Jayjay

Well duh, of course I talked about hypotheticals, the frigging existence of God is a hypothetical question. Nowhere, as far as I can remember, am I assuming (hypothetically, okay?) that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent or omniscient, for example. Besides if you thought this was a problem with my arguments, you could've said so and pointed me wrong. But nah, just keep asserting how "brilliant" your religion is and how "ironic" it is that, *gasp*, two atheists might sometimes contradict each other!


Uh, okay, so you're saying that I'm right, but someone else beat me to it so I'm just being redundant? Gee I'm so hurt.

lpetrich

Except that an omnipotent being would be indirectly responsible for all of this by omission.

And that such activities would be absolutely harmless in Heaven.

lpetrich

I don't care about free will. According to Jesus Christ, one must remove body parts that make one commit sins. So if one's free will makes one commit sins, then get rid of one's free will. It's as simple as that.

lpetrich

Radorth:
As I see it, he has long spoken to us in the voice of conscience,

Except that conscience often tells different things to different people.

and through the beauty of his earth besides through the Bible. (There is absolutely no rational or evolutionary reason why a tree should be beautiful, and no indication they were ever anything but).

Except that that does not exhaust the variety of supernatural explanations. Trees could be beautiful because they have a guardian fairy that wants us to look at them and care for them.

And you say "Yeah, but he didn't come down and talk to me personally."

Why not? That would be a good way of setting the record straight. If you were away on a long trip and you found out that your friends were worried that you would never return, wouldn't you want to show yourself to them?

Radorth

Thread Highlights

Tuna asserted Rad “didn’t answer anything” while claiming he himself dealt with every issue raised. But this assertion did not win the Gratuitous and Self-aggrandizing Assertion of the Week which was easily taken by this imaginative gem:“there are no good people doing good things in the name of Jesus.”

Rad was almost immediately impugned, by a man wearing rose-colored glasses, for arguing Christian benevolence and failing to list all the accomplishments of atheists. This was interpreted as a personal insult and meaning that Rad thinks only Christians are capable of doing good.

Bill Sneddin made one of his rare appearances and had Rad on the ropes for a time, but the budding infidels didn’t learn anything from the exchange. Lucky for Rad. Sneddin also managed to stop Rad from publishing his theory that atheists depend entirely on ribald jokes for entertainment.

Ciphergirl told Rad he should take a logic course, then apparently realized her proof of God’s nonexistence was based on assumptions gleaned from thin air. When confronted, she wondered if God couldn’t be omnimax as defined by her, what was he then? A” weak bumbling kindhearted simpleton?”

After saying “I’m done talking to you,” Fenton broke a one-day silence and reminded everyone what a horrible person Rad is personally, dredging up ancient history, misquoting Rad as always, and generally exposing Fenton's disinterest in debate and his well documented grudges. Nothing new there except two skeptics reportedly yawned during the tirade.

My good friend Abnormal weighed in while smoking something he made in a basement lab, said a relative was effectively killed by Christians in a hospital, added 2+1 and got 4.

Atheists were once again declared to be without sin by definition.

All in all, a fun and entertaining thread.

.

Yellum Notnef

First of all,theres no need for me to remind everyone what type of person you are as it`s more than evident to everyone here except you.

Either show us all where I misquoted you or kindly shut the fuck up. The quote feature automatically quotes you without me typing anything so it`s impossible for me to misquote you.

Go ahead and show us all where I`ve misqouted you even ONCE since your disturbing little circus rolled into town. Go ahead and show us all proof of my "grudge" while you`re at it.

I`m really trying to like you,but you make it incredibly difficult.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Uh Rad I made sure to ask you any questions you had that I missed and yes, I did answer every single one of your questions. I didn't say I dealt with every issue raised (I doubt it) but I did answer all your questions and scenarios you were complaining people were ignoring.
Meanwhile your response was "Really? Name a few." after which I did name a few and you never responded to them, so that was a worthless response. Then you responded to a quote of mine, but your response was answered in the very next lines. So that was worthless as well.
Then you finish up the "response" by claiming I'm avoiding your questions with rhetoric, despite the fact that I answered all of them. Some had rhetorical disclaimers, like "well I don't understand this scenario because you haven't specified where people are while they're given this choice of living there or not" but you'll notice I still went ahead and just tried to make an assumption about what you meant and answer the question anyway. So I could have easily dodged the questions through the rhetoric, but I did not. So that part of your response was a blatant lie and worthless as well.

This is how your "response" was considered "you didn't respond to anything", because, while you did respond, