriculture and modern medicine. I do love you trying to claim random youtube videos as evidence. How about you take one part of that video and tell us why it is so great? Alas, it seems that again, LIL/NSC is trying to make other people do his work for him, by throwing shit at a wall and hoping someone can pick a diamond out of it for him since he can’t.

         LikeLike

      6. So it’s not a loaded question? Thanks for agreeing with me.

         As for evolution, show me the millions of fossils that have yet come into existence. You can tell me evolution is fact yet deer still run in front of cars after years of their existence. How can you conclude you’re even right under evolution?

         LikeLike

      7. “As for evolution, show me the millions of fossils that have yet come into existence.”

         what does this mean? “have yet come into existence” is meaningless.

         how long have cars existed, LIL/NSC?

         LikeLike

      8. How is it meaningless? Do explain. And I’m saying that the evidence, observeable evidence doesn’t exist. Have yet to* come into existence. Typo.

         LikeLike

      9. Tell me what this is supposed to mean ““As for evolution, show me the millions of fossils that have yet come into existence.”

         You are missing a word or two in this sentence for it to make any sense. What does “have yet come into existence” mean? Do you mean “have yet to come into existence”? If you do and we make your sentence “As for evolution, show me the millions of fossils that have yet to come into existence.” it is meaningless since fossils don’t exist until something dies and is subject to the forces that fossilize items.

         There is plenty of fossils that exist and plenty of transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

         Are you saying fossils aren’t observable? Perhaps you would like to define observable for me? Are you trying to claim that since we didn’t see evolution then it didn’t happen?

         LikeLike

      10. Fossils of adaptation. Not one kind to another. Next; macro evolution is not a bird with a different beak, it’s still a bird. Show me the fossil record of a bird turning into another bird

          LikeLike

      11. Fossils of adaptation? Ah, you are using the amusing claim that creationists use about adaptation is different than evolution aka, the attempt to claim “microevolution” and “macroevolution” as to different things. Unfortunately, they are not and use the exact same mechanism.

          This argument is always one of my favorites because it demonstrates that creationists change to match science and it never happens the other way around. it also shows that creationists can’t even agree among themselves.

          “Show me the fossil record of a bird turning into another bird”

          You have been shown that a land mammal can evolve into a sea mammal. You have been shown where dinosaurs have evolved into birds. As always, the creationist is never happy with evidence but has to demand every step. This is nothing more than the god of the gaps argument.

          You have also again shown that you have no idea what the theory of evolution says. You seem to think that it says that an eagle will spontaneously change into a sparrow. It will not. If the environment changes, a smaller eagle may survive better and then the population of eagles will tend get smaller. If even smaller still is better, the environmental pressures will select for smaller and smaller birds. If the environment changes so that there is not meat available, eagles that can eat seeds will survive and breed, and those birds will continue on. The eagles may evolve into something like a sparrow but they will not be a sparrow, for that came from a different chain of evolutionary changes.

          LikeLike

      12. Perhaps you want to learn the difference between adaptation and changing of kinds.

          LikeLike

      13. Please do tell me the difference. I’m waiting.

          LikeLike

      14. I’m sorry, I’d expect you to conduct your own research, then again you can’t provide any evidence for ANY of your claims

          LikeLike

      15. You made this claim “Perhaps you want to learn the difference between adaptation and changing of kinds.”

          I have asked you to tell me the difference and you have of course refused. I expected this because creationists cannot agree on what the term “kinds” means. Some creationists have even tried to mimic scientific research with claiming they have a science called baraminology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology , a “field” singularly devoid of research and evidence despite claims of they’ll have some “real soon now”. I wonder, are they using the word “soon” like another Christian claimed, that it must mean thousands of years since her god claimed that he’d return “soon”?

          I am asking, you, LIL/NSC, what you define as a “kind” so you can tell me what you are trying to compare with adaptation. where does a “kind” fall on the taxonomy chart? Kingdom? Phyla? Class? Order? Family? Genus? Species? Clade?

          What were the “kinds” that Noah supposedly took aboard his magical boat? You may also wish to add when the divinely caused world-wide flood happened so we can know how fast animals can change per your claims.

