They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[Rhea]

Sounds like Kharokov is a communist holdover who can't deal with the reality of working for a living. A true believer in the secular communist myth of an ideal society where nobody is unhappy or ever exploited. I have met immigrants who grew up in the Soviet Union who think that way. Religion is probably a better escape from reality.

Ehh, no. I don't mind work. I mind exploitative douchebags taking the majority of goods. Work is good. Training is good. Education is enjoyable.

All these things are good in a society without exploitative douchebags on top. Those on top make all of these things which are good and enjoyable feel dirty and wrong. Like I'm working for people who don't deserve it. It disgusts me. And those pieces of shit in the US military pretend like they defend you while they set things up to rip you off. They disgust me. They need to be killed. All of them.

Maybe spare the fools... but they are dangerous because they can be manipulated. So.. really, death to all of them.

I keep coming back to this, it's been on my mind all weekend.

Khakarov, this is really a dangerous and threatening rant. It's not like you at all. I'm concerned. When people change from being moderate to saying things that are very extreme ("death to them all" !!) it's noticeable and alarming.

I'm worried for you. Are you really okay? This doesn't sound like you're feeling okay.

 

[RavenSky]

... It's not about politeness. It's about the intellectually honest contest of ideas. If a thread topic is soteriology just stay on topic and if you don't think God saves anyone because He doesn't exist that's bad faith and off topic - not arguendo.

So if someone proposes a hypothetical for discussion, you think it'd be off-topic and intellectually dishonest if anyone were to break out of the hypothetical?

Is the post you linked to an example of that? Here's that link again: https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post632398

In that thread, it was Rhea wanting to stick with a hypothetical (the discussion of when Angels were made). You entered the thread to break it up and insert God's existence into the topic when it wasn't the topic. The specific post you linked is Rhea explaining it's a thread about a hypothetical to you.

Suppose I was in the middle of a discussion about soteriology with an atheist and they conceded that my hypothetical argument was (internally) coherent/consistent, and then I blindside them with a bait-and-switch gotcha...
AHA! So you DO think I'm right and that God exists.
...that would be intellectual dishonesty tantamount to trolling, and they would be right to put me in my place by reminding me that even a Harry Potter storyline can be internally consistent

Do you mean anything like this: "How can God create angels if God doesn't exist?" That's what you said in the middle of a hypothetical discussion about angels that was looking for internal consistency in the story. You even added "/thread" to underscore your "gotcha".

 

[steve_bank]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

 

[remez]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with. Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result. That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

 

[remez]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with. Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result. That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

If you're planning to argue against them, why does it matter who posts them? The logical invalidity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't dependent on who's pointing out that it uses bad logic to come to invalid conclusions.

 

[remez]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

If you're planning to argue against them, why does it matter who posts them?

The point is precisely that Steve is being hypocritical. I’m an emotional, anti-intellectual fool in his eyes. Thus it should be easy for him to meet my challenge and put me in my place.

Well Steve?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

If you're planning to argue against them, why does it matter who posts them? The logical invalidity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't dependent on who's pointing out that it uses bad logic to come to invalid conclusions.

Because he can't bully everyone, he wants only to emotionally taunt one petson to claim they lack intellectual prowess.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...

 

[Rhea]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

Let’s see if Remez can start his own thread for that topic, since it has nothing at all to do with whether questions about Christianity are trick questions.

 

[Learner]

Steve may beat him to it. His does have the knack for new threads, you can 'bank' on it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Steve may beat him to it. His does have the knack for new threads, you can 'bank' on it.

I learn...er...something everyday.

 

[remez]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

Let’s see if Remez can start his own thread for that topic, since it has nothing at all to do with whether questions about Christianity are trick questions.

Oh...I beg to differ.....it directly fits my contention with your OP. “Feed two birds with one scone.” so to speak.

But no worries anyway. He was never going to respond. Just like Yahzi stated.... but roles reversed.....

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

but................ even if he did respond....

