My argument for atheism +

[EgoDeath]

That only works if one is a deist, believing in a deity which does not interact in any way with the universe.

What I've described is the standard Catholic and East Orthodox description of God. Not deist.

False. The bible claims that god has all of those attributes. Want quotes? Have not read it yourself?

If you're arguing against a sola scriptura literalist this would be a strong argument. Most Christians haven't been such. 

are descriptive, not proscriptive. The "laws of mathematics" claim that one cannot have a triangle which has more or less than 3 sides. Is that because the "laws of mathematics" simply claim so?

If the term "laws" sounds too prescriptive -- and gives the impression of something passed by a legislature -- I'd be fine with a different term -- "natural regularities," or "inevitabilities," or just "how things always go." All of these would be fine for what I've been saying.

So then, what is your definition of god? I see you constantly talking about what god ISN'T, but I don't think I've ever seen you come forward and talk about what god is. What god, exactly, are you constantly arguing for?

I'll ask my other question again, since you ignored it: Do you provide a "much needed opposition" on Christian forums as well? Or do you just like to do that with atheists?

[Belacqua]

What god, exactly, are you constantly arguing for?

I am arguing for accurate scholarship.

If you claim "Christians believe X," but in fact many well-known and historically influential Christians don't believe X, then you are making inaccurate claims. 

Do you provide a "much needed opposition" on Christian forums as well? Or do you just like to do that with atheists?

I don't provide "much needed opposition" anywhere. That's something you made up.

[EgoDeath]

I am arguing for accurate scholarship.

If you claim "Christians believe X," but in fact many well-known and historically influential Christians don't believe X, then you are making inaccurate claims.

Well, I'm not sure what X is supposed to represent, so there's not much to have a conversation about there concerning X, is there?

I'll repeat my question since you seem hell bent on avoiding it: What god are you arguing for? You seem to be very clear and concise about what god ISN'T, and that's super nice of you, I'm sure we all appreciate it. But what god are you arguing FOR? If no god, then why are you even arguing?

I don't provide "much needed opposition" anywhere. That's something you made up.

While you've never explicitly said the words "much needed opposition," you've been quoted as saying:

The flaws of religion are well documented on this forum. Some people seem to get positive joy from repeating the same flaws over and over. In fact I think some people would be satisfied if the whole web site consisted of a big red button that said "Religion Bad" on it, and you could come here and click on the button every day. Click really hard.

The shocking thing for me is that the so-called reasonable people are so committed to falsehoods as well.

It seems to me that you feel the need to play this role of the much needed opposition, even if you don't explicitly say so. Sometimes, reading between the lines can give us an answer, as you have told me before in concerns to reading the Bible.

[Mister Agenda]

The term 'Christianity' is basically the glaze on thousands of different religions with varying thicknesses of the glaze in common. Most generalizations about them are going to be over generalizations, it's just the nature of the beast. No matter what you say about Christians, someone else will be able to say 'not all Christians'. Of course not all Christians, it's vapid to insinuate that the person who made an observation about Christians was talking about 100% of them. For the sake of brevity and communication, it should be taken as read that a comment about Christians in general, while it may apply to millions of Christians, does not apply to all of them. If I complain about Christians who try to get ID taught in science classes; I'm not complaining about the Christians who aren't doing that. If I say Christians believe in demonic possession, I'm not talking about the Christians that don't. If I complain that white people get special privileges in America that people of color don't get, I'm not talking about the poorest white people in Appalachia. Knowing when to chime in about 'not all X' and when not to is part of reading comprehension.

[EgoDeath]

The term 'Christianity' is basically the glaze on thousands of different religions with varying thicknesses of the glaze in common. Most generalizations about them are going to be over generalizations, it's just the nature of the beast. No matter what you say about Christians, someone else will be able to say 'not all Christians'. Of course not all Christians, it's vapid to insinuate that the person who made an observation about Christians was talking about 100% of them. For the sake of brevity and communication, it should be taken as read that a comment about Christians in general, while it may apply to millions of Christians, does not apply to all of them. If I complain about Christians who try to get ID taught in science classes; I'm not complaining about the Christians who aren't doing that. If I say Christians believe in demonic possession, I'm not talking about the Christians that don't. If I complain that white people get special privileges in America that people of color don't get, I'm not talking about the poorest white people in Appalachia. Knowing when to chime in about 'not all X' and when not to is part of reading comprehension.

That's sort of the issue though... it's so obvious it doesn't need to be said. I had this disagreement with another user in a thread about book recommendations; I told the OP in that thread not to bother reading a certain book, and then recommended a selection of books. Another user told me, "It's up to the OP to decide what they want of read..."

My response was basically, "Um... yeah... obviously."