          LikeLike

      16. Also; where’s the missing link that there should be billions of since there are billions of humans, where are those fossils? And why have evolutions falsified missing links? Seems desperate, and there have been a lot of hoaxes. Please show me the fossils of the missing links.

          LikeLike

      17. Again, we have a Christian who is attacking the theory of evolution and who hasn’t a clue on what it actually entails. You are also ignorant on how fossils form.

          Each human would not have its own missing link. The theory of evolution says, and I am simplifying this for someone who is completely ignorant about evolution as you are, that the environment will exert pressures on living entities. The living entities with the most advantageous attributes for that environment will flourish and pass their attributes to their offspring. Those entities with less benficial attributes will not have as many, or any offspring, and the species, not the individual, will change to favor the type of entity that can exist in environment best. Fossils form rarely and only in certain circumstances. We have not dug up all of Africa to find all of the fossils. creationist argument always depend on ignoring the “yet” in all science. We may not know all of the answers “yet”, we have not found all of the fossils *yet*. Your argument is the “god of the gaps argument”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Again, plenty of transitional fossils, aka “missing links”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html You can ignore them all you like. They won’t magically disappear.

          Let me ask you, LIL/NSC, who discovered that the missing link hoaxes were hoaxes? Who were responsible for the hoaxes? You claim that there were a “lot of hoaxes”. How many, LIL/NSC?

          there have been known cases of hoaxes of miracles. Seems desperate, eh?

          LikeLike

      18. Lol prove that I don’t know what the theory of evolution entails. You are making assumptions again, and lying! Again we have an atheist trying to produce an argument. There would be millions of fossils for every transitions of every species yet, we somehow made a big jump with no evidence. I also haven’t seen a dog turn into a fish, of course a silly example. You believe in a fairy tale that says that Pokemon are real and humans were once tadpoles, than fish with legs. Iol that’s 10 times more far fetched than intelligent design. Lol deluded and no evidence

          LikeLike

      19. Your question “Also; where’s the missing link that there should be billions of since there are billions of humans, where are those fossils? And why have evolutions falsified missing links? Seems desperate, and there have been a lot of hoaxes. Please show me the fossils of the missing links.”

          “Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.” – Wikipedia

          Transitional fossils – “Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. Paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[38]

          Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, logic dictates that known fossils represent only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever existed—and that each discovery represents only a snapshot of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.[39]

          The fossil record is very uneven and, with few exceptions, is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no fossil record.[38] The groups considered to have a good fossil record, including a number of transitional fossils between traditional groups, are the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[40]
          – Wikipedia

          Again, there would not be millions of fossils for each transition, and you would know this if you knew what the theory of evolution says. Evolution affects populations, not individuals. You can correct your ignorance here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

          There is plenty of transitional fossils of hominids and we can see the increase in brain capacity through them all: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

          I haven’t seen a dog turn into a fish either, and that’s not what the theory of evolution claims either.

          No, I do not believe that pokemon are real and again, you demonstrate again that you have no idea what the theory of evolution says. Humans were never tadpoles, and again the theory of evolution never says that we were. Dogs and fish, humans and frog had a common ancestor, but we evolved in different directions from it to occupy environments that we could live and breed in.

          Keep writing, LIL/NSC. You are doing a great job in providing the evidence that you don’t know what the theory of evolution entails.

          LikeLike

      20. the question of where morality comes from is not a loaded question. Most of what you tried to ask me are. You have made baseless claims of where morality comes from and have yet to show that your claims are true. Still waiting for evidence.

          LikeLike

      21. I haven’t made ANY claims as to where morality comes from. More lies and hypocrisy. You clearly cant read either, your friend said that the question of where morality came from is a loaded question. Whose right? The OneTrueAtheist, or the other OneTrueAtheist?

          LikeLike

      22. You have claimed that morality comes from your god and that atheists cannot say where good and evil come from. Do you wish to say that this is not true now?

          LikeLike

      23. Quote where I said that morality comes from God. You’re making an assumption. And your right, atheists can’t say where they come from because there isn’t naturalistic evidence for such. Any more fails?

