They Are Going After The Churches:

[Leonhard]

No your argument was that only science could gather facts about the world. The moment you admit that ordinary observations informs us, you'll have to admit to knowledge outside of the realm of science. And calling all of philosophy of science 'obscurantism' I think is the height of new atheist philosophy denialism. Complete hubris.

Interestingly, nearly every argument and conclusion Aristotle made about physical science was wrong.

Yes, Aristotle living two thousand years ago didn't have the benefit of the ages, yet he advanced a lot of philosophy that laid the groundwork for Philosophy of Nature, which eventually in 19th century became something resembling science as we know it today. The fact that he was wrong about certain conclusions due to the empirical limitations of his time doesn't make him any less brilliant. Thinking so is anachronistic snobbery.

And they were wrong because they were based upon assumed premises, not verified facts.

I have a feeling you've only skimmed a few of his writings. All of his teachings were based on observations. In fact most of what he writes can be seen as a commentary and moderation on Plato's idea, where all truth was found through pure reasoning. Aristotle on the other hand argued that we'd have to begin with experiences, and from that derive understand about the world we live in.

And only science can verify or acquire facts.

You can't demonstrate this scientifically. What you're staking here is a philosophical position. The philosophy called Scientism, which is unfortunately either self-refuting or reduces science to something trivial. Like it or not if you want to take Science seriously, you'll have to take Philosophy seriously.

In fact what we're having right now, and what you've had with Seer all along is not a discussion about science, but your philosophy versus his.

All biologists will tell you that the 'survival instinct' is common to all living creatures.

Survival instinct? Yes.. Though many mammals and birds are known to sacrifice themselves to save their young. This has been known basically since... always. We didn't need modern biology to tell us this.

With regard to a social species like us, the survival instinct predisposes us towards communal living with its concomitant rules of behaviour.

I'm not even sure you're making sense. Our survival instinct to preserve our own life, predisposes us to towards... communal living? It seems in fact that the opposite is true in as much as you need to sacrifice your own wants and needs, and sometimes diminish your own chance of survival in order to participate in a group.

And again do you have any scientific evidence of this? I'm not against it, but you seem to take it for granted that science actually has evidence supporting this. I'm not even sure it qualifies as a hypothesis as I can't see what evidence would confirm or disconfirm it. To say nothing of whether what you're proposing is coherent.

It looks like pseudoscience.

Why would I want to...surely you're not arguing against Natural Selection, which is universally accepted.

But that's the problem. If you want to argue that natural selection selected for these positive social behaviors rather than merely being indifferent to them, presumably (you haven't explained much so I have to guess what you actually believe) by extended families ensuring increased survivability of everyone. The problem was by a famous evolutionary biologists as "I'd die for any of my children or eight of my nephews." This is what killed kin-selection ideas, as the selection effect of your behavior dilutes out very quickly.

Most of the evolution that happens is not by Natural Selection, but simple neutral drift. There's plenty of things in biology you can't explain using natural selection, as if any particular thing had a selection driven final cause. Plenty of things merely turned out that way. You can't just wave your arms and make a just-so story for why natural selection drove this part of human evolution, you'd have to give good evidence that this is in fact what happened. And I'm fairly dubious about such evidence, and so far you've just touted that scientists are on your side without actually giving much evidence.

There's nothing I've said here that argues against the importance of Natural Selection in explaining evolutionary biology. If you're biased against Christians, I can find you several atheist biologists saying precisely what I say. In fact finding Christians would be difficult unless I looked at Jesuit biologist professors.

[Leonhard]

Nonsense! The five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are all 'Arguments from Ignorance', and pre-scientific ignorance at that.

None of the five ways employ arguments from ignorance. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise if you feel you're capable.

[The Thinker]

On the contrary, its a sound conclusion and the consensus of the majority of theologians across the past few millennia. It requires no unsound assumptions.

No it isn't. It assumes the principle of sufficient reason, among other things. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you want consensus, 85% of professional philosophers reject LFW.

On the contrary, the five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas not only demonstrates that God must exists, but also that He is unchanging, of one simple substance, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, the source of all goodness and the end of all being.

It does no such thing. I know. I've debated it.

I answer that, something can be the cause of something else either in an accidental way, or in an essential way.

