What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

---

Edit: Almost forgot; there aren't any examples of you being dishonest on these forums? Ok.

*looks a mere two pages back*

No. You've never been so dishonest as to knowingly misrepresent another forum member's words in the attempt to score a petty personal point. That's so beneath one of your stature isn't it?

Fucking christ you're delusional.

I'm still waiting for an example of my "dishonesty", in the meantime here are 10 examples from atheists as promised,
1. Bad wolfs double-standard
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid613111


Long post, edited it down to the relevant parts, can read the full post from the link.

Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves.

As you can see making the distinction between servant/slave is semantics according to Bad wolf, except when it benefits HIS argument..
2.Esquilax's dishonesty
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615667

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

Esquilax claims the bible state that "slaves" CAN be beaten... he has yet to provide that passage.
3. Wyrd of Gawd claiming Abraham "sliced and diced" Issac
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24532-po...#pid623283

Abraham never "sliced and diced" Issac.

4. FatAndFaithless the scientific genius...
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729642

Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is.  Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind.  Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't.  Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.  

Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

And for those that say he corrected himself, he did not, he made an excuse then gave another wrong answer.

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

*underlined by me*
"verify the result" isn't the second step either...
5. Oukoida trying to explain the placebo effect.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid753059

I'm kinda glad there is a kudos button since it exposes all the mental midgets.

Every link you posted compared the placebo effect as it related to Parkinson disease..

This is not the placebo effect and I'll tell you why... DOPAMINE IS THE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. So OF COURSE if someone with Parkinson's brain, for whatever reason, released dopamine, they will see improvement.

This is from your own website  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001762/


The brain producing dopamine because of reward mechanisms, which in turn has an affect on Parkinson's, is not the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is not limited to any specific disease. The example I posted was about cancer, on which dopamine has no effect.

Nice try though... really.

6. Parkers Tan's muppetry
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid837840
Parkers Tan's attempt to discredit Gallup world poll...

An opinion poll is not a report. It can be done in a few days with no problem.

A report, on the other hand, requires some time to gather and collate the data into a sensible whole, because it is not a simple telephone poll -- which are inherently biased -- but rather, a collection of statistics drawn out to find data.

Except HIS source acknowledges it's info is based off of Gallup, in fact his report mention Gallup 37 times.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid839178

Really? you freaking Muppet...
page 133 in the Bibliography
And in case you don't know what a bibliography is
As a matter of fact, Gallup is mentioned all throughout that report, lets see
Page 5
Also on pages 6,7,10,11,13,18,19,35,38,56,74,100,118,126,136,137,145,148 and 149
Now what's your excuse?

7. Parkers tan (again)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846505
After making it clear that Gallup world poll (his opinion) wasn't a reliable source, guess who uses it when it's convenient for his argument?

Heeyyy, look who's using Gallup!

8. Fidel_Castronaut aka Pandæmonium
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid848245
Pandæmonium believing that Denmark has a secular government in spite of being provided with proof that it doesn't, and refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong.

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

9. Judi Lynn flip-flopping on her "morals"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32260-po...#pid905650

Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-p...#pid906588

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

10. SteelCurtain being dishonest about the definition of an "outreach program"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33672-po...#pid954581

We're arguing semantics now? You clearly defined what you thought outreach meant.
(emphasis mine)
I don't know how that statement doesn't imply that all outreach programs are religious, especially since YOU'RE the only one that equated outreach to religion. Now all of the sudden you're backpedaling....
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33629-po...#pid952643
Hypocrite
Went from "Outreach is a church mission" to "not all outreach programs are religious" pretty quick also.
My bad, I didn't realize that you don't have enough self control to simply not respond to my posts...

---

You just love to hoard quotes to spin twist and misrepresent in a lame attempt to make others look bad don't you.

I would pity you if your actions weren't as reprehensible as they are sad.

[Ravenshire]

The problem you have with understanding atheism is understanding what it isn't.  I don't care what other atheists think about rape, except to the extent that I would prefer that no one be in favor of rape.  Harris is not my ideal, nor my spokesman.   The fact that the religious regularly appeal to authority doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Beyond that, Harris didn't condone rape, and if you think he did, you aren't really thinking.  If you prefer to have your shin broken to having your kneecap broken are you expressing a fondness for broken knees?

