Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[fr0d0]

You just enjoy the hunt right?

I've tried to address it. It's too absurd. I can't think of it in moral terms because I can't link it. We're conditioned to think of any killing as immoral. I have more of a problem with killing animals that I do with this scenario. Is that an answer?

It is an answer, yes. Do you think that others find it so difficult to link this, that others would have more of a problem with killing a mollusk than they would with killing Bruce over their parking tickets? How could you even have a problem with killing a mollusk (or a cow, or a pig, or a sheep, or a dog..or..well...anything) if killing Bruce is a relative non-issue....upon what grounds could you make such a determination?

What could possibly have led to such a difficult scenario for you? Is this a position you've taken as a troll, fully aware that you cannot proceed to defend vicarious redemption beyond this point, or are these your earnest thoughts on the matter?
(clearly I'm flabbergasted...even I had a higher opinion of you than this statement would warrant, it's very difficult for me to accept, you understand? Ultimately opinions are like assholes....but this would be a terminus of discussion, obviously.....)

Enough with the slurs already R. It's tedious.

Animals: it's unethical to cause suffering to a sentient animal. That's straight from Peter Stringer. Can we agree on that as a base?

Am I killing Bruce now? I thought he was doing that for me without asking. Bruce dying is a non issue to me because I fail to see the connection _to_ me. My only moral stance could be that it's immoral to take your own life. So I might have a problem with his moral decisions. Myself I have no connection though. Intellectually I'm not connected. I'm not responsible for the idiocy of others.

---

By accepting forgiveness, you mean accepting the religion Christianity?

Or can she be an Atheist and believe if a God truly exists, he would forgive her? Why wouldn't the latter count if it doesn't?

I didn't mean that, no. My frame of reference is Christian redemption through sacrifice. I know of no other parallel solution. The lack of forgiveness is an all encompassing state to include all humans without it. How wide that catch net spreads I have no idea.

---

The problem I often find with these topics, is that theists don't address the actual remarks of the atheists they are debating. The "rebuttals" are typically in believer-ese. "You send yourself to hell, God doesn't." On and on it goes.

An atheist brings up facts. Theists offer rebuttals back using religion. Unfortunately fr0d0, you do this a lot. You don't address the uncomfortable facts, you just offer faith based statements.

But faith isn't about objective truth, so your opinion is all you have. I'm not judging you, but your beliefs are not provable. (the Bible isn't proof)

I'm trying very hard, as I usually do, to speak in everyday language avoiding clichés and Christian speak. I hate those, as I think it's very hard to understand for anyone. Mr included, from my atheist background. Bible speak is not really in my vocabulary. Rhythm here is the one using the big words. In asking for real examples in the real world, and offering answers in the same vein. I've challenged simple example with logic. As rationally as I can. If you can find logical fault, then I'd love to hear it. Your post in particular is full of Christian rhetoric.