Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[DeistPaladin]

That post is bullshit and tedious in the extreme. You display a glaring ignorance of the subject matter.

Great! As I keep saying, if I'm so ignorant, crush me with your superior knowledge! I dare you!

Otherwise, this is just an ad hominem.

if you're really interested in testing your self proclaimed infallibility why don't you take it somewhere where it's likely to face serious challenge, instead of preaching to the converted here?

You mean like a Christian forum? Do you know of a single Christian forum that doesn't bring the banhammer down on any skeptic who argues forcefully?

[tokutter]

Your challenge is to find the weakness in this post that no other Christian could. Good luck.

That post is bullshit and tedious in the extreme. You display a glaring ignorance of the subject matter.

if you're really interested in testing your self proclaimed infallibility why don't you take it somewhere where it's likely to face serious challenge, instead of preaching to the converted here?

I and other theists challenge atheism here, because this is a place you're going to get a reasonable response.

Frodo, are you admitting you can't provide a serious challenge here?????....just wondering

[John V]

Try me. I dare you.

Done, in the original thread. As Frodo noted, your knowledge is lacking.

[fr0d0]

That post is bullshit and tedious in the extreme. You display a glaring ignorance of the subject matter.

Great! As I keep saying, if I'm so ignorant, crush me with your superior knowledge! I dare you!

Otherwise, this is just an ad hominem.

if you're really interested in testing your self proclaimed infallibility why don't you take it somewhere where it's likely to face serious challenge, instead of preaching to the converted here?

You mean like a Christian forum? Do you know of a single Christian forum that doesn't bring the banhammer down on any skeptic who argues forcefully?

Your OP is not specific enough. The main premise is incredibly weak. You pick on flaws in humanity and miss the target if that was religion. There seem to have been very few theists around at the time, and the challenges were good if dogmatic. Your claim to infallibility seems rich, More no one really have it much attention. I think deservedly.

And what about forceful theists here on this tolerant site? A measure of your mettle would be to present your case in a way that your opponent would find reasonable. That's what theists do here. Are you not up to that?

[Mystical]

Yeah cuz Ronedee presents her case reasonably.

[DeistPaladin]

There seem to have been very few theists around at the time, and the challenges were good if dogmatic.

Seriously? The "challenges" at the time were riddled with logical fallacies.

I give John V some credit here. I glanced over his response and no fallacies leap out at me. I'll be reviewing them in more detail momentarily and to avoid a "necropost" I'll be posting my response here.

Your claim to infallibility seems rich, More no one really have it much attention. I think deservedly.

I've never claimed infallibility. I've simply claimed to have debunked this argument. No Christian at the time could offer anything to bolster this collapsing argument that wasn't soaking in blatant logical fallacies.

And what about forceful theists here on this tolerant site? A measure of your mettle would be to present your case in a way that your opponent would find reasonable. That's what theists do here. Are you not up to that?

There is no way to be gentle with theists as they will always find a way to play the "hurt feelings" card. It's hard to avoid when my very existence as a skeptic to their religion is offensive to so many of them. Then if you make any arguments against the validity of their faith, they call it "bashing Christianity" and the banhammer comes down.

[fr0d0]

Post in the op.

You dismissed any point on petty grounds. Ignoring the underlying challenge.

Come on DP step up to the challenge. Go find some Christian controlled site and post an argument in a way that doesn't offend them. Why is this so hard for you?

[Mister Agenda]

Post in the op.

You dismissed any point on petty grounds. Ignoring the underlying challenge.

Come on DP step up to the challenge. Go find some Christian controlled site and post an argument in a way that doesn't offend them. Why is this so hard for you?

I'd say it's impossible to post such an argument on a Christian-controlled site without offending them.

[DeistPaladin]

Done, in the original thread. As Frodo noted, your knowledge is lacking.

Not bad in comparison to your brethren. Your response wasn't soaking in logical fallacies the way Elunico or Godchild's were. That said, I hardly broke a sweat...

Responded to here:

The Amish aren’t very concerned with gaining more followers.

I guess that's why they are one of the world's dominant religions then, huh?

Seriously, religions that aren't concerned with gaining more followers don't prosper as much as the ones that do make such concerns a priority.

