If there is a creator, so what?

[Angrboda]

Well maybe he is different with me. There's always his responses to me to check.

I'm not going to reread the thread from your perspective.

TBH I think it was both very rude and intellectually dishonest of him. Here's me addressing him and here's him bolding one line of my posts and ignoring the rests and then telling me to catch up and condescending me with how he believes in me.

He doesn't have a right to be selective in what he responds to? I think you're reading motive and intent into what sounds like your disappointment in his responses to you.

But sure you can all enjoy him as long as you're only caring about how he talks to you. His selectiveness just displays his confirmation bias.

That's a non sequitur.

He probably just doesn't want me on his case so he brushed me aside. I'd spot his equivocations too easily.

That must be it. There couldn't be any other reason for the curtness of his responses.[/sarcasm]

[Edwardo Piet]

Well maybe he is different with me. There's always his responses to me to check.

I'm not going to reread the thread from your perspective.

And I don't expect you to. I was saying that everyone can see from their own perspective how badly he dealt with me. But again, you're all welcome to enjoy how he treats you.

He doesn't have a right to be selective in what he responds to?  I think you're reading motive and intent into what sounds like your disappointment in his responses to you.

Of course he has a right to be selective. I never said otherwise. It's the way he's doing it. When I make an effort to address him and he ignores all but one of my questions each time that isn't debating properly.

That's a non sequitur.

No because it's an opinion based on my observation of him not an attempt at a logically entailed conclusion. The fact that he only addresses one line of my post each time, is, in my opinion, him ignoring what he can't handle.

That must be it.  There couldn't be any other reason for the curtness of his responses.[/sarcasm]

Well his being a prick to me when I was decent to him and addressing him directly certainly makes it look like it. Both my posts were perfectly reasonable and the first response I got was his ignoring everything I said and talking about how things had gone in the thread according to him when I'd always addressed him properly the whole time... and he ignored all my questions. The second post he only answered one part of my post by saying he'd already answered it and ignored the rest of my post. Then he condescended me by saying he believed in my ability to catch up. Well I certainly don't believe in his ability to treat me decently when I treat him decently. As long as he's not being a prick to you guys you can all enjoy him.

You don't have to have my perspective to see two posts where I addressed him perfectly reasonably and his responses didn't address me at all and the second one was both ignorant and condescending.

I'm just saying that someone isn't exactly intellectually honest if they only behave that way when it suits them towards people they like. And he has no reason to dislike me because I didn't have a problem with him until he started reacting to my reasonableness so poorly.

[Edwardo Piet]

Me making an effort and him avoiding and cherry picking:

I'm more than happy to play, Ignorant.

So, I'd care in the sense of "I'm glad I know the truth and know that the universe indeed does contain a deity".

So my question now is... why should I care beyond that? Because I think that's the question that is begged.

I'll remind you how my contribution began in this thread:

"Well, let's start with a real basic and simple reason" - Me, HERE, emphasis mine.

And then this:

"something tells me a "baby-steps" approach would be our best shot of shedding light on any of this" - Me, HERE

Then carefully read these:

"I won't pretend to be the one who will provide this possibility [i.e. a description of the relation between you and god which is a convincing reason to care if it exists or not] for you, but it is my hope"

"I don't mean to imply I have a different god than any other Christian, but I try to form a fuller picture of the Christian god every day. Being able to communicate that picture... not so easy." - Me, HERE

Ignorant... I answered your question... I don't understand your reaction where you just bolded my follow up question and talked about how things had gone in the thread instead of addressing it.

1. I said I would play along and I did.

2. Are you satisfied with my answer?

3. Are you going to answer my follow up question?

I've been answering it with other people. I'd rather not have to repeat myself in responding to 4 different people. You can catch up. I believe in you.

As long as he's not behaving like this towards anyone else, eh? [/sarcasm]

[Edwardo Piet]

Well if you want to play with someone like that you're welcome to him. I think it's patently utterly ridiculous the way he addressed me--or rather failed to address me-- on both of those occasions. Each to their own. Disingenuous responses like that are below me.

