(February 26, 2014 at 8:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yah that'd be it

Go on, try it: http://atheistforums.org/thread-24315.html

Then I'll admit I'm wrong.

No part of my Christian experience has ever had anything to do with fear. You're badly at the wrong tree. I don't know what kind of experience you've had, but I'm sorry for you.

"Molesting people's minds with fear" sounds like a great tag line for a psychological thriller. Or one of those cheesy threats that villains make in low-budget films. "You tell me where he's hiding, or so help me I'll molest your mind WITH FEAR!!!"

(February 26, 2014 at 1:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Now that's willful ignorance, and strict duplicity.

You use two standards to judge religion: science when assessing God as something that should exist as hard fact, according to you and idiots like you (creationists, for example), and a very unscientific approach to interpreting the exact meaning of biblical text.

Demonstrably



Me thinks your science is weak young padawan

I tend to use science and other detectable evidence for assessing existential claims because things that exist tend to be detectable, and if they aren't, how do you know that they exist at all?

But this question isn't an existential claim, it's a moral one, and morality can be reasoned out using logic, since it doesn't exist in an objective sense. It's conceptual. This isn't a double standard, it's an acknowledgement that not all claims are the same kind of claim, and your snide derision, evidently without fully understanding what my position actually is, doesn't serve you well.

I'd kill for a bacon sandwich.

Trich has me on this no gluten thing, so I would kill for a pizza.. just a slice (from NYC that place we got the fresco pizza)

So if God told me to Kill (and he had pizza gluten free but still tasted right or made it where I could eat all the pizza I wanted with no ill effects) then it is on!

(February 27, 2014 at 1:29 am)Drich Wrote: Trich has me on this no gluten thing, so I would kill for a pizza.. just a slice (from NYC that place we got the fresco pizza)

So if God told me to Kill (and he had pizza gluten free but still tasted right or made it where I could eat all the pizza I wanted with no ill effects) then it is on!

My girl does the gluten free thing, domino's does gluten free pizza. I know it's not pizza shop pizza, but could help with the edge. I had a slice of it, it was different, but not all that bad.

(February 27, 2014 at 12:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: I tend to use science and other detectable evidence for assessing existential claims because things that exist tend to be detectable, and if they aren't, how do you know that they exist at all?

But this question isn't an existential claim, it's a moral one, and morality can be reasoned out using logic, since it doesn't exist in an objective sense. It's conceptual. This isn't a double standard, it's an acknowledgement that not all claims are the same kind of claim, and your snide derision, evidently without fully understanding what my position actually is, doesn't serve you well.

The point is your use of the word "demonstrably", and the complete lack of sensible examination of the text. I can use your words to the opposite of their meaning anytime and call that immoral, but that wouldn't be honest.

I also use science to verify existential claims.

Your double standard remains: you refuse to address biblical text accurately and cite laughingly naeve misinformation rather than employ the scientific method you use for everything else that can be falsified.

(February 27, 2014 at 4:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The point is your use of the word "demonstrably", and the complete lack of sensible examination of the text. I can use your words to the opposite of their meaning anytime and call that immoral, but that wouldn't be honest.

The problem is that to be "sensible" in my examination of the text, in order to come to the conclusion you wish me to reach, would require me to sell out my principles and throw away my knowledge of right and wrong in order to bend over backwards in service of the presupposed goodness of god.

Quote:Your double standard remains: you refuse to address biblical text accurately and cite laughingly naeve misinformation rather than employ the scientific method you use for everything else that can be falsified.

I think when you say that I refuse to address the biblical text "accurately," what you mean is I refuse to address it "sycophantically." I refuse to go through the mental contortions required to spin these actions as good, nor will I accept a priori demands that god is good, and therefore anything god commands would also be good. Goodness is demonstrated through action, not commanded through word; thinking entities can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean their actions somehow contort to fit those words.

Killing is wrong. Killing children? Super wrong. For reasons I'll happily educate you on if you prove to be so completely immoral and backwards that you can't figure them out on your own. In the bible, god is depicted killing children. You say that god is good; his actions killing children prove otherwise.

This doesn't mean that I need to spin murders as a "just" thing. It just means that you are wrong, and need to seriously re-evaluate your claims, rather than just flinging shit at those who disagree with your 1984-style doublespeak bullshit.