How to tell a real freethinker

[Esquilax]

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy was invented out of thin air by Anthony Flew and has never been accepted as a logical fallacy by any real thinker.

Oh, you said it, so it must be true!

I also find it hilarious that you employed the No True Scotsman in order to discredit the No True Scotsman.

I don't even make the argument that God is always good. I do argue that he has no particular reason to speak to anybody on this planet but a praying grandmother. Yet he is good enough to do so, and you have greatly benefitted from the words Jesus spoke, before you stood silently (in effect) as evil men got rid of him. Beyond that your argument is a straw man.

You do understand that Jesus lived and died- if he existed at all- long before I was born, right?

And that I've benefited from good words that Jesus happened to say, and then theists like you decided to co-opt and claim exclusive credit for. People have been saying the things that Jesus said before the man himself- assuming he existed- and they will for many centuries to come. It's merely your own ignorance of history that makes you think that Jesus was the sole provider of anything he-supposedly- said.

Speaking of fallacies, here is one that unbelievers do every day. It's called "false in one part, therefore false in all." Ever assume the Bible is all suspect because part of it is false? That seems to be a surprisingly common logical error on sites like this, no?

Well, considering that you guys claim the book is inerrant and perfect and the word of an all knowing creator god, it shouldn't have any errors, now should it?

And believe me, the ratio of incorrect things to correct ones is way, way tilted toward the incorrect side.

I have a list of logical fallacies committed by "freethinkers" every day, if you are interested in seeing it.

If your other postings are representative of the quality of these fallacies, then I'll pass.

---

Admmitedly. BTW, doesn't that prove their God is surprisingly tolerant of sin? I keep hearing he isn't.

Well, it seems to swing pretty wildly. The moment we gained the ability to properly record god's supposed presence in the world, he sort of stopped doing things. Before that he was smiting left and right. Seems like Merciful God only appeared when Vengeful God would be seen, huh?

Nope, it's a legal tenent used every day in courts.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

No, but you ignored the argument that their beliefs led to your freedom, and I would further say that where the teachings of Jesus were hidden, the Dark Ages returned, as in Communist countries.

Their beliefs led to no such thing, their actions did. Oh, and being that I'm not American, their actions didn't even lead to my freedom, but that's beside the point.

And even if you're right- and I dispute that utterly because if that were true we'd still own slaves- it says nothing about the existence of your god. Seriously, the moral tenets written in the bible, even the good ones, are not original; other people have been using them long before your damn good book. These things aren't exclusively christian no matter how you scramble to claim ownership of basic moral decency. That alone proves they aren't divine, but even if they were exclusively christian you've got no way of proving that the bible is divinely inspired. After all, it has human authors.

(There were no Bibles to read in the Dark Ages BTW) I also argued that only a fraction of people can be shown to have ever done what Jesus said, indicating that even a tiny amount of his "sublime and benevolent" wisdom has great benefits.

Or, it shows that people tend to understand how to be decent and empathetic human beings without the aid of your holy book. Ever think of that?

He did a whole lot better in his time than Voltaire did. BTW, the first people to free their slaves en masse were the early Christians. They did it so often that Constantine was compelled to make laws concerning where and how it was to be done.

Yeah, and in freeing those slaves they would have been acting in a decidedly unchristian manner. All you're proving is that occasionally the moral thing to do is to work against the bible.

I see, so the NT writers didn't exist? Maybe you should re-read the point and who I was talking about.

Which still doesn't say a single solitary goddamn word about the existence of your god, and thus doesn't change my point. You keep trying to foist the burden of truth onto us using this bizarre logic, merely because you know you can't demonstrate even a single facet of your omnipresent god. Don't then be surprised when I turn your kindergarten logic back on itself.

Yeah I don't like that punishment. I think you should have the last thing you thought you needed, forever. Like getting rid of all the Christians. One day God will do that for you, I am quite certain.

So you're just going to throw in the towel? Your answer to my serious point regarding the flaw in your logic is going to be presuppositions and meaningless smarm?

Okay, if you must...