Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[FallentoReason]

I can describe myself as "well endowed" here...but that won't mean I'm actually swinging massive richard, now will it?

Huh?

[The Grand Nudger]

Just because I describe my dick as being huge, that doesn't add an inch or three.  Get it now?  You're still engaging in nonsense.

[FallentoReason]

If it were logical, it wouldn't be goblygoop

Yes it would, because by all accounts, goblygoop is a set of axioms just like our logic, which is what makes our logic, logical. 

..it would just be logic....

No it wouldn't, because you just finished calling it "goblygoop". Use the right noun please.

and obviously that doesn't work for you, since logic can't make 2+2=5.

Already shown to be a non-sequitur and a trivial point since you're clearly conflating 'logic' and 'goblygoop'.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it were logical, it wouldn't be goblygoop

Yes it would, because by all accounts, goblygoop is a set of axioms just like our logic, which is what makes our logic, logical. 

Oh is that what makes it logical..it seems like we might have already had his exact discussion..wherein I mistakenly thought that something being logical had to do with whether or not it adhered to a certain set of rules.....glad you cleared that up, again.  

No it wouldn't, because you just finished calling it "goblygoop". Use the right noun please.

It's nouns now, not adjectives?  Get your shit together.  

Already shown to be a non-sequitur and a trivial point since you're clearly conflating 'logic' and 'goblygoop'.

Strange because I don't remember being the one arguing, for pages now, that there was some sort of equivalence between them, and that it was "perfectly logical" to call one...the other....  Go figure.

Has it occurred to you, even once, that I'm picking the low hanging fruit here, that you have and have never had any grounds to stand upon? Do you wonder...even for an instant....that it just might be the case that you're not doing this right? I ask, because..if that hasn't occurred to you by now...I don't think it's likely that it ever will.

[FallentoReason]

that [FtR said] it was "perfectly logical" to call one...the other.... Go figure.

^this, again...

I've never said Fred is Bob. Simply that they are both humans.

If that doesn't make you see why goblygoop is logical in its own right in goblygoopland, then agree to disagree.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've quoted you, it's pointless to pretend that you didn't say what you said, by constantly and disingenuosly referring to fred and bob..particularly when your very next sentence is yet another affirmation of what you claimed you've never said.

I'm a good sport, but I do tend to think that you ought to pitch the ball rather than hide it in your pants and call a strike.

[FallentoReason]

I've quoted you, it's pointless to pretend that you didn't say what you said, by constantly and disingenuosly referring to fred and bob..particularly when your very next sentence is yet another affirmation of what you claimed you've never said.  

I'm a good sport, but I do tend to think that you ought to pitch the ball rather than hide it in your pants and call a strike.

Then clearly you didn't understand what you were quoting.

[The Grand Nudger]

That must be it, it couldn't be that you were and still are plainly and laughably wrong. This has got to be the simplest game of god bothering bingo ever played.

When all else fails, claim the other guy just doesn't get it. Boohoo.

[FallentoReason]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-46079.html

[Plixin]

I am sure you are all well aware of religiously inspired (mostly Christian and sometimes Islamic) "ministries" that aim to preach and convert people... They have a new tactic called "apologetics" which in their deluded minds is how to attack atheists like us and convert us.
This Indian man came to America and now preaches to all denominations and attacks what he deems "naturalism", a code word for atheism.
His name is Ravi Zckerias. (http://rzim.org/media/questions-answers/)

He has a ministry and all.

You all love debating... here are his six questions from the website. He thinks these will convert any atheist:

1.    If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing?  This question was asked by Aristotle and Leibniz alike – albeit with differing answers.  But it is an historic concern.  Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?  If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?  Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?  How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?  If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?  If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?
2.    If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault?  These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes.  The crisis of atheistic meaninglessness is depicted in Sartre’s book Nausea.  Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
3.    When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it?  In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments?  It could be argued, that these behaviors – of the regimes in question - are more consistent with the implications of atheism.  Though, I'm thankful that many of the atheists I know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for themselves like others did!  It could be argued that the socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as an atheistic one.
4.    If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer?  Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable.  It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort.  Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
5.    If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most?  Whose voice will be heard?  Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?  In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway?  Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong?  Where do those standards come from?  Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy.  Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
6.    If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent?  How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty?  Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?

Apologetics for religion are hardly new not by any sense of the meaning so I'm not sure by what process you are basing that very wrong affirmation on, perhaps you misread an article. The questions posed are among some of the standard arguments that apologetics have been using for a very long time that gets reworded for the individuals liking and personal flair and these are not that clever. Whenever I read that someone has their own ministry, as if that leads to its credibility, I just remind myself that anyone (at least in the US&Canada) can create their own legal, tax exempt ministry. These are the ridiculous questions/assertions that a good atheist debtor returns upon the author, destroyed, along with any credibility the author may have had, entertaining to say the least. Thanks for the post, made me chuckle.