(July 16, 2017 at 8:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 16, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I have been at debate online since 01, and long ago I learned that a theist always has an end game. You will try in this thread to argue you are not trying to convince anyone your God exists, then argue in another thread, or start another thread, here or on another website that he does exist. Now, do yourself a favor, if you buy the Christian bible, and view it as your source of morality, then stop trying to dodge it.
Does your paranoia also think that my posting in the Dr. Who thread is just a big ruse? I'm still not very impressed with your mind reading by the way. Now earlier in this thread, I did enter in, to correct some misconceptions about the moral argument and objective morality. Then the topic changed, and I stayed in, to have an interesting and reasoned discussion. To maybe open up to new ideas, that I had not thought of before, or perhaps to do the same for others.
And even though I'm not really aiming towards your imagined end game or have some hidden plan; even if I was, my motivations, have no bearing on reasonable discussion. It doesn't change the rational conclusion. And I don't care how long you have been debating. Do you have something that you would like to add to the discussion at hand? Because this seems more of an attempt to close down reason and discussion!
(July 16, 2017 at 5:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration. Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so?He was trying to keep his wife from harm. Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm?
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?
No sorry, you do not get to confuse observation as being paranoia. If you want paranoid just look at the head character of your holy book. God cant stand competition, cant stand criticism and at the end of the book, threatens you with revenge for not kissing his ass. THAT is paranoia.
Observing a bait and switch is an observation. Just like one knows the street corner Vegas ball and cup or 3 card Monty is a trick. See it enough over countless observations you see a pattern.
Now to be fair EVERY religion does this. Humans evolutionary wise are tribal and mostly get sold the religions of their parents before they can develop critical thinking skills. Humans have a tendency to protect that which is local and that which they are familiar with.
Now if you have a belief then defend it, but don't pretend you are not saying one thing in one thread and then something entirely different in another thread. You do, so just admit it.
Hardly paranoid. You got sold a mental ball and cup, and now you are simply either trying to convince yourself, which is not a neutral objective attitude, or you do want to convince others but don't want to admit it. It could be one or the other or a combo of both, but at a minimum it is at least one of those.
See here is what I can do that you cant do or lie to yourself and claim you are not doing. I DO want to convince you that GOD/gods/deities or the super natural in general are not true. I am not afraid of my position. I don't have to say one thing in one thread and something else in another to pretend like I don't care.
I do care about facts And the fact is our behaviors as a species do not come from any holy book, not yours not any. Sure, humans think they do. But if a label magically made humans only do good, surely we should at a minimum see a nation with no prisons, but the fact is, every nation has prisons.
Why are you here then? If you are not here to argue for the existence of the god you believe to be real, what is the point? It can only be that you are trying to convince yourself in that context.