Try looking up that distinction, and read some of Ed Fesers works. He does a good job of thoroughly explaining it. At the end of the day you're equivocating between "Making something able to do something" and "Causing something to do something."

I've already read Edward Feser and reviewed some of his work, you can check that out here. I don't find any of his main arguments persuasive and give plenty of reasons why. In fact his view is self refuting since it logically requires and denies libertarian free will (LFW). Whether a cause is "accidental" or "essential" is irrelevant. LFW is an incoherent concept that cannot exist, even if you deny Thomistic metaphysics, which I definitely do. I have a logical argument proving that here: Logical Argument Against Free Will

So you're never going to ever show LFW is even possible.

With Free Will and our causal nature, God ensures that we have it and that when we cause something the end can actually obtain and the world moves. However he doesn't cause us to move in a particular way. That comes from us.

That's incoherent. If your will is necessarily caused by god (per the Aristotelian principle) you cannot be free in the LFW sense. That's like saying a puppet is free because it likes its strings.

[The Thinker]

I agree that we both land on one horn. Mine may be axiomatic in the end (perhaps circular), your, in the end, has to be circular. I don't see how you can escape that.

May be? Your grounding has to be circular. I see no way out of it, and your logic given definitely was circular.

There you go again, this is still subjective. How you define goodness. It may make God evil in your mind, but that too is subjective. It does not violate any rule of logic since the very definition of goodness or evil are subjective.

So are you admitting that your definition of goodness and evil is subjective?

I never said it was - you are the one who has constantly harped on the idea that grounding ethics in God was circular and therefore incoherent. I'm just making the point that you would suffer the same fate.

No, you've been saying for months that your moral views are more grounded than mine. That is what I want to challenge. If I suffer the same fate, then your views cannot be superior to mine. You are aware of that right?

Awhile back I made the case for why I believe morality grounded in an immutable God was superior.

And I showed why that was nonsense because your grounding for it was totally circular. But if you claim my grounding too is circular, then you are admitting your view is not superior - which is the very thing you keep falsely claiming.

So a circular argument is coherent to you?

A circular argument does not necessarily entail a contradiction which is the main thing to focus on. LFW entails a contradiction so it is impossible for it to be true, and no attempt to claim circular reasoning will ever help you. I can't understand how you can go around believing something you know is incoherent and cannot even show to be coherent. This is what happens when you believe things on faith.

And if there is no LFW how do you know that anything you wrote above is correct? How do you know what your brain dictated is correct?

Because knowing what's correct doesn't depend on LFW because, once again, LFW is an incoherent concept that cannot possibly exist regardless of whether you're a materialist or not. In fact, to even try to get LFW you wouldn't be able to trust anything you believe because they would have to be random uncaused fluctuations which no necessary connection to your situation.

I'm still waiting for you to offer a non-circular argument. Just do it. Talk about forgetting everything in our last debate.

Sure, once you admit your view is not in any way superior to mine. I've been asking you for that for months. Why is this so hard for you to admit?

[Leonhard]

No it isn't. It assumes the principle of sufficient reason, among other things. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you want consensus, 85% of professional philosophers reject LFW.

Yes, but the principle of sufficient reason is entirely reasonable. In fact its the challenge to those who believe its wrong to explain how we can give an account of anything if its denied.

It does no such thing. I know. I've debated it.

Feel free to open a thread about them.

That's incoherent. If your will is necessarily caused by god (per the Aristotelian principle) you cannot be free in the LFW sense. That's like saying a puppet is free because it likes its strings.[/QUOTE]

My decision was not caused by God. That I was able to make a decision was caused by God.

[seer]

May be? Your grounding has to be circular. I see no way out of it, and your logic given definitely was circular.

Actually no, my position could be axiomatic or as your link mentioned "ex cathedra" with God as the foundation or stopping point. But I have no dog in that fight.

So are you admitting that your definition of goodness and evil is subjective?

Are you being dense on purpose? I was answering your claim that God would be illogical to assign men to hell if human beings were determined. You can not make that case since that case would be based on how you would subjectively define goodness. In this case God could be cruel according to your lights, but that would not violate any law of logic.

No, you've been saying for months that your moral views are more grounded than mine. That is what I want to challenge. If I suffer the same fate, then your views cannot be superior to mine. You are aware of that right?

