We're hypocrites because we haven't compiled a list of heinous things aside from religion for you to peruse? Because we stay on-theme with what we do write here? Because, like everyone else, we have our own pet interests/issues/causes?

(July 14, 2015 at 12:04 am)KevinM1 Wrote: We're hypocrites because we haven't compiled a list of heinous things aside from religion for you to peruse?  Because we stay on-theme with what we do write here?  Because, like everyone else, we have our own pet interests/issues/causes?

If you're going to be against atrocities than be against ALL atrocities. What makes you a hypocrite is being selective. Science is your God / Absolute, yet we won't hear a peep from you about atrocities committed in the name of science.

(July 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: There are some angry people here. Some are angry at Christians like me who say things they don't like hearing. Others are angry at their parents or a former pastor who mistreated them or threatened them, etc. Some are just angry because of all the bad stuff which they attribute to religion rightly or wrongly. And some are angry at God because they know He has called them and they do not want to answer.

I'm not going to discuss it further because it makes you angry. But I did think her OP was poorly stated. That's all. Out.

I'm not angry, dude, I'm just perplexed, and I suspect that you can't answer the question I'm actually asking you, which is why you're being so remarkably evasive over it. I asked you how you know there are people here who are angry at god, and your response, where it addresses that question at all, is simply a restatement: "Some are angry at god." How do you know that?

Honestly, it's a simple question, and I asked it for a reason, which is that a lot of the time, these common theistic talking points about atheists don't have a lot behind them. Every time I ask one of you guys about this it seems like it's difficult for you to properly vocalize your thinking on this point; if you actually have a reason for believing that then great, that seems like something worth talking about that's in keeping with the purpose of this thread. If you don't, then it'd be nice if you'd just admit it, because watching you so obviously avoiding the question just makes you look increasingly shifty and frankly, there's no reason to bring up an argument based on nothing but fantasy when there's real conversations that could be had instead.

(July 14, 2015 at 12:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 12:04 am)KevinM1 Wrote: We're hypocrites because we haven't compiled a list of heinous things aside from religion for you to peruse?  Because we stay on-theme with what we do write here?  Because, like everyone else, we have our own pet interests/issues/causes?

If you're going to be against atrocities than be against ALL atrocities. What makes you a hypocrite is being selective. Science is your God / Absolute, yet we won't hear a peep from you about atrocities committed in the name of science.

Please point me to someone denying terrible shit has been done in the name of science. Then please explain how us not providing a "but, terrible shit has also happened in connection with X" caveat in our posts is somehow us implicitly condoning that terrible shit. Or how our forum membership - which you know nothing about because, shocker, people don't use the same names everywhere they go - paints an accurate picture of our motivations.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

(July 14, 2015 at 12:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you're going to be against atrocities than be against ALL atrocities.

And again, the question remains: why are you assuming we're not against other atrocities just because we don't keep a comprehensive tome of arguments against them all? Why is specific interest in one wide ranging topic hypocritical in that case, especially since there's more to theological discussion than merely the atrocities?

Ah, who am I kidding? You don't have the answers to any of those questions, because you're not really thinking about the arguments that prompted them. You're just slinging shit to see what sticks, again.

(July 14, 2015 at 12:33 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 12:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you're going to be against atrocities than be against ALL atrocities. What makes you a hypocrite is being selective. Science is your God / Absolute, yet we won't hear a peep from you about atrocities committed in the name of science.

Please point me to someone denying terrible shit has been done in the name of science.  Then please explain how us not providing a "but, terrible shit has also happened in connection with X" caveat in our posts is somehow us implicitly condoning that terrible shit.  Or how our forum membership - which you know nothing about because, shocker, people don't use the same names everywhere they go - paints an accurate picture of our motivations.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Still don't get it? I already gave you an example of "vicarious redemption" which you atheist's claim is immoral, yet you benefit off of medicines based off the very concept of another creature being sacrifice in your place in order for you to live...

So you see, if you utilize medicine, then you really don't honestly believe it is immoral then, do you?

---

(July 14, 2015 at 12:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: And again, the question remains: why are you assuming we're not against other atrocities just because we don't keep a comprehensive tome of arguments against them all? Why is specific interest in one wide ranging topic hypocritical in that case, especially since there's more to theological discussion than merely the atrocities?

Ah, who am I kidding? You don't have the answers to any of those questions, because you're not really thinking about the arguments that prompted them. You're just slinging shit to see what sticks, again. 

see above.

(July 14, 2015 at 12:41 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Still don't get it? I already gave you an example of "vicarious redemption" which you atheist's claim is immoral, yet you benefit off of medicines based off the very concept of another creature being sacrifice in your place in order for you to live...

So you see, if you utilize medicine, then you really don't honestly believe it is immoral then, do you?

(July 14, 2015 at 12:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Ah, who am I kidding? You don't have the answers to any of those questions, because you're not really thinking about the arguments that prompted them. You're just slinging shit to see what sticks, again. 

Ha ha, wow: instant confirmation.

Quote:So you see, if you utilize medicine, then you really don't honestly believe it is immoral then, do you?

Or we don't agree with your ridiculous, desperate framing. Please at least consider the possibility that everyone in the world won't be immediately convinced by your arguments.

Let me ask you something, do you consider the concept of "vicarious redemption" as you guys put it, to be immoral?

Did Huggy just imply he has never utilized modern medicine? Because he's so obviously not a hypocrite like us....

(July 14, 2015 at 12:55 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Did Huggy just imply he has never utilized modern medicine?  Because he's so obviously not a hypocrite like us....

Lol, Seriously? Point out where that was "implied".

I realize the concept of sacrifice is necessary, after all that's what Christianity is based on..

You atheist however find that concept to be immoral... get it?