It would have afforded me the opportunity to directly further my contention with the other overt inference of your OP. I agree with you on the primary issue that questions about Christianity are not trick questions. However you extended your OP to overtly inference that theists were non-scientific and non-intellectual. And Steve did as well. That is what you've yet to discover. I discovered your material regarding that inference to be ignorant, insulting and hypocritical. Most theists aren't that ignorant and there are atheists that ignorant. Hence my challenge to Steve.

I'm simply suggesting we count the teeth.
So.....
Now how are farmers Steve and Rhea going to respond?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Oh...I beg to differ.....it directly fits my contention with your OP. “Feed two birds with one scone.” so to speak.

But no worries anyway. He was never going to respond. Just like Yahzi stated.... but roles reversed.....

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

but................ even if he did respond....

It would have afforded me the opportunity to directly further my contention with the other overt inference of your OP. I agree with you on the primary issue that questions about Christianity are not trick questions. However you extended your OP to overtly inference that theists were non-scientific and non-intellectual. And Steve did as well. That is what you've yet to discover. I discovered your material regarding that inference to be ignorant, insulting and hypocritical. Most theists aren't that ignorant and there are atheists that ignorant. Hence my challenge to Steve.

I'm simply suggesting we count the teeth.
So.....
Now how are farmers Steve and Rhea going to respond?

Most theists aren't that ignorant? Most implies more than 50%. I'm going to require something a little more concrete than your assertion.

Based on experience and evidence, a very small percentage of theists might not be scientifically ignorant, and about the same portion are ignorant about the basis of their beliefs (and their supposed holy book(s), again, based on evidence).

 

[remez]

Oh...I beg to differ.....it directly fits my contention with your OP. “Feed two birds with one scone.” so to speak.

But no worries anyway. He was never going to respond. Just like Yahzi stated.... but roles reversed.....

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

but................ even if he did respond....

It would have afforded me the opportunity to directly further my contention with the other overt inference of your OP. I agree with you on the primary issue that questions about Christianity are not trick questions. However you extended your OP to overtly inference that theists were non-scientific and non-intellectual. And Steve did as well. That is what you've yet to discover. I discovered your material regarding that inference to be ignorant, insulting and hypocritical. Most theists aren't that ignorant and there are atheists that ignorant. Hence my challenge to Steve.

I'm simply suggesting we count the teeth.
So.....
Now how are farmers Steve and Rhea going to respond?

Most theists aren't that ignorant? Most implies more than 50%. I'm going to require something a little more concrete than your assertion.

Don't lose the context is the OP. Which infers absolute stupidity.


Most Christians (or simply most people) are not as dumb as the two farmers. That was my point.


Juxtaposed with the larger point of this....... So what if I find an atheist that ignorant. Does that mean that atheism is false? Or that atheistic reasoning is ignorant? Of course not.

 

[remez]

Let's see if Steve cares to present and defend those common counters.

If you're planning to argue against them, why does it matter who posts them? The logical invalidity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't dependent on who's pointing out that it uses bad logic to come to invalid conclusions.

Because he can't bully everyone, he wants only to emotionally taunt one petson to claim they lack intellectual prowess.

Oh come on.......Seriously to label that bullying is childish. Well beneath your ability. He should have to defend is emotional insults. Be fair.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Because he can't bully everyone, he wants only to emotionally taunt one petson to claim they lack intellectual prowess.

Oh come on.......Seriously to label that bullying is childish. Well beneath your ability. He should have to defend is emotional insults. Be fair.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[remez]

Because he can't bully everyone, he wants only to emotionally taunt one petson to claim they lack intellectual prowess.

Oh come on.......Seriously to label that bullying is childish. Well beneath your ability. He should have to defend is emotional insults. Be fair.

Pot, meet kettle.

What is it you feel I need to defend?

 

[Kharakov]

Steve may beat him to it. His does have the knack for new threads, you can 'bank' on it.

I learn...er...something everyday.

I wonder if learner knows that the great goo-glee moo-glee is a joke about nipples and dicks?

I mean, the 700 club is a joke about the 7 (g) goo club. Christians love them some dick.