OK, I will present two choices:

1. Ethics are grounded in an immutable all knowing being, where justice is universal.

2. Ethics are grounded in mutable knowledge restricted beings, and relative, where justice is often eluded.


So why would the second option be a better grounding than the first?

Because knowing what's correct doesn't depend on LFW because, once again, LFW is an incoherent concept that cannot possibly exist regardless of whether you're a materialist or not. In fact, to even try to get LFW you wouldn't be able to trust anything you believe because they would have to be random uncaused fluctuations which no necessary connection to your situation.

Yes and your beliefs throw conscious rationality out the window. Thinker you could never answer this: Go from being determined to believe that A is true, to demonstrating that A is actually is true. And no Thinker - LFW (our decisions) are not based on random uncaused fluctuations but on conscious rational deliberations. Unlike in your theory where such deliberations play NO ROLE at all.

[The Thinker]

Yes, but the principle of sufficient reason is entirely reasonable. In fact its the challenge to those who believe its wrong to explain how we can give an account of anything if its denied.

The PSR has to be assumed, and has no real basis since brute facts are unavoidable.

Feel free to open a thread about them.

I've debated this issue to death. I'm not really interested in it right now. I really want to debate economic issues since that is one area I'm lagging behind. I need an economic libertarian to debate badly.

That's incoherent. If your will is necessarily caused by god (per the Aristotelian principle) you cannot be free in the LFW sense. That's like saying a puppet is free because it likes its strings.

My decision was not caused by God. That I was able to make a decision was caused by God.

That makes no sense. If the chain of causality that starts with god, it isn't free because it's caused by god. Period.

I challenge you to outline a chronological order of events of everything relevant that happens when you think a free decision is made and note what causes what.

[The Thinker]

Actually no, my position could be axiomatic or as your link mentioned "ex cathedra" with God as the foundation or stopping point. But I have no dog in that fight.

Your position is circular, and unintelligible.

Are you being dense on purpose? I was answering your claim that God would be illogical to assign men to hell if human beings were determined. You can not make that case since that case would be based on how you would subjectively define goodness. In this case God could be cruel according to your lights, but that would not violate any law of logic.

I'm trying to get you to finally answer my question. You seem to affirm it, and deny it, depending on what's most convenient for you. So what is it?

OK, I will present two choices:

1. Ethics are grounded in an immutable all knowing being, where justice is universal.

2. Ethics are grounded in mutable knowledge restricted beings, and relative, where justice is often eluded.


So why would the second option be a better grounding than the first?

Because the first one cannot be intellectually justified, and you know it. It has to be asserted, on no intelligible reason, either on faith or circular logic. Also, the view held in (1) is done by "mutable knowledge [by] restricted beings, [that are] relative, where justice is often eluded," so your own 2 options are circular. (1) is justified by the same method you mention in (2). Your view only has your opinion of justice.

Yes and your beliefs throw conscious rationality out the window. Thinker you could never answer this: Go from being determined to believe that A is true, to demonstrating that A is actually is true. And no Thinker - LFW (our decisions) are not based on random uncaused fluctuations but on conscious rational deliberations. Unlike in your theory where such deliberations play NO ROLE at all.

Wow, you are just spitting out canned lines as if you don't remember they've been refuted. It is actually the view of LFW that would throw rationality out the window because, as I mentioned (which you did not at all refute) to even try to get LFW you wouldn't be able to trust anything you believe because they would have to be random uncaused fluctuations which no necessary connection to your situation. It is actually on determinism, where things have causes, or explanations, does a rational being even have a chance to exist.

[Leonhard]

That makes no sense. If the chain of causality that starts with god, it isn't free because it's caused by god. Period.

Why?

I challenge you to outline a chronological order of events of everything relevant that happens when you think a free decision is made and note what causes what.

At what level? To what end?

[Leonhard]

The PSR has to be assumed, and has no real basis since brute facts are unavoidable.

From my perspective its the other way around, with the PSR being basically unavoidable if one is to have any worldview in which anything can be explained.

[Tassman]

No your argument was that only science could gather facts about the world. The moment you admit that ordinary observations informs us, you'll have to admit to knowledge outside of the realm of science.