This is why religions seem to concern themselves so much with victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. This was my main point of this paragraph and it applies to Christianity, at least according to its scriptures. This is a point your response glossed over.

Having obligations to both god and other people doesn’t muddy things

Actually, yes it does. Blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. How are these harmful? Yet they're so important to your god, if scripture is any indication.

Consider what is the one sin that Jesus will not forgive. You do know what that is, right? I'll let you answer that one. Hint: It's in three of the Gospels.

Incorrect, at least from a Christian viewpoint.

First note that Christians are subject to secular law.

Irrelevant. When we stand before Jesus on "Judgment Day", he'll forgive all the things we did as long asked him to while on earth. But if we are good people who didn't believe, we are not saved.

Consider, the people who do not keep the law, they shall be called "least" in where...?

Second, read the Mosaic law.

Irrelevant to Christianity, since faith in Christ is all that is needed for salvation.

When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Some do, some don’t.

Beside the point. As a secularist, I have no easy option to gain forgiveness except by asking the ones I've wronged for it. I have no option to look up in the sky and say "Sorry about that Jesus" and have the slate wiped clean.

We're talking about options to gain forgiveness here, not whether or not everyone in either secular or religious camp necessarily will seek those options.

And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

The Golden Rule is an excellent rule-of-thumb for morality but hardly unique to Christianity and it works just fine without either God or any religion.

So you still haven't provided any reason why GodWillsIt is necessary or helpful to understand either what is moral or what morality is.

It’s good because god wills it

Big Daddy in the sky says so. Got it.

By saying “just as arbitrary as any human imposed system,” you defeat your own point 3, and dent your muddy waters charge of point 1.

Do tell. You won't mind elaborating, I hope?

In advance, you may wish to take special note of my use of the adjective "any", which would include bad moral codes imposed by dictators or mafia dons.

You’re projecting.

No, this is, in fact, what they do. Next time Ryft is around, I'll let him babble that nonsense for you and you can see that many slick apologists do use this tactic as I allege.

Speak for yourself. You weren’t aware of restitution requirements or the golden rule.

Actually, I was but none of them mean a damn thing on the bottom line of who is saved and who is damned.

A religion can offer sweet words as much as it likes about "love your neighbor" and "do unto others" but these don't mean much to a god that will damn me no matter how loving I am or how much I consider the feelings of others if I didn't believe the correct unproven metaphysical stuff.

When did humans solve the problems of rape, slavery and genocide?

Read much history?

At one time, the institution of slavery was defended and supported. At one time, genocide was a common practice in war, even by "civilized" generals. Today, slavery is recognized in most circles as an abominable practice and genocide is regarded as a war crime. I never said humans created a perfect paradise on earth. I simply said our morality has evolved.

Our society's condemnation of rape is still, regrettably, not where it should be but has still gotten better from more primitive times. We don't require a woman to marry her rapist but Yahweh does.

Consider also Yahweh's admonishments to commit genocide, his rules for slavery and even his rules for how to properly rape your sex slaves. All this indicates a more primitive and barbaric concept of morality, certainly by today's standards.

Secular nationalism is a dangerous belief system. Any system which defines a group also defines those outside the group, and can be dangerous.

I never suggested that getting rid of religion will get rid of all evil in the world. There are other means to get good people to do evil things. However, what makes religion more dangerous than, say, secular nationalism, is that these other ideologies have "reality checks" that can eventually stop them. Communism collapsed because people eventually realized that it wasn't creating a "worker's paradise" as promised. The proof, for any other ideology I can think of, is in the pudding.

Religion offers no reality check. It deals with fighting devils that can't be seen, serving gods that can't be proven to exist and rewards/punishment that aren't handed out until after we're dead and can't tell anyone.

Can you support that Christianity in particular or theism in general has been a net evil to mankind?

Atheists don't fly planes into buildings.

OK, show us the results and we’ll look at them.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf

[fr0d0]

Great so now the original thread goes unanswered.

Secular morality is transient. it's based upon the prominent view of society at the time. So much breath is wasted on these forums dispatching the secular morals of biblical record it makes you wonder how anyone could express such duality without flinching.

Meanwhile, our supposed best objection to ultimate morality is.... people want to share something good.

---

I'd say it's impossible to post such an argument on a Christian-controlled site without offending them.

so there is no try?