          LikeLike

      24. The YouTube video was for pleasure, the fact that you all want evidence yet neither nor you or your friend has produced evidence for any of your claims. Quite the short post here. I’m surprised you didn’t want to write a book

          LikeLike

      25. nice to see you again backpedal away from your claims of evidence. Now the video is “for pleasure” when you presented it as evidence ““See all of evolutionary theory.” – Evolutionary theory is questionable as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I&feature=share”

          aw, and now complaints about length of posts from LIL/NSC who started this with a 5000 plus word post and cut and pastsed so much into a comments field that it couldn’t hold anymore. 🙂

          LikeLike

      26. Where’s the observable evidence? Evolution is faith based, nothing more. And youtubes aren’t evidence, remember, hypocrisy.

          LikeLike

      27. You offered the video as evidence and support of your claims.

          Again, are you claiming that we haven’t supposed seen evolution thus it doesn’t happen?

          LikeLike

      28. It wasn’t submitted as evidence, it was for pleasure. You did, how unscholarly of you. Provide evidence that I intended the YouTube video to be evidence.

          Also; if there isn’t evidence that is observable, than by definition it is false. So you believe in the religion of evolution. Tell me, how can morality come from evolution? Tell me also; how can beings of spontaneous combustion be considered intelligent?

          LikeLike

      29. ““See all of evolutionary theory.” – Evolutionary theory is questionable as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I&feature=share”

          You claimed evolutionary theory is questionable and presented the video as support.

          So, if we have no evidence of your god, then by definition it’s false. Or do you have something that I can observe that shows *your* god exists and does things?

          Nice of you to reconfirm you think morality comes from your god and that you have said that atheists don’t know where morality comes from.

          Spontaneous combustion is when fire starts without a known source of ignition. it can also be used to describe fire that starts by chemical means, such as when hay that has been put up with too much internal moisture creates heat so that it combusts. Since there are no beings “of spontaneous combustion”, they can only be considered imaginary.

          LikeLike

      30. That’s not evidence, I didn’t cite it, nor did I say here is evidence. Prove that I submitted the video as evidence.

          Yes. I have circumstantial and logical evidence. But there is a factor of faith, much like your faith in evolutionism.

          I didn’t say morality came from my God. Also; I didn’t say anything about atheism here. Spreading lies, so moral, aren’t you. I asked; where does morality come from according to evolution?

          You’re right, I just wanted to see you respond to that lmao.

          LikeLike

      31. You cited the video as support, e.g. evidence for your claims about evolution: “Evolutionary theory is questionable as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I&feature=share”

          I do not have faith in evolution as you define it, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I have trust (I have evidence that science is reliable) that the theory of evolution is true because I have plenty of things that are seen, and the same science that supports the theory of evolution is the same science that supports forensics, modern medicine, computers, etc. I am not a hypocrite to accept this science when it makes me comfy and to reject if it shows that my fairy tales are wrong. I am still waiting for the evidence you claim to have and yes yes, I know you have asked me for mine. You have it already. Again, praying real hard or sticking your fingers in your ears won’t make things go away.

          Where LIL/NSC is wrong when he has claimed “Also; I didn’t say anything about atheism here.”

          “Or did you miss the new age movement whilst you observed the 2% of atheists in the U.S.A? People are threatened by death because of the “decent” and “humane” humans. This is also a fallacy, as atheism has produced the one of the world’s most mass murderers, Joseph Stalin.”

          I’m still wondering where he pulled this percentage out of.

          “Unfortunately there are atheists who are changing the united states constitution to “freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion.” Not to mention the atheist community whom supports abortion, which has been a mass murder more than Stalin could have conjured.”

          “As does Atheism, or have you failed to notice that your belief system supports the murder of millions of unborn babies, your belief tries to oppress those who believe in a God and so on and so forth”

          “Atheism has failed to prove anything otherwise as well, they merely stay contained in a naturalistic box while failing to address HOW we got here; WHERE morality actually comes from (though science has disproven itself most of the atheists claims for morality) and so on.”

          “Atheism is a philosophy that questions the existence of gods. Atheists merely state this as a cop-out.”