And calling all of philosophy of science 'obscurantism' I think is the height of new atheist philosophy denialism. Complete hubris.

Yes, Aristotle living two thousand years ago didn't have the benefit of the ages, yet he advanced a lot of philosophy that laid the groundwork for Philosophy of Nature, which eventually in 19th century became something resembling science as we know it today. The fact that he was wrong about certain conclusions due to the empirical limitations of his time doesn't make him any less brilliant. Thinking so is anachronistic snobbery.

which resulted in Aristotle's wrong conclusions, are an example of how philosophy is dependent upon the verified facts that only scientific methodology can acquire. This is precisely my point.

I have a feeling you've only skimmed a few of his writings. All of his teachings were based on observations. In fact most of what he writes can be seen as a commentary and moderation on Plato's idea, where all truth was found through pure reasoning. Aristotle on the other hand argued that we'd have to begin with experiences, and from that derive understand about the world we live in.

Yes Aristotle was on the right track. So?

You can't demonstrate this scientifically. What you're staking here is a philosophical position. The philosophy called Scientism, which is unfortunately either self-refuting or reduces science to something trivial. Like it or not if you want to take Science seriously, you'll have to take Philosophy seriously.

In fact what we're having right now, and what you've had with Seer all along is not a discussion about science, but your philosophy versus his.

Yes it can be demonstrated scientifically that science produces testable, verifiable facts, as opposed to philosophy which cannot.

Survival instinct? Yes.. Though many mammals and birds are known to sacrifice themselves to save their young. This has been known basically since... always. We didn't need modern biology to tell us this.

But biology does tell us this. Many species are altruistic, including Homo sapiens; this is the basis of social cohesion which is essential for the survival of all social species

I'm not even sure you're making sense. Our survival instinct to preserve our own life, predisposes us to towards... communal living? It seems in fact that the opposite is true in as much as you need to sacrifice your own wants and needs, and sometimes diminish your own chance of survival in order to participate in a group.

And again do you have any scientific evidence of this? I'm not against it, but you seem to take it for granted that science actually has evidence supporting this. I'm not even sure it qualifies as a hypothesis as I can't see what evidence would confirm or disconfirm it. To say nothing of whether what you're proposing is coherent.

It looks like pseudoscience.

The survival instinct to is enhanced by communal living, dummy!

For social species such as us, the benefit of being part of an altruistic group outweighs the survival benefits of living alone, e.g. being part of group improves the chances of hunting food or defending against predators.

But that's the problem. If you want to argue that natural selection selected for these positive social behaviours rather than merely being indifferent to them,

<snipped>

[Tassman]

None of the five ways employ arguments from ignorance. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise if you feel you're capable.

[seer]

Your position is circular, and unintelligible.

Sheesh Thinker, what - are you twelve? Stop playing the hypocrite - if grounding ethics in God is circular then so would be any grounding for ethics that you could offer.

'm trying to get you to finally answer my question. You seem to affirm it, and deny it, depending on what's most convenient for you. So what is it?

Me? I just made it clear that your claim that God would be illogical if He assigned men to hell is bunk. It would violate no rule of logic. Try and stay on subject.

Because the first one cannot be intellectually justified, and you know it. It has to be asserted, on no intelligible reason, either on faith or circular logic. Also, the view held in (1) is done by "mutable knowledge [by] restricted beings, [that are] relative, where justice is often eluded," so your own 2 options are circular. (1) is justified by the same method you mention in (2). Your view only has your opinion of justice.

You are just making stuff up now Thinker. We are comparing two ethical theories here, and obviously the one that offers universal justice, born from a morally immutable Being, who knows how every act would effect the present and past would be far superior to one based on creatures with a fickle moral sense who have no idea of long term effects of certain moral acts and where justice is often eluded and non-existent.

Wow, you are just spitting out canned lines as if you don't remember they've been refuted. It is actually the view of LFW that would throw rationality out the window because, as I mentioned (which you did not at all refute) to even try to get LFW you wouldn't be able to trust anything you believe because they would have to be random uncaused fluctuations which no necessary connection to your situation. It is actually on determinism, where things have causes, or explanations, does a rational being even have a chance to exist.