[Crossless2.0]

Well if you want to play with someone like that you're welcome to him. I think it's patently utterly ridiculous the way he addressed me--or rather failed to address me-- on both of those occasions. Each to their own. Disingenuous responses like that are below me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxgbm8YDkso

[Edwardo Piet]

Tired of the diplomatic bullshit. He clearly dealt with me very poorly and I only reacted this way afterwards.

If someone is reacting to me decently but being disingenuous to others I'm not going to pretend like they're not being disingenuous.

I'm frustrated because his responses to me were entirely without provocation. In fact it was the exact opposite, he had every reason to react decently because I was being decent to him -- as I always had been!! -- But rather than respond properly like he was to others his reaction was to be an avoidant cherry-picker and to condescend me. Well if that's how he rewards decency he can go fuck himself. Intellectually honest my arse. When he fucking feels like it doesn't fucking count. His curtness was absolutely not in reaction to me because this is the first time I've ever reacted to him with anything but politeness and his response was to be a slimeball. I fucking hate the behavior of disingenuous cretins.

[Edwardo Piet]

I just deserve so much better than that crap. I know this may seem like an overreaction but I deserve so much better than that fucking avoidant shit.

"Ignorant" is indeed a very suitable name for that fucker.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant is too intellectually dishonest and full of fallacies to be worth debating with.

I just deserve so much better than that crap. I know this may seem like an overreaction but I deserve so much better than that fucking avoidant shit.

"Ignorant" is indeed a very suitable name for that fucker.

I am very sorry to have made you feel like this, Alasdair. You are very right to mention that you deserve much better, and (overreaction or not) I understand why you would react like you have. I acted poorly, and I am sorry. You have always treated me with respect, and you are right to mention that you did nothing to provoke this. I failed you. I allowed myself to get frustrated by your apparent (i.e. not real) failure to read what I had already written in answer to your question. In the time it took for me to condescendingly copy-and-paste everything BUT my answer to your question, I could have easily typed out the same answer I did for Robvalue 5 posts above. My response HERE communicates a similar failure for which I am sorry. I understand why you are saying the things you are about me, but it is my hope that, in the future, you would trust me again to have a reasonable discussion.

[dyresand]

My stance has always been that it may be possible that some sort of intelligence created our universe/reality. Currently I see no reason to conclude that there is.

But if there is one:

1) We don't know if it still exists
2) We have found no evidence of it within our universe/reality
3) We have no current means to learn anything about things outside our universe/reality, if such a thing is even coherent

My conclusion is that it is entirely irrelevant, unless new evidence emerges. In other words, it makes no practical difference to me if there is a creator.

There's all these arguments trying to establish a generic creator, such as Kalam or intelligent design. Call the creator God if you want, we haven't learnt anything about it just by giving it a title. So if I let your arguments stand, and there is a creator, can you tell me what difference it should make to me?

agreed also why the fuck should anyone worship a creator or acknowledge one without evidence. Even if there was clear evidence of such a being
in reality said creator would well should not be respected in any case other than for seeding life on this planet. But even then why should anyone 
worship it  even with clear evidence said being probably doesn't care about it's creation at all.

[Ignorant]

Okay well, I'll have to give up now Ignorant. Thanks for trying. I appreciate the respectful debate

I cannot grasp what you are talking about; or rather, why you are labelling things the way you are. You sound like a pantheist to me, that's the nearest I can get. You've ensured this "god" of yours exists by definition, while sacrificing it actually being or doing anything at all that wasn't already happening. [1] Instead it's a non-entity being given credit for things. [2]

Thanks for your willingness to hear me out!

1) That is actually close! The crucial part missing is the relational aspect of being and doing. God is being and doing, he is not ALL beings and doings (which would be pantheism). All beings and doings are and do what-they-do in a way that is distinct from god's being and doing, but they also participate and share in them. Distinct but related. Pantheism denies the distinction. So you are close!

2) So it's not so much that you wouldn't care, but more that you disagree or don't understand how this could be the case?