Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Calvanists have imaginary friends as well. Seemed like an obvious implication to me, but I'll better clarify in the future.... with you, anyway.

How do you know Calvinists have imaginary friends? I am a Calvinist and I do not have any such friend.

Not at all. You said Calvanism ".. is appealing..." I was simply demonstrating that it is not. Try and keep up.

I said Calvinism is appealing because it’s logically sound, that means it’s only appealing to those who value rationality (which is not the majority of people), please try to keep up.

Calvanists, however, call on the same god that super freaky charasmatic televangelists like Benny Hinn call upon.

Fallacy of guilty by association, please try to be rational.

Wow, you settled that didn't you!

Yup. An unsupported assertion only warrants an assertion in return.

Oops you forgot (or intentionally left out) the other four definitions for the noun “Will”!

[quote] Can you prove you are not in a matrix?

Fallacy of the red herring, you asserted you could prove you have a free will, I have seen no syllogism provided; so you were wrong.

I gave it to you in the form of conversation that you couldn't predict. However, you chose to continue to trivialize that, and so I ask again:

You didn’t assert you could give it to me in conversation, you said you could prove it, now provide the syllogism.

Did you do that, or god do that? And was my response generated by god, or was that me?

Yes.

Not at all. Classic smax is making a mockery of religion knowing all too well what many sections believe.

I haven’t seen you accurately represent what any one section believes to date, so to say you can represent what many believe is unsupported.

WOh, I see. So when a contradiction is pointed out, you'll just simply agree to both and avoid addressing the conflcting information. That's classic Stat there.

Provide the contradiction, and remember it has to actually be a logical contradiction (you seem to really struggle with the meaning of that term).

So then you concede that I have free will. Great. Don't know why it took you so long.

You acting according to your sinful and corrupted nature is not autonomous free will, nice try though.

You mean god is bad at this, right?

No, you are. Very bad.

Or am I just bad of my own free will?

No, you’re bad because you will derives from your corrupted and sinful nature. I thought you used to be a Calvinist! How come you are so embarrassingly ignorant of what Calvinists believe?

I'm actually insulted that you'd state that you and I share the same morals.

You’ll get over it.

I can tell you that morality is relative. I don't care to bicker with you over which set of moral norms is the correct one, or which set avoids circularity, or which set it logically valid. It doesn't matter in the context of our disagreement about whether or not morality is relative.

No, asserting morality is relative by only pointing to the descriptive is logically invalid. Try to provide an actual proof and you’ll see why.

As above- your desperation to avoid simply conceding that you and I have disparate moral principles (after having disagreed on those principles -with no concessions from either side....for almost two years now..isn't it?) is beyond disingenuous. As expected, however, you've proven my point for me, you know enough about that disparity to have implied that I am somehow incorrect on some unstated and nebulous issue of my moral principles. Done and done, next?

Nope, that is logically invalid again. The fact that you have an incorrect self-created set of morals in no way proves that morality itself is relative. You could create your own logical principles but that in no way proves that logical deduction is relative. You’re committing a huge category error here.

I am of the opinion that the worship of your immoral god is, itself, immoral. Do you agree that the worship of your immoral god is, itself, immoral?

Morality is not defined by your opinion, that’s where your mistake is. I could have the opinion that it is not illegal to rob a bank, that does not prove that it is not illegal. Morality exists independent of our opinions.

Nice try at getting the thread back on track, Sparts, but I can see that you don't know Waldork. Once he goes off the rails he goes WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the rails. He is much like this.


By all means feel free to keep trying but know what you are up against.

If you were paying attention you’d notice that I was not the one who derailed this thread, I simply went along with the topic change because threads like this are pointless until atheists learn the definition of a logical contradiction.