Again, that is completely false. I believe that our rational conscious deliberations are the source of our decisions (not random fluctuations) you believe that random chemicals interactions dictate what you believe or don't. Conscious deliberations play no role in the process, so you could never know if what your chemicals dictated that you believe is true is actually true. You NEVER could close that logical circle, you just take it by faith.

[Tassman]

You are just making stuff up now Thinker. We are comparing two ethical theories here, and obviously the one that offers universal justice, born from a morally immutable Being, who knows how every act would effect the present and past would be far superior to one based on creatures with a fickle moral sense who have no idea of long term effects of certain moral acts and where justice is often eluded and non-existent.

No seer. You are only presenting one

[lilpixieofterror]

Slavery:

1. The condition in which on...

No, you haven't refuted him at all you stupid fundy. What you have done is created a strawman to refute. Here, let me help you here since you're a little show:

"In the ongoing question about whether the Bible condones human slavery, Christian apologists have come up with many ways to try and explain that it doesn't. One Christian is Glenn Miller, who wrote a piece on the Christian Think Tank website on slavery in the Bible arguing this point. To properly answer this question, one should ask whether Mosaic law allowed foreigners in Israel to be legally kept in conditions amounting to slavery."

Yet, here is what he actually said:

"Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice)."

This is what most people call a strawman. Good job!

Keep telling yourself th...

Do you feel better when you scream out absurdities, that you can't prove, like the above?

And yet, you turned out every line in the apologetic handbook:

And you've thrown out every assertion, in the fundy atheist handbook and showed you can't refute any of it.

Yes I know biblical slavery was no...

So you don't care what scholars say, you just want to keep screaming, "WAA! SLAVERY!" over and over again, even when the major details do not line up and even when the minor details don't line up either? Who cares though, an agenda has to be pressed and damn the evidence if it says what non-thinker wants it to say.

Yes I know there were many Christ...

Sorry non thinker, but definitions do not cover the wide range of beliefs and views that a societies holds and there's a reason that critical scholars tend not to quote dictionaries, when it comes to a critical study of a belief or term. Try again

Yes I know that pre...

It's perfectly relevant, non thinker, because what we are trying to establish is if the rules of Israel are any better than the society around them. I can understand why you want to create a bunch of strawman of God to refute because you can't deal with what was actually said (such as the idea that God is a realist that works with what he has and pressed the people of Israel to do better than their neighbors just as he presses us to do better than them).

Yes it may be the case that the Bible improved the conditions for slavery in the ancient world. That is irrelevant to whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery.

Of course it's 'irrelevant' because you can't refute the arguments actually made and need to make up ones to refute. Go ahead, non thinker, explain how it is 'irrelevant' because the central understanding of Christianity is that the law isn't complete. Again, who cares about details? An agenda has to be pressed and screw the details that proves you wrong.

Yes I know that in ancient Israel people sold themselves to pay off debt and to avoid starvation and that this was common in that area at that time. That is irrelevant to whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery.

Translation: "WAAA! I DON'T CARE ABOUT DETAILS, I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SCREAM SLAVERY! AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS!"

Isn't that more honest than pretending that you're interested in the details?

Yes I know foreigners in ancient Isra...

And did other countries, allow foreigners to become wealthy? Yet again, you scream, "WAAA SLAVERY!" over and over again because that's the only argument you have. We both know that when most westners hear 'slavery' what they think of non-thinker and what emotional images you're trying to conjure up. You just want to keep screaming, "WAAAA! SLAVERY!" over and over again because you have no real arguments.

Apparently you don't know the definition of "some" : Some of them are aimed at a more general Christian theology

I highly doubt none apply to you.

Really? Like what 'general Christian theology' are you talking about, non thinker? Since you keep showing a total and complete ignorance for basic biblical interpretation and Christian theology, I call you out on this to name specific 'Christian theology' that you think your idiotic questions refer to. If anything, you're 'questions' show you don't understand Christian theology at all, but think you do.

Ignoring things I cannot refute? Really? Prove it.

All one has to do is see how you keep changing up arguments and screaming, "WAA IRRELEVANT!" whenever you run into anything you can't refute. You did that above, just now, with your screaming rants against what I said because we both know what the whole, "WAA SLAVERY!" screams of yours conjure up. You just want to flat ignore that words have connotations too, so you can keep your failed talking point afloat.

