God cannot love or be Love.

[Panacea]

Oh my, I guess you have worked up the courage to take me off of "ignore". Congrats. :24:

Too scared to address the post, bug?

 

[doombug]

Too scared to address the post, bug?

You mean the pot shot you call a post? Please... make a serious post of substance and I will be glad to address it.

 

[Panacea]

You mean the pot shot you call a post? Please... make a serious post of substance and I will be glad to address it.

Hehe ok, whatever you say, bug, you tell lies

 

[doombug]

Hehe ok, whatever you say, bug, you tell lies

Lies? and what lies would those be?

 

[Panacea]

Lies? and what lies would those be?

You claim you want honest debate, you don't debate honestly.
You claim you are prejudiced, you show your prejudice.

You lie.

 

[doombug]

You claim you want honest debate, you don't debate honestly.
You claim you are prejudiced, you show your prejudice.

You lie.

These are your OPINIONS and not fact. How do I show prejudice?

 

[Panacea]

These are your OPINIONS and not fact. How do I show prejudice?

Your posts act as evidence for these claims

 

[doombug]

Your posts act as evidence for these claims

Which posts? Maybe you can show this "prejudice".

 

[Panacea]

Nah, not buying it. If atheists say they don't believe in God that is fine but there are atheists who do nothing but attack Christianity. If you claim that I hate atheists then I no more hate atheists that they hate Christians. So don't give me that prejudice crap. As GIA would say "reciprocity is fair play".

This attempt to wave off accusations of prejudice incriminates you, for instance.

 

[doombug]

This attempt to wave off accusations of prejudice incriminates you, for instance.

Nah, it is straight forward. I have stated my position before: "I'm not prejudiced I think Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises. What is wrong with that?" That is pretty clear and I don't think that makes me prejudiced.

 

[Panacea]

Nah, it is straight forward. I have stated my position before: "I'm not prejudiced I think Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises. What is wrong with that?" That is pretty clear and I don't think that makes me prejudiced.

The only thing that's wrong with it is its assumption one can counter, criticize, and expose non-claim. Tim's post illuminating the sheer number of gods most modern humans do not assume exist was valid. You could not refute it.

That sentence is your catch phrase, but you go beyond that position with prejudice when you claim atheists are less moral than theists without proof. BR has called you out on it numerous times. You cannot refute it.

 

[doombug]

The only thing that's wrong with it is its assumption one can counter, criticize, and expose non-claim. Tim's post illuminating the sheer number of gods most modern humans do not assume exist was valid. You could not refute it.

That sentence is your catch phrase, but you go beyond that position with prejudice when you claim atheists are less moral than theists without proof. BR has called you out on it numerous times. You cannot refute it.

hahaha! How am I supposed to refute a "non-claim" you just contradicted yourself big time! Therefore there is no prejudice!

I am not claiming Atheists are less moral than Theists. I am only claiming it can't really be proven.

 

[Panacea]

hahaha! How am I supposed to refute a "non-claim" you just contradicted yourself big time! Therefore there is no prejudice!

I am not claiming Atheists are less moral than Theists. I am only claiming it can't really be proven.

I don't feel I've contradicted myself...Tim was raising an argument and you couldn't refute it.
You should be more clear about that, then, in the future.

 

[doombug]

I don't feel I've contradicted myself...Tim was raising an argument and you couldn't refute it.
You should be more clear about that, then, in the future.

I disagree. Tim was trying to create an argument via strawman that he could win.

 

[Tim]

I disagree. Tim was trying to create an argument via strawman that he could win.

How is that a straw man.

You believe that anyone that does not believe in the god you approve of should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument?
So what about the hundreds of gods you do not think exist? Should you also be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument for not believing in those?

I just want you to explain to me where there is a difference?

How is it rational to pick a god from a list of hundreds and claim it's the right one?

 

[doombug]

How is that a straw man.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

You believe that anyone that does not believe in the god you approve of should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument?

I never said that. I only said I believe ATHEISTS should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument. You misrepresented my position therefore creating a strawman.

So what about the hundreds of gods you do not think exist? Should you also be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument for not believing in those?

Again, just an extrapolation of your strawman by further misrepresenting my position.

I just want you to explain to me where there is a difference?

Why should I when I haven't said there is a difference. I don't see anything wrong with countering, criticizing, and exposing anything by rational argument. I am only asking how does that make me prejudiced?

How is it rational to pick a god from a list of hundreds and claim it's the right one?

I don't see any problem with believing in one God.

 

[Tim]

It's not a straw man argument and here's why...

I do not believe in any of the gods I listed.

You do not believe in any of the gods I listed except 1.

So how different are we really?

We could sit here all week agreeing with each other why we don't believe any of those gods exist and how the myths came to be. The only sticking point would come to the last one... and there is as much proof that he exists as the rest of them. So how does your point of his existence become anymore valid than mine?

You want to call me out for not believing in the god of Abraham, then I should under the same logic be able to call you out for not believing in Ra, Athena, Zeus, etc... right?

And if you still have a problem with that, then it isn't atheism you have a problem with, it's that people don't believe in the god you do.

 

[doombug]

It's not a straw man argument and here's why...

I do not believe in any of the gods I listed.

You do not believe in any of the gods I listed except 1.

I disagree. You changed the argument at hand by misrepresenting my position, which is creating a strawman. My post prior to this one clearly shows that.

So how different are we really?

We could sit here all week agreeing with each other why we don't believe any of those gods exist and how the myths came to be. The only sticking point would come to the last one... and there is as much proof that he exists as the rest of them. So how does your point of his existence become anymore valid than mine?

You want to call me out for not believing in the god of Abraham, then I should under the same logic be able to call you out for not believing in Ra, Athena, Zeus, etc... right?

And if you still have a problem with that, then it isn't atheism you have a problem with, it's that people don't believe in the god you do.

Still a misrepresentation of my position which is: I think Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument. I have even added that I don't have a problem with ANYTHING being held up to the same scrutiny. My position is: I don't see how that makes me prejudiced. It can't be any clearer that you have misrepresented my position, hence, the strawman.

 

[Tim]

...I think Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

Ok, let's try another approach here since I'm not getting anywhere.

You believe by your own admission, that Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises....

Well, I do not believe in any deities. ie I am an Atheist.

So can you please counter, criticize and expose this?

 

[doombug]

Ok, let's try another approach here since I'm not getting anywhere.

You believe by your own admission, that Atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered,criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises....

Well, I do not believe in any deities. ie I am an Atheist.

So can you please counter, criticize and expose this?

Why should I? No one can explain how that point of view makes me prejudiced so why should I move on to any other subject until someone explains. No one can show proof of moral equality between Atheists and Theists either. But I have countered, critcized and exposed Atheists on this forum already. Funny how you and others here dodge my questions.