There are certain unspoken things that we shouldn't need to spell out for one another, but "shouldn't" is the key word there. It's not an ideal world, is it?

Unfortunately, it seems that when Bel likes to remind everyone, "not all Christians," it comes off more as a chance to correct someone than it is a chance to have a deeper, more nuanced conversation about what Christianity is. It is also usually largely unnecessary to clarify, "not all Christians." It's just not needed. If I say, "Christians think that hell is X, Y and Z." You could chime in with, "not ALL Christians believe in hell! Actually, many sects of Christianity think that..." I mean, sure, you're technically correct, but it just sort of seems unnecessary to point that out.

[Belacqua]

The term 'Christianity' is basically the glaze on thousands of different religions with varying thicknesses of the glaze in common. Most generalizations about them are going to be over generalizations, it's just the nature of the beast. No matter what you say about Christians, someone else will be able to say 'not all Christians'. Of course not all Christians, it's vapid to insinuate that the person who made an observation about Christians was talking about 100% of them. For the sake of brevity and communication, it should be taken as read that a comment about Christians in general, while it may apply to millions of Christians, does not apply to all of them. If I complain about Christians who try to get ID taught in science classes; I'm not complaining about the Christians who aren't doing that. If I say Christians believe in demonic possession, I'm not talking about the Christians that don't. If I complain that white people get special privileges in America that people of color don't get, I'm not talking about the poorest white people in Appalachia. Knowing when to chime in about 'not all X' and when not to is part of reading comprehension.

When Donald Trump says that Muslims are terrorists and Mexicans are rapists, it's your fault for not assuming that he doesn't mean all of them.

[EgoDeath]

When Donald Trump says that Muslims are terrorists and Mexicans are rapists, it's your fault for not assuming that he doesn't mean all of them.

Okay, wow. What an insanely disingenuous way to represent the situation. Let's take a look. Trump said:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

While, toward the end there, as an afterthought, Trump lazily tried to reassure everyone that he didn't mean "all Mexicans," he still seems to believe that most people emigrating to this country from South America (remember he said, "it's not just Mexico"), are criminals and rapists. He is literally saying most of them are criminals; a statement that's simply wrong. It also speaks to an alarmingly racist attitude that he seems to hold, based solely on the fact that these people are different from him, I assume, because he's white and they are not.

So, Trump made a blanket generalization about an entire group of people based on a few bad apples.

How's that different you ask?

Well, because here in the US, an alarmingly large number of Christians do take the Bible very literally, and deny evolution, and deny science, and fail to read their own Bible, and so on and so forth. We have the statistics on this. Not to mention, this has nothing to do with condemning people for the color of their skin; bad ideas are bad ideas. And if you're a Christian who holds bad ideas, it's because you're not thinking through these issues properly and it has nothing to do with what ethnicity you are.

So, yes Bel, that is vastly different than someone here talking about Christians who believe in intelligent design, and I think you know that. I honestly can't tell if you're just being an asshole here or if it's honestly just natural to you to be that disingenuous. Wow.

I honestly feel like you're not even thinking before you type these things out.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well, to bolster/defend some aspects of Belaqua, I would hazard a guess EgoDeath that;

I would place some of Bel's more idiosyncratic traits to a form of 'Language barrier'.

Now Bel has explained that they are a native English speaker. (What flavour of English I do not know)

They have also explained their place of current residence is the 'Land of the rising Sun' and that they have mastered the language of this exotic shore.

Now, being confluent in both dialects has produced/given rise to Belaqua's unique turns of phrasing and word usage, I would again hazard to guess.

Having worked with folks from many disparate parts of the world (Listening to a Native of Nigeria conversing with former resident of the great subcontinent of India as they worked at transferring concepts between each other via their only shared means of English I found wonderous as it gave me, a somewhat native English speaker, an insight into both their way of thinking and a 'Second hand' veiw of how others find my language to 'Be'.)

I've also worked with some one who's native languge was from the more Northern climes of Africa plus a little dash of the Cyrillic. Who had then travelled to the shores of the US of A wherein they learnt to master and tame English.

In quite a few instances the nuances in the differances between their idioms and mine became enough that substantial loss of understanding occurred and required much further expansion and explanation to overcome the difficulties.

Of course I'd be more than happy to be further educated in regards to such matters.

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, it's none of that, lol. Bel just thinks that atheists are stupid assholes that don't know as much about gods as he does. He's gone over this time and time again, I don't know why people still wonder.

[Belacqua]

Belaqua's unique turns of phrasing and word usage, I would again hazard to guess.

Oh, that's interesting.

I wasn't aware that my English is odd at all. I try to use standard clear language.

It's possible that, as you say, I've been influenced by speaking Japanese most of the time. 

What comes across as "unique" to you?