And your life is to serve your husband's needs. That's god's intention for you.

Already refuted, non thinker. Why do you think repeating your same failed talking points, over and over again, makes them true? Do you think if you scream that phrase long enough and hard enough, all those hard arguments, you can't refute, will go up in smoke? Your lifelong goal is to be the biggest fundy atheist moron that has ever existed. You're well on your way, but you have a long way to go still to catch up to doubting john and his lot.

More example of your inability to perform logic. No Christian thinks Islam is true, so therefore, according to your logic, let's call it lilditzy logic, no Christians should care about Islamic beliefs or its spread, right? Makes perfect sense.

More of your rambling stupidity where you make up what you want to hear instead of dealing with what your opponents actually said. My logic says nothing of the sort and I challenge you to show where it says that. My actual logic says Christians do not want Islam nor atheism to spread because they are not Muslims or atheist, but Christians. Do you ever get tired of making up things your opponents said, so you can make it easier to refute?

Um, it says so in the Bible: they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Non thinker, did you actually READ the entire Psalm instead of finding soundbites to throw out there? Here is what Psalm 14:3 says:

"All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."

If you were busy studying the Bible vs throwing out fundy atheist soundbites, you would have understood what was being said here. See, Jews say only God is good and nobody else is or did you ever ask yourself why when Jesus was called good he would say something like, "Why are you calling me good?" See fundy boy, instead of throwing up fundy atheist soundbites, you should try getting yourself a study Bible and actually READING the book you spend all of your time obsessing over since it's clear as day that you don't even understand a basic Jewish understanding of the term 'good'. Only God is good, according to Jewish thought. You would think that somebody who claims to be a thinker that spends his time obsessing over a religion he believes his false would know something as basic as that.

This is a belief many, if not most Christians have believed in the past 2000 years.

No non thinker, that is a belief your black/white fundy brain has made up because you're a moron that can't read for context. Try actually reading an entire Psalm, before you decide to rip a verse out of it to use. It will keep the egg off your face.

I asked you to answer them because I think you'd do a really bad job doing so, and some of the questions apply to all Christians, but not all of them do.

I have answered them and thus far, you're doing a great job of showing just how much of a fundy you are and how little you understand the religion you claim you can refute. Did you actually read all of Pslam 14 before you decided to blurt something out that showed you didn't understand the Psalm at all? It's a very basic understanding of Jewish thought non thinker. Nobody is good, believer or non believer, but God. If you had taken 3 minutes to read the entire Pslam and another few minutes reading some basic commentaries. Goodness is said to flow from the nature of God and be part of his nature. That would mean that man, has no goodness. Does it mean that believers and non believers alike, can't be 'good'? According to the standards of God, no, but this applies equally to believers and non believers alike. Not just believers. Seriously, please stop talking about Christian theology because it's clear that you don't understand any of it.

The question is on the theist to explain why god wou...

I understand that you want to keep screaming, "WAAA ANSWER THE QUESTION!" because you don't have an answer for me, but answering a loaded question, with a question, is a perfectly valid strategy. Your base of your question is under attack. On what bases do you make the claim that the size of the universe should have any bearing on if God exist.

There is also an argument from scale which argues that the size of the universe is more probably on naturalism than theism.

Hummm, fundy atheist talking points are something I could care less about fundy boy because at Sunday school, the Christians there said the amazing majesty and size of the universe spoke of God's majesty. Beyond his own personal opinion, does he have anything at all to state that the God needs and tiny universe, to exist? Anything at all because I could point out that James Hammam (who does hold several degrees, including one in physics) doesn't seem to think that the size of the universe has any bearing on this at all. While it's cute to watch you throw out a bunch of claims, do you have any evidence behind these claims or do I need to believe whatever fundy atheist talking point you'll throw out next?

I never said the Bible assumes god will answer every que...