I understand, Jenny. I read how Dawkins got into hot water over tweets to this effect.

My point was simply to illustrate that just as "Atheists Condone Rape" is a silly accusation, the idea that God condones rape is even more stupid.

Except that your gawd not only condones it, the bitch codified it.

[Ravenshire]

Now, PT, don't go putting words into his mouth.

If only we could get Randy to return the favor.

[Cato]

...the idea that God condones rape is even more stupid.

Let's revue some facts. The Bible, best selling book of all time, was authored or inspired by God. No? The Bible clearly depicts this God character ordering rape. Yet you say God condoning rape is stupid.

Let me guess Randy, God told the vanquishers to keep virgin girls because of their superior knitting skills.

[Huggy Bear]

You just love to hoard quotes to spin twist and misrepresent in a lame attempt to make others look bad don't you.

I would pity you if your actions weren't as reprehensible as they are sad.

You can't accuse me of misrepresentation when I provided a link to every single post. Feel free to go back and read them in the proper context if you wish.

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

[Longhorn]

So....

You expected us to point out the fallacy you made and notice how you dishonestly quote mined Sam Harris and posted it anyway?

Great plan. 12/11 for effort, and a big F for being a disingenuous asshole.

By the way, I'm keeping my fucking promise Randy.

'Ethnic profiling is the only reasonable security measure that has been thwarted in the war on terrorism.' Ann Coulter's 'Mineta's Bataan Death March,' 2/28/02

Randy, and all xtians are blatant racists. One of them said it, that means they all believe it.

Racist.

OF COURSE I WAS MAKING A POINT.

Does anyone in their right minds think Sam Harris actually condones rape?

My post illustrated the absurdity of all those saying similar things about God.

Whoa. I never expected anyone to miss that...I need to lower my estimation of the group and quick.

Do you ever get tired of your flawed comparisons? They don't make sense to the rest of the world.

You mean saying that this thing that can't be shown to exist, who allegedly inspired a book that tells raped women they have to marry their rapist and be continually raped condones rape is the same as saying that a fully existent person whose existence can be easily demonstrated condones rape when that person hasn't said anything to indicate it.

Brilliant. I see your side now.

And are you implying Sam Harris is our version of a god? Because, no.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now, PT, don't go putting words into his mouth.

I know, I know, I should wait until he's consulted the Bible to determine his stance on the matter before I comment on his views.

[Esquilax]

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

I already did that: you asserted I'd never provided a bible verse I said I had, when I had in fact done so in that thread. Even if you don't agree with the way I took that verse, you at least have to admit that I did provide the verse within the context of my own position. You disagreeing with me doesn't just make my entire argument vanish from existence, it just means you don't find it convincing.

That's not surprising; you've proven yourself notoriously hard to convince with reasoned argument and justified evidence, where it conflicts with what you want to be true.

[Huggy Bear]

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

I already did that: you asserted I'd never provided a bible verse I said I had, when I had in fact done so in that thread. Even if you don't agree with the way I took that verse, you at least have to admit that I did provide the verse within the context of my own position. You disagreeing with me doesn't just make my entire argument vanish from existence, it just means you don't find it convincing.

That's not surprising; you've proven yourself notoriously hard to convince with reasoned argument and justified evidence, where it conflicts with what you want to be true.

When did you provide a passage that states "slaves" can be beaten? Your exact quote..

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

Or are you moving the goal posts.

Post the scripture again if you'd be so kind, so everyone can see.

[Esquilax]

Or are you moving the goal posts.

Post the scripture again if you'd be so kind, so everyone can see.

I posted the scripture in the thread, and in fact I linked back to that exact post yesterday, in response to your initial claim. Like I said, whether you agree with my interpretation of the verse or not- and you christians are oh so into interpreting scriptures- claiming that I simply didn't post it is nothing more than a lie.

In fact, even within the first thread, you'd said I'd yet to post that verse, days after I'd originally posted it.