          ““Atheism has failed to prove anything otherwise as well, they merely stay contained in a naturalistic box while failing to address HOW we got here; WHERE morality actually comes from (though science has disproven itself most of the atheists claims for morality) and so on.”

          Where LIL/NSC was wrong when he said “I didn’t say morality came from my God”

          “Yet you determine God is immoral in your initial post yet can’t determine the source of morality. ”

          “Without a god your life is meaningless, purposeless, morals don’t have a source therefore are relative or don’t exist. I’m surprised you don’t understand your contradictions.”

          I’m guessing we will be treated to claims of “it’s out of context”, “That’s not what I “really” meant” and perhaps some attempts at redefining words. It’s quite amusing to see you so desperate that you now want to claim that you really meant to write spontaneous combustion when you apparently meant spontaneous generation and you “You’re right, I just wanted to see you respond to that lmao.” The “I really meant that” excuse often used to attempt to save face and try to pretend you have control over the situation.

          LikeLike

      32. Any way have fun. You’re right, I’m not going to waste my time exposing your terrible arguments, lies, hypocrisy and so forth. I mean, it only took about 10 minutes to expose you on assumptions, btw, so don’t assume that just because it took you three days to write a 5 part, fluffed up response to my first response, that it takes everyone that long to use their brain and smash on a keyboard.

          LikeLike

      33. Alas, you did not “expose” me on any assumptions. I’m still waiting for your evidence. It’s no surprise that again you say you could really honest show how wrong I am and that you again are claiming that you aren’t going to waste time doing so, after hundreds of words making more and more false claims about me.

          Nice assumption that it took me three days to write something. I *posted* it over three days to allow readers a chance to read and comment. 🙂 Always glad to see more attempts at insults, LIL/NSC. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

          LikeLike

6. More evidence pertaining to ClubS’ tendency to twist words, make baseless claims, ignore evidence, produce faulty logic, commit logical fallacies and believe she is actually being intelligent while doing so….. A conversation where you can see (if you are objective) the problems with the author.

   (This is from Vel, the proprietor. LIL/NSC did his best to waste space and time in copying so much of the comments here between me and “Potato”: https://clubschadenfreude.com/the-library/ that the comments field cut him off. Anyone who wants to read the discussion there is more than welcome to do so. The only original words from LIL/NSC are above. The rest was just cut and pastes to try to support his false claims about and he was entirely unable to present one single instance of his claims by quoting me. If he wants to post actual quotes, he is welcome to do so. He is not welcome to make baseless claims, post a wall of text and then expect other people to do his work for him.)

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Keep going LIL. 🙂

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. This is just great, LIL. We have not one instance of you being able to point out evidence for your claims, but we do get to watch you again try to throw shit at a wall and hope that some of it sticks. Poor LIL, you can’t put links to the comments, and cite where I’ve done anything wrong; you post everything and hope someone will agree with you. It’s also so nice that you are trying to waste space on my blog, another tactic of someone who has little to support his nonsense.

      “A conversation where you can see (if you are objective) the problems with the author.” ah, the classic claim that the only people who are “objective” agree with LIL. Please do show us these “problems” you with to claim that I have. What are these “problems” exactly, LIL?

      I may edit this post so it has simple links to the comments. Or I may leave it as a lovely relic of your actions.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Or to put it even more succinctly “Cool Story Bro; got evidence?” If you look at his questions, they can be categorized as (1) Attempts at ad hom…because all of them in that category are obviously looking for answers to discredit you (2)Loaded questions that have gobs of hidden assumptions (3) Appeal to ignorance.

         LikeLike

      2. LIL/NSC has claimed he has found it “distasteful” that I used his questions as a blog post.

         It’s not too hard to see that he though he was going to teach me something with these questions and didn’t want anyone to really think about these questions. His quote here: “These questions are mostly FOR you, but some of them are for my curiosity. Since they are personal, feel free to email me your answers at logicinlife92@gmail.com ”

         These questions were not “for” me at all, they were for LIL in his attempts to make further false claims.