I would of thought that stuff like Jersey Shores or the mindless parade of mindless reality TV shows would tell you that most people just want to be entertained and could care less about 'life's deeper questions' there non thinker. Did you even give this question a second of your thought? My point about you is you assume that God will automatically do everything and solve everything, including answering questions and everything else, but where is any of that actually stated in the Bible? See, non thinker, you like putting others on the spot, but don't like it when people turn things around on you and put you on the spot. I know, you like sitting on your judgment seat and casting down divine judgments, but I want to watch you back up your opinion with some actual data and facts. See, what you want to do is act as though Christians should be able to answer anything and everything your tiny fundy brain can throw out there, including, "DUH HOW DO YOU KEEP FROM GETTING BOARD IN HEAVEN!" seems to show how selfish you truly are and how you seem to think God should be centered on you (this isn't including the fact that only boring people get board). Poor fundy boy, doesn't like it when he doesn't get to sit on his judgment throne and cast down divine judgments upon the rest of us.

My 8th question in absolutely no way assumes Christians think atheists are evil. All it is talking about is the logical grounding of morality. Stop making stuff up.

Yeah it does because you're just repeating your same obsessions over and over again. Why are you so obsessed with this same point?

If course I care what the answer is - I wouldn't ask it if I didn't care. The question is to start a conversation. That's what philosophy is. The answer sucks and Christians can't intellectually defend it.

So cute to watch you spin and spin rather than just admit that you don't care what the answers are and just want to be able to sit on your judgment seat and cast down divine judgments upon Christians/Christianity. Poor fundy boy, beyond your personal opinion that the answer 'sucks' do you actually have a reason I should care what your opinion is?

This is more lilditzy nonsense. The 10th question covers meaning of life - which none of the others do. So you're totally wrong here.

Of course it's 'nonsense' because you can't refute it. Yeah, it is the same question covered yet again about how you seem to have this obsession with 'proving' atheist are not evil. Why are you so obsessed, with that point?

You should answer all of them, ho...

Irony at it's finest, since I already did that and you just didn't like my answers and decided to scream and cry about it because you can't admit that your obsessions color your views. Just as you didn't bother to read all of Psalm 14, you keep making all these mistakes and blaming others for your own failures and projecting your flaws upon others. I don't hate you at all, I just teat you like the bully you are and you don't like it. When you can learn to stop being a bully, you will be treated differently. Since you haven't learned to stop bullying Christians; I will continue to treat you the same way you treat Christians. If this is wrong, go ahead and show me where you've treated Christians with respect vs mindlessly attacking any Christian you run into.

Right, and that's why you spend so much time responding to me! LOL. I'm at work now and I'm getting paid to debate religitards like you.

Yes because we all know less than 1/20th of my time, per day, is proof positive that I must have all the time in the world. I also guess your job must be pretty easy if you have time to goof off all day. Don't worry, a robot will be doing your job one day for you.

Simple, because your source claimed that the Israelites never had a condition where they can force other societies into servitude, but they did. Therefore your source is wrong, or lying.

Interesting because here is what he said:

"The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable."
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Are you a liar, are you just massively incompetent, or both because it's clear he didn't say what you claimed he said and said the opposite. Oops...

How could your puny brain handle all that knowledge?

In other words, I shut down yet another one of your strawman and this is your way of saying that, "Crap, that didn't work, but I'm too full of pride to admit I was wrong again!"

The whole point is why did women have to do it? Why desi...

I have already refuted this comment of yours previously, but it seems you just flat ignored that I have already established that female leadership existed in the Bible and in the church and just repeated yourself because you're too stupid to refute any of it. Go back and reread those responses and refute them or admit you can't. We both know that you can't and just have repeating your talking points in the sad hopes if you pound your fist against your podium and repeat the over and over again, they might magically become true.

Why have these verses at all: (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) (Genesis 3:16) (1 Timothy 2:10-15)

Answer them yourself. Your links have shown to just not be reliable.

Sorry, but you showed that you couldn't read and/or just lied about what you claimed he said, so I understand that you want it all to go away because you're talking points are failing, but you have been caught, red handed, lying about what you claimed was said or you're just too stupid to read at a basic level of comprehension. Just to reestablish that you lied and/or can't read, you said:

"Simple, because your source claimed that the Israelites never had a condition where they can force other societies into servitude, but they did. Therefore your source is wrong, or lying."

He actually said:

"The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable. "

He gave conditions, that you ignored. Sorry, but his quite on point, you just want him to go away because you can't refute any of it and know it. Sorry, but you can't magically make him go away and even if we assume he was wrong on that point, it doesn't prove he was wrong on other points too. Yet again, more of your lazy thinking, in action, because you want to wash away stuff you can't refute. Poor fundy boy, so frustrated, but incapable of admitting defeat! Now please get to it, tell us why Glenn Miller is wrong or admit you can't and just hoping to make those arguments disappear into a puff of smoke.

