I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

How comes you placed my username over ML's post?

Either way I agree with him.

It's all just a bunch of fairytales. Delusional, nutcase fairytales.

Accident.

And I am happy you can agree, but that is hardly any surprise, as you are both dogmatic antitheists.

[Ace Otana]

I know.

Can't you accept it when your claims are rejected? I've never seen anyone go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about something so delusional.

I think the idea of there being a god is beyond delusional. I give theists a chance to put forward their ideas and claims and I re-think my stance as well but still I reject them. We are not dogmatic, we are non-theistic!

[Jon Paul]

I know.

Can't you accept it when your claims are rejected? I've never seen anyone go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about something so delusional.

I think the idea of there being a god is beyond delusional. I give theists a chance to put forward their ideas and claims and I re-think my stance as well but still I reject them. We are not dogmatic, we are non-theistic!

I can accept that you reject my viewpoint, yes. And as I've said, I never expected to convince or convert anyone here. And if that's all you did, then you might as well just have said that you reject my belief. But there is no point in coming here and telling me that. I gain nothing by you telling me that, because I already know it.

What I can't accept is that you define my belief errorneously for me, e.g. say that it is equivalent to the FSM, when the God my argument arrives at is clearly completely ontologically differentiated from any spatiotemporal and material being. And my belief in God, based on my arguments, is epistemically differentiated from the FSM as well, since there are not arguments in favour of FSM, or any evidence; and most notably, no actual properly basic beliefs in the existence of FSM or any other spatiotemporal being as "transcendent God", because that is categorically not what FSM is in it's very ontological nature.

You don't have to propose straw men like FSM or faires to reject my monotheism.

And what I can't accept is that you say that you have refuted my evidence, when you have only ridiculed my belief; even now, your best argument is still to call my belief "delusional"; when you say that I have no rational arguments, no evidence, when I clearly have presented rational arguments which you have not refuted, and which are not of my own making, but very much attested as valid by a large corpus of intellectuals and intelligent individuals.

[Dotard]

Jon,

You're going on and on about nobody addressing your arguements.

They have been addressed and shown to be silly. Re-read the thread. Your arguements have been adressed sir. If I am in error, and one hasn't, please point to the specific point you claim we are ignoring.

Fair 'nuff?

[Jon Paul]

They have been addressed and shown to be silly. Re-read the thread. Your arguements have been adressed sir. If I am in error, and one hasn't, please point to the specific point you claim we are ignoring.

My arguments have been shown to be silly? Please show me where. There is no response to my argument in this thread which I haven't responded to and refuted. So far, I have seen no refutation. Only fallacies.

There have been some who have addressed my arguments, but even they have not completely understood my arguments, or they have confounded with some other argument which is not my argument.

But here, I was only talking to the last 5 pages or so, of Ace and a few others, who clearly are not addressing my arguments, but just called me "delusional".

[Ryft]

I've never seen anyone go on and on ... about something so delusional.

What does "delusional" mean here?

[Minimalist]

I will continue to refer to all such nonsense as "fairy tales" in the interest of brevity. You may continue to object. It doesn't matter to me.

And I will call you intellectually bankrupt, for failing to present any rational refutation or grounds on which to deny the soundness of my arguments, and instead resorting to caricatures. You have no reason to even be in this thread.

Sonny, you're getting close to the limit. Apparently "name-calling" is something you reserve as a right for yourself?

I have been given links to believer forums (where they 'bless' each other and tell each other how right they are and kiss each others ass) as part of other discussions. They are nauseating. I have never joined one nor attempted to engage those fools because that would be trolling. It's their board, they can do what they want...no skin off my nose.

This board is entitled "Atheist Forums" yet here you are spreading jesus dust and expecting to be treated as a fully-functional human being when all you really want to do is pretend that you are so much more holy than anyone else. This may come as a surprise to you but I imagine that most of us WERE xtians (or one ilk or another) at one time. We have rejected your fairy tales (there's those words again) because 'talking snakes', 'virgin births' and 'dead jews coming back to life' make no sense in a rational world. So, if anyone is out of place around here, it is you.

Con yourself if you like but don't expect to show up here pretending to be another one of jesus' little fairies and not hear about it.

[Jon Paul]

Sonny, you're getting close to the limit. Apparently "name-calling" is something you reserve as a right for yourself?

Apparently not. Name-calling is what you reduced the discussion to. But at least I addressed the discussion in a rational manner, by pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of your activity in this thread.

This board is entitled "Atheist Forums" yet here you are spreading jesus dust and expecting to be treated as a fully-functional human being when all you really want to do is pretend that you are so much more holy than anyone else. This may come as a surprise to you but I imagine that most of us WERE xtians (or one ilk or another) at one time. We have rejected your fairy tales (there's those words again) because 'talking snakes', 'virgin births' and 'dead jews coming back to life' make no sense in a rational world. So, if anyone is out of place around here, it is you.

I've been an atheist as well. And how do you know what "all I really want" is? Are you inside my mind, are you me? You simply assume the worst. I created this thread to engage in some intellectual dialogue with atheists. I was serious about it, and so were many others who participated in the debate, unlike you. I didn't create it to "be more holy" than others.

[Ryft]

This board is entitled "Atheist Forums," yet here you are spreading Jesus dust and expecting to be treated as a fully functional human being, when all you really want to do is pretend that you are so much more holy than anyone else.

I had taken the time this afternoon to read every post in this entire thread, so my following perspective is by no means uninformed. First, I do not think Jon Paul has any expectations about how people here might treat him. His expectations are about how people here treat his arguments, given the extent of his experience with atheists claiming to esteem rational discourse. Those familiar with it know that rational discourse concentrates on the merits of the argument, not the character, attitude, circumstance, etc., of the arguer.

Second, he is a Catholic! It is practically impossible that he would think or pretend that he is holier than anyone else (given their doctrine on sin). So there are no less than three solid reasons to view your comment as extraordinarily retarded: (i) you neither know Jon Paul personally nor have magically privileged access to his internal motivations; (ii) nowhere in any of his posts has he given you reason to think he imagines himself so much more holy than you or others; (iii) the very idea stands in direct contradiction of the beliefs he does have.

We have rejected your fairy tales ...

The fact that you have rejected Christianity is not entirely relevant (however interesting it might be biographically), but rather the basis for that rejection. There is ample evidence on this board that most of the atheists here who were former Christians were so around adolescence or earlier; in other words, the level of theological literacy is comparable to that of Sunday School children. His position amounts to, "Let us evaluate now, as grown ups, the rational integrity of your objections"—with tremendous emphasis on the "rational" point, governed as it is by the unforgiving rigor of logic. And given the fascinating array of logical fallacies (e.g., Begging the Question, Straw Man, Prejudicial Language, etc.), that evaluation is, by all accounts, speaking volumes.

I suppose atheists are free to shield their beliefs behind logical fallacies, if they so choose. And theists like Jon Paul and myself will enjoy exposing those fallacies. He is not asking you to convert; he is not even asking you to be rational (although he expects you to be). But he is asking you to respond to the merits of his argument, with your response being evaluated by the unforgiving rigor of logic. If it holds up, that's great.

If it doesn't, that's great.

[Dotard]

Mr. Paul's arguements have been addressed. Those who gave reason for rejecting the arguement, according to Jon, "Just didn't understand properly".

Jon seems to think catholics, expecially long dead ones, hold a monopoly on the answers to life, the universe and everything.

Again, I ask of Jon, please post exactly what it is of your arguements or "proofs" that you are claiming are not being refuted.