The Argument From Nonbelief

[median]

Dude, if you wanted to insult theists, then just insult them.
This psuedo-intellectual "logic" is a waste of space and time.

I think it's pretty clear, you're just looking for an excuse to put other people down because your life is a miserable, pittiful existence.

You can fuck off now...

"We feel that love of Yahweh flowing through you!"

NOT.

I think this guy is a secret atheist and just can't stand admitting it.

[catfish]

Dude, if you wanted to insult theists, then just insult them.
This psuedo-intellectual "logic" is a waste of space and time.

I think it's pretty clear, you're just looking for an excuse to put other people down because your life is a miserable, pittiful existence.

You can fuck off now...

"We feel that love of Yahweh flowing through you!"

NOT.

I think this guy is a secret atheist and just can't stand admitting it.

Odd, I don't see you denying anything...

[Napoléon]

Odd, I don't see you denying anything...

And vice versa...

[median]

Odd, I don't see you denying anything...

Your comment wasn't worth anything more...

Maybe next time consider actually dealing with the OP instead of just trolling.

[catfish]

Your comment wasn't worth anything more...

Maybe next time consider actually dealing with the OP instead of just trolling.

LOL! You want me to address your presuppositional strawmen fallacies?
I told you that your "logic" was a waste of time and space but if you wish to discuss the OP, deal with premises 1&2. Show me that you know Yahweh's desires.
If you can't or won't demonstrate a valid reason for claiming the preimise (which I suspect is the case as you just wanted a sounding board for your little rant), I'll just assert that X=conscience/morals...

So, do you provide evidence of justification of your premises or do you accept my assertion and refute it by denying that you have any morals? Or is there perhaps some other option?
.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm more familiar than I'd like to be with presuppositionalism, and whatever the faults of the OP, that wasn't one of them.

[peacemaker]

In islam there are things unique to other religions, what is that? There is no 'BLIND FAITH', rather it is faith proved by testable evidence. So we can put this aside. Another thing is, the other popular religions are DEVIATIONS, why do i say this? I will give you an example with one popular religion called Christianity, how is this religion deviated? Jesus never ever ever said he was god or he was literally the son of God, rather he said 'i myself can do nothing, without the will of my lord', also he even submits his will to god in the bible, and the arabic way to describe a person who has submitted his will to God is called 'muslim' , in that perspective jesus was a muslim, if he was born of a mothers womb (...as a god?) and was a God he would at least say he is a god, but he didn't. it was the scholars and the churches who claimed divinity for him, and not himmself. In islam you learn to respect jesus as a prophet and a messenger,not as a god.

Peace,i will come back with more if allah/god wills.

[frz]

he even submits his will to god in the bible, and the arabic way to describe a person who has submitted his will to God is called 'muslim' , in that perspective jesus was a muslim,

let me understand this right, according to Islam ideology, all theists are muslins. So what's all the fighting about between you guys and the other religions and then muslins calling the other faiths infidels?

[Tonus]

Jesus never ever ever said he was god or he was literally the son of God,

I note that you used the word "literal." I am assuming, then, that any passage where Jesus compares himself to god or explicitly calls himself the son of god will be treated as non-literal. Because he did call himself the son of god, and his critics accused him of claiming godhood.

John 10:31-36

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

[median]

LOL! You want me to address your presuppositional strawmen fallacies?
I told you that your "logic" was a waste of time and space but if you wish to discuss the OP, deal with premises 1&2. Show me that you know Yahweh's desires.

This is the classic fallacy of attempting to shift the burden of proof. It isn't my job to show anybody the "desires" of an un-demonstrated fictional being that you call "Yahweh". And the fact that you would even make such a statement demonstrates that you're willing (as most religionists are) to spin and rationalize the text to fit the presuppositional standpoint which you committed to from the outset.

Now, if you don't think YOUR version of Santa Claus wants people to know X then don't respond to the OP!

If you can't or won't demonstrate a valid reason for claiming the preimise (which I suspect is the case as you just wanted a sounding board for your little rant), I'll just assert that X=conscience/morals...

Huh? The 3 propositions in X, according to you, are just "morals"? So then you don't think this alleged "Yahweh" exists, is omniscient, and wants everyone to "be saved"?

So, do you provide evidence of justification of your premises or do you accept my assertion and refute it by denying that you have any morals? Or is there perhaps some other option?

I don't know WTF you're talking about, or where you're going with this "morals" thing. This is a red herring, but we don't need "Yahweh" (Santa Claus) or any other mythical deity to have morals (assuming we have agreed upon what that term means). Morals precede religion.