More lil ditzy nonsense. I said nothing about abs...

No, he didn't. The problem is you're too stupid to understand what he said and just keep making up what he said. Once a fundy, always a fundy, eh fundy boy?

A Christian, telling me to deal with reality?

Yep, that hatred of Christians, comes shining though again. Yet, you wonder why I treat you like a bully when you keep trying to bully Christians with your hate and anger? Sorry, fundy boy, but I will continue to treat you like the trash you really are until you can show me and other Christians the respect we deserve. Until that time comes, keep showing how big of a bigot you truly are and I will keep giving you a bloody nose.

1. It is allowed. And the 'ter..

Sorry non thinker, but 10 year old didn't reach the age of puberty, in the ancient world half wit. It's only been in the about the past 150 years, that the average age of puberty started dropping, we'd be looking at more like 15-17, as when most people would be 'adults' and isn't that around the average age of consent today, in many parts of the west today anyway? Don't believe me? Here is an LATimes article on this very issue from 8 years ago:

"The first 100 years that medical records were kept on the age of onset of menstruation saw continuous drops. Between about 1850 and 1950 in Europe, the average age of a girl's first period dropped from about 17 to about 13."
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan...h/he-puberty21

Oops... how embarrassing that you keep making these basic mistakes and yet try to portray yourself as a critical thinker that can refute Christianity when you keep making basic mistakes about something like human biology. That's a pretty good laugh. I do love your new strawman here though about how you seem to think I want to lower the age of consent, but where did I say anything about that? Oh, that's right, no where. You made it up like you make up things about your opponents when you're back is against the wall and you can't admit you were wrong again. Keep digging fundy boy and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything, no matter what!

2. You dumb rib-lady, I already responded to that:
[*]Yes I know there were many Christian abolitionists who fought against slavery in the West. That is irrelevant to whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery.

Nope, not at all fundy boy. I know you want that point to go away because your tiny fundy brain can't process it, but not you really didn't because why did Christians fight against slavery, non thinker?

It is irrelev...

Decontextualized soundbites and not arguments, fundy boy. If that's true, here's your own words:

"And your life is to serve your husband's needs."

Therefore, following The Thinker Logic^TM, you're a sexist! It's always great how your sword keeps cutting off your own head and you're too stupid to realize it. Sorry, non thinker, but you need more than decontextualized soundbites, to make your failed arguments work.

Congrats for making an actual argum...

I see you keep making this same bald assertion, but have not actually backed up your claims. Go ahead and back it up, fundy boy and please give your sources that you used to prove your claim.

Ha ha, no. First, yes I know many were Chri...

AKA you have no response. Nice. Too bad many of your precious 'enlightenment' thinkers were also Christians that were influenced by their religion eh? Oops...

Sleeping with lots of women isn't treating them like sex objects. You can have lots of sex and still treat people as human beings. Most Christians don't know this.

Yeah we do know that you're filling people with lies that will destroy their lives and lead to their unhappiness because it will not work. See non thinker, you can have lots of sex and still treat people like human beings, that isn't at all what I said (yet another case of you making up things to refute vs dealing with what was actually said) because if that was actually true, my husband and I would be in a lot of trouble. No, my true argument (which you ignored) is that sleeping with lots of women, isn't treating women like people, but objects to sleep with. Something you haven't refuted yet. Try to refute what I actually said vs what you wanted to me to say.

That is the logical equivalent of your argu...

Nope, it's your strawman recreations of my arguments because you're too stupid to refute them, so you leave out critical details of my arguments and make up what I said vs dealing with what I said. Yep classic non thinker, too stupid to refute what his opponents say, so makes up what they say.

This:

(1) In the Ch...

Prove it...

... blah blah blah...

Sorry. I'm not 'doing the same thing I accuse atheist of doing' because you're just doing the classic elephant hurling game where you throw out tons and tons of stuff, hope nobody takes the time to refute it all, so you can declare victory. Sorry, non thinker, but unlike you, I have a life and more important things to do than listening to your ranting and raving all day.