         LikeLike

7. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a list of questions | Club Schadenfreude
8. Pingback: Clubschadenfreude, Pt 1. Evidence for “baseless claims.” Wild Assumptions. | Christ is The Cure

9. https://christisthecure.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/clubschadenfreude-pt-1-evidence-for-baseless-claims-wild-assumptions/

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. more lies. How nice.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Same fallacies

         LikeLike

      2. that you’ve used. Why yes. Still no evidence for your claims.

         LikeLike

      3. Lol, FAIL

         LikeLike

   2. Not Found

      It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search?

      LOL

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. As Mr. Spock would say “Fascinating”. 🙂

         To add, there is the chance that LIL/NSC is restructuring his blog, since he has claimed that he was in the past, to explain his change of screen name. However, entirely removing a blog post is unusual, especially as he has claimed that he has no time to respond and that he wishes to spend more time with his daughter and spent so much time on that post.

         I wonder if he found that linking to a blog that he has no control over and has made questionable comments on wasn’t the smartest thing to do.

         LikeLike

      2. It’s amusing when apologists proffer severe time constraints as the reason for not being able to properly address the arguments. You’d think the god they share such a “close and personal relationship” with would inspire them to write brilliant rebuttals to any question or challenge presented… but apparently that’s not the case. 🙂

         LikeLike

      3. Indeed. I have one Christian, thereluctantbaptist, who claims to chat with God all of the time. Unfortunately, God leaves her hanging when God doesn’t know its own bible very well. 🙂

         LikeLike

   3. I am curious, why did you remove your post, LIL/NSC?

      LikeLike

      Reply

10. Yes NSC you fail to provide evidence. Her asking for evidence is hardly a fail, unless someone looks at it at her failing to just give up as you are delusional.

    LikeLike

    Reply

11. Loaded as in his concept of “morality” is absolute, objective, and Christian.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. well, at least his own version of Christianity 🙂 His fellow Christians are quite sure he’s wrong.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Yeah and the whole not understanding that every theist says something different, yet they all insist they are right….that’s either dishonest or nigh on retarded.

          LikeLike

12. “A loaded question is not a logical one”
    – So the question of morality and where is comes from is a loaded question…or you can’t answer it. It is a valid question and philosophers over centuries have drawn conclusions, if it isn’t a valid question, why would some of the worlds greatest minds try to tackle it?

    “…in fact it is the opposite…it is a logical fallacy.” -In FACT you just committed a logical fallacy by sidestepping a question.

    I answered the question…you just wouldn’t accept it, because your definition of morality is a loaded one…hence your question is a loaded one.

    “And then you sidestep my example of “evil being a social construct”” – How so? Please explain how my point that civilizations have basic moral standards but are expressed differently is sidestepping. It’s observable. History can prove it.

    “with a red herring…and a rather questionable one at that.” – Do you even know what red herring is?

    Yes. And your words were classically one. I provide a clear and obvious and unquestionable piece of evidence that morality and you bring up something completely avoiding it. Hence…red herring.

    “Christians were the ones who led the fight against slavery in the US, while that is true….tell me what religion were the people who were the slaveholders HRRRRMMMMM?????? ” – Try nearly every civilization until the united states abolished slavery because of Christian principals. Again, your response is answered through basic understanding of world history.

    And you still avoid that slave holder in western civilization were Christian. The fight and slavery came from Enlightenment values, not Christian ones.

    “(1)Something Natural. I.E. I did answer the question actually, if not with a level of exactness that would exceed all of mankind’s knowledge.” – No, you did not. Also you believe in the theory of evolution, why didn’t you just say, “evolution?”

    Because I was addressing all three variants of your question…as I said.

    “Aww are you all pouty that I didn’t fall for your little trap?????” – A valid question is a trap now?

    No I knew the trap. I state any particular thing, and you will attack it with “You weren’t there you cannot know” You aren’t the 5th or the 50th theist to pull that one.

    “Secondly If God are natural, then they would be measurable and falsifiable….so much for your attempted sliming that little piece of BS unnoticed.” – Does a painting have a painter? Is it natural to assume intelligent design when you see a painting?

