What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

That threads going swimmingly, from my POV.  I say you should set a goal of doubling your daily postcount every month.  Keep the stats page on a bm'd tab, and do some real monitoring of your activity.  That way you won't have to guess.  Maybe, someday, someone will shout "hassannah!" and you'll have a good starting estimate for average posts per convert, as well as the amount of manhours devoted to that variable.  

Then the real math begins, you can determine the opportunity costs of your posts relative to whatever other evangelical activities you may be engaged in, but also "conversive noise" - that number of people who, for reasons seemingly unknown, just show up at your parish doorstep.  You'd then have actionable data.

[Huggy Bear]

Incorrect.

I'm referring to the atheists on this forum collectively as "hypocrites"

Then do not quote my post when remonstrating them, Dipshit. Make your case using the words of the person you think is the hypocrite.

I think I'll start answering your posts by quoting Westboro Baptist Church arguments.  Idiot.

The purpose of quoting you was to add context to my post which was 3 pages later. I'm accused of derailing threads enough as it is....

I think he is trying to tell you that he lumps us all together without careful reading or reflection.  When you have the word of god who needs our words?

I lumped you all together because you all tend to agree together.

Atheists on this forum constantly bring up the criminal behavior of Catholic priests, fine, but where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation? Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

[Simon Moon]

I have already responded to this classic "geography" objection. But it deserves to be re-posted, and I'll juice the formatting so it looks nicer.

Religious Beliefs are a Product of Geography

The idea that “religion is just a product of geography” sounds like a great argument for atheism. Initially.

However, just because someone is born in a place where they fail to discover the right answer about life’s important questions does not mean there is not right answer. This goes for any kind of truth claim. For example:

• If you were born in the year 1715 instead of 2015, you would probably have supported the enslavement of native Africans.
• If you were born in 2015 BC, you probably would have denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
• If you were born in modern North Korea, you probably would believe that democracy is evil.

But none of these facts proves that slavery is moral, that the sun revolves around the Earth or that dictators are a great idea. All they prove is that large numbers of people can be wrong.

For all of our political, scientific and ethical beliefs, we would say that even if other people disagree with them, and do not live in places that teach these beliefs as truths, that does not mean these beliefs are false. We can put forward rational arguments to defend these beliefs and then say that those other cultures who disagree are simply mistaken.

If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?

You responded to a different point than I was making.

I didn't mean to imply that you would be right or wrong based on your geography, only that your beliefs would be different.

And from your hypothetical Muslim self's point of view, you would believe yourself to be just as correct as you believe yourself are now.

And all the same types of apologetcis, personal experiences, flawed logical arguments (Muslims invented Kalam, by the way), references to ancient texts that you are convinced by now, you would be convinced by as a Muslim.

And from the point of view of complete outsiders (aliens for example), all religions would look equally like mythology, with insufficient evidence to support any of them.

[Silver]

Huggy: where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation?

Oh, goddamn, not this idiocy again.

[SteelCurtain]

You are one morally bankrupt asshole, you know that, Randy?

How am I the bankrupt one when I'm simply saying keep your pants on???

Because the message has shown to result in death. When you know people are forgoing condom use because of you message, but not forgoing sex because of your message---which is the worst possible outcome, and you keep supporting this message, you are morally bankrupt. If you are ignoring the results in support of the method, you tacitly support the results.

Catholic missionaries in Africa are teaching abstinence and that people shouldn't use condoms because they'll go to hell, knowing that people are going to follow the easy bit of advice and succumb to natural human desires on the harder point.

These people are teaching a doctrine that cannot hope to be followed, thereby dooming people to die who could otherwise easily be saved. It is abhorrent, and you are abhorrent for boiling it down to "just don't have sex, it's that easy."

Meanwhile millions are dying. Fuck you.

Oh. I see how it is. The Catholic Church is teaching people the truth about the intrinsic evil of contraception ALONG WITH the truth that having sex with people you are not married to is immoral and yet, because people embrace the former while ignoring the later, the Church is a fault?

How twisted is that reasoning?

The message is: Sex AFTER marriage. No contraception. NFP when appropriate.

Hey nutjob: your 'truth' is resulting in the easily preventable deaths of millions! If you support a campaign that results in deaths, then you are a blind psychopath.

If the point is to help these people, telling an entire population not to have sex is more than idiotic. It's genocidal.

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy: where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation?

Oh, goddamn, not this idiocy again.

So you quote me out of context? I do believe there is a rule against that, seeing how what you quoted was part of a larger sentance.

[Silver]

Huggy: Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

Me: Further idiocy.

Happy now?

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy: Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

Me: Further idiocy.

Happy now?

No, that's a completely different sentance, try again. You know how punctuation works right?

Further idiocy is correct.

[Silver]

I posted correctly.

It is not my fault this new system makes it impossible to quote properly with the box you are so expecting to surround your quote and mine separately.

[SteelCurtain]

It's working for everyone else...