What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay, Cato.

Believe what you want. You've been shown the correct interpretations. If it consoles you somehow to think that God is a moral monster, then enjoy those thoughts.

When you have to finesse the point, you shouldn't expect to mount a convincing argument. "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

If your god threatened to have David's sin punished by rape, either your god condones the rape of innocent parties in that instance, or your god was bluffing -- i.e. lying. Which one is it?

You worship a little turd, a moral midget.

[Jenny A]

Would you prefer we ignored you?  Because that's the response I'm getting there.   Not that I mean I think I'm on ignore lists but simply that the people who've responded are atheists not catholics.

Also I haven't started any threads advocating atheism.

You don't scream obscenities at me, Jenny.

You're proof that it IS possible to behave in a mature manner even in an atheist forum.

Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

As to obscenities, I tend to reserve them for hammers I just hit my thumb with rather than people, although in extremity I do use them on people. Coming out of my cute little mouth (and I do wish I were elegant and beautiful rather than cute) it tends to have great impact.  But that impact would be lost if I swore like a sailor all the time.

However, I fail to see the real difference between calling people twisted and calling them a mother fucker.  The sentiment is the same.

[Randy Carson]

You don't scream obscenities at me, Jenny.

You're proof that it IS possible to behave in a mature manner even in an atheist forum.

Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

If I could ignore some people here, I would...the software won't let me. I guess some folks think their opinions are worth more than others.

You've only posted seven times, and the Philosophy subforum is not where you'll get the best action. Try Apolgetics or Non-Catholic Religions.

As to obscenities, I tend to reserve them for hammers I just hit my thumb with rather than people, although in extremity I do use them on people. Coming out of my cute little mouth (and I do wish I were elegant and beautiful rather than cute) it tends to have great impact.  But that impact would be lost if I swore like a sailor all the time.

Cute is good. I married cute.

However, I fail to see the real difference between calling people twisted and calling them a mother fucker.  The sentiment is the same.

Thinking can be untwisted by study and logic. How does one undo the other?

[Longhorn]

I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

Why are you ignoring the fact that even if you were right about Cato's presuppositions, you still have your own to account for? You quite adamantly presuppose that god exists at the beginning of every argument. Still a failed tu quoque.

[Joods]

I'll give you an example of dishonesty....

---

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.

---

This is an example of the nonsense I have to put up with, you guys seem to switch positions whenever it's convenient for your argument.

I'll propose a challenge, provide one instance where I've been "dishonest", and I'll provide ten from Atheists.... you up for it?

I am so sick and tired of you using me as your scapegoat whenever you are confronted with having to actually answer a question. You've done this to me on more than one occasion now and I've about had it with you and your bullshit.

You know what - I'm not perfect and I don't claim to be, but you taking apart TWO DIFFERENT comments from TWO DIFFERENT THREADS and putting them back together just to make a point, shows what a dick you really are. Grow up and stop being such an asshole. Once again, you leave it to someone that you've intentionally misquoted, to clean up YOUR fucking mess. So here we go...

In your first example - my response was because you said this in the New Testament arguments thread:

Huggy74 Wrote: Not to say you don't have morals, you were just privileged to be brought up in a society governed by law and order. If for some reason an apocalypse happened and it's everyman for himself, do you hold onto what you deem moral? After all, when it comes to survival, who's to say what's moral? Is it immoral for a lion to kill a gazelle? why then would you consider it immoral to kill to ensure your own survival?

isn't that just survival of the fittest?

If you believe we evolved from the animals, then it was always intended for the weak to be rooted out.

Which means if you think you'll remain moral during an apocalypse, then you'll be among it's first victims.

You posted a scenario and I responded with a logical answer that fit the discussion. At least I answered the questions and didn't play dodge, like you do.

The second reference you make, my response was because YOU said this in the Comparing god to a Narcissist thread:

Huggy74 Wrote:Claiming people serve God because they are afraid of Hell is like saying people don't commit murder because they are afraid of the death penalty.

Two different discussions - two different questions - two different answers - two different scenarios. You also didn't FULLY quote me in your second reference. There was a whole paragraph before my sentence about the death penalty, that you conveniently left out in order to push your own agenda.

Even though I don't owe YOU an explanation, for what it's worth, and to finish cleaning up the mess you've created, I'll say this about it:

I haven't spoken to my family in over five years. They are FIGURATIVELY dead to me. That in and of itself doesn't make them physically dead. It just means that I have cut their toxicity out of my life and choose not to have them be a part of my life. They are still very much alive and free to push their bullshit narcissistic and hateful agendas on everyone else BUT me. So in a sense - in my life - in my mind - they are already gone. By me cutting them out of my life, it simply means that I no longer have to be concerned with their abusive ways affecting me.

I'll assume that you've never heard of such figurative speech before because you like to take what people say literally, twist their words and use them to fit whatever agenda you are currently pushing for the moment. Way to go. Way to show your intelligence when it comes to making a point.

Furthermore, you don't have to "put up" with anything. There's the door. Feel free to walk through it and not come back. No one is forcing you to stay here and "put up" with things that are discussed here. I, for one, after seeing you continue to bring up something that I said THREE Goddamn months ago, wouldn't be sorry to see you leave permanently. Apparently the little break you got from here only made you come back and look more like an idiot.

[Joods]

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."

Checkmate asshole. My previous post... I provided EVIDENCE of your twisting AND misrepresentation.

BOOM.

[robvalue]

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."

Emphasis mine. Is this an implicit admission that these quotes have not been presented in their proper context? That is called quote mining and is one of the most dishonest practices of all. If you really think that simply because you've pulled words someone actually said that they mean the same thing without the context, you fail to grasp the very basics of communication.

For the love of Pete, stop digging and think, please!

[Joods]

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."

Emphasis mine. Is this an implicit admission that these quotes have not been presented in their proper context?

Of course it is. You don't actually expect any sort of well thought out effort from huggies do you?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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....

---

*sigh*

Still harping on about this nonsense are you?

Rather than respond to this utter moron, I'll do what I've always done and encourage people to read the thread (if they can be arsed, I know I can't) to see where Huggy was proven to be incorrect on every statement made about both secularism and state structures. Pay particular attention to the areas where he reveals a total lack of knowledge of even the most rudimentary ideas of political science, IR and philosophical discourse.

And to clarify, Denmark is de facto secular, regardless of what Huggy here wishes to say about it having an established church (so does the UK, still secular). The context this remark was made in is clear through the thread, conveniently omitted from the above poster's selective mine for quotes.

What I think the post quoted reveals, where he cites supposed 'flip flopping' of members, is that he is literally so obsessed with one up-manship that he has to keep a running tab of times where he believes he's won a point (with whom? No idea). What a strange, bizarre, tragic person.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

If I could ignore some people here, I would...the software won't let me. I guess some folks think their opinions are worth more than others.

Just to clarify this false statement made by the poster above, the software allows for people to put everyone but the staff on ignore (which is what I presume the poster was referring to).

This is for good reasons, namely so that we know that if, as an example, we verbally warn or speedbump a thread, every poster can see it. If people can ignore it, then the message isn't getting through, which makes it pointless. It also works the other way around. We are unable to ignore people, because our job as volunteer staff who volunteer their time and money of their own volition, is to ensure that we maintain a standard. We can't do that if we put people on ignore.

If the person above is unable to put someone on ignore who is not staff, please bring it to the staff's attention so that we can look into it as this is obviously a fault with the software. If otherwise, please reacquaint yourself with the rules until you feel able to contribute.

Thanks.