    Again you assume your premise. You need to show my something you agree was not “designed” to be a falsifiable assertion. So nothing falsifiable, nonsense assertion.

    “Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That’s it.” – Atheism is a philosophy that questions the existence of gods. Atheists merely state this as a cop-out.

    Actually both are true. And it isn’t a cop out.

    “Secondly unborn babies???? If there such thing as unborn babies…then you are a predead corpse.” – Babies who reside in the womb of their mother are unborn. Babies are alive, your analogy fails here as terribly as your response to a fine tuned earth.

    “Wait a second that lawn could be eaten by a baby goat. So you are a predigest part of a goat by the same reasoning.” – So your trying to insult the point being made, yet you neither refute my point nor actually insult me. Congratulations.

    I was insulting the absurdity of the concept of unborn babies. That you took it personally is just a bonus.

    “And a little hint for you NOT GETTING EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS NOT OPPRESSION, STOP ACTING LIKE A SPOILED BRAT.” – What are you talking about?

    You call the philosophy of atheism as responsible for oppression. Now your get pissy that I trimmed some of your blathering. Yet you completely skip the context of that particular statement, and then act all hurt and befuddled. I guess not letting you have your way is oppressing you.

    “Holy shit you’re dense or intellectually dishonest. Every Christian claims the same thing of “We are the most correct” what they are saying is correct varies. Both her and I are saying that.” – Really? Am I intellectually dishonest or are you incoherent.

    The former.

    You made that claim and your save was a fail.

    I explained it…you can’t even accept an explanation of position without saying “wrong” You are just that self absorbed. I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Atheists seem to think “we are all correct” and there is evidence for that, is this a valid point in our discussion? No. It’s a logical fallacy. Next.

    You do a Tu quoque, and call what I did a fallacy?..You understanding of what is logic is quite flawed..

    “So I was right…a hardened heart in your opinion is someone who calls you on you BS. Thank you for proving my point.” And how were you right?

    Just because I leave out some of your BS is not trying to take you out of context, you are just grasping for straws. How I was right? You think “unreasonableness” or “a hardened heart” is someone who calls you on your hidden assumption and rhetorical games.

    “How is pointing out that a focus of Christianity would be inevitable in a blog done about non belief in a country that one and only one religion that outnumbers the next most popular one by a factor of 19 “missing the mark” except in your attempt to make me wrong, reality be damned?” – Please elaborate, I have neither the patience or focus to read a run on sentence of that magnitude.

    Ypu aked “why the hyper focus on Christianity” on an Atheist blog written by American. I demonstrated why. Furthermore an atheism blog in Kuwait would focus on Islam, and one in Israel would focus on Judaism. That you need further elaboration does not speak well of either your honest or your intellect.

    “Still waiting for that definition.” – That definition, was from dictionary.com. LOL, I just didn’t quote, nor cite it. Look it up. Intellectually dishonest is, in this case for you, that you pretend to conduct research when you can’t realize that my definition is straight from a source of definitions.

    Falsifiable….I said falsifiable

    “You might THINK Epicurus’ logic has been proven faulty BEFORE YOU were born, but you’d be wrong.” – Why the emphasis on “BEFORE YOU?” That seems silly. I’d be wrong? Funny, the debate regarding the existence is alive and well throughout the earth.

    Yes, there’s debate. Logic on your side…no. Disproving Epicurus, with actual logic, no.

    “Damn you’re dense. A puddle fits it hole because it will conform to its hole.” – Duh

    So the earth fine tuned itself, based on your analogy.

    “The artic circle is “fine tuned” to support Penguins by the way you are reason, which is wrong. ” – Really? Than why have so many animals become extinct? You would think that the earth would continue to fine tune itself to sustain life

    I slightly misspoke, I meant life fits the environment, and you keep on running with that one error, even when I corrected it with this example.

    You are dense, dishonest, self righteous, ignorant…you demonstrate the qualities of those that defend theism perfectly.

    LikeLike

    Reply

13. As to the “distasteful” thing. A lot of people who believe in BS go for something to that effect when you hold their feet to the fire. Because in their mind feelings trumps evidence, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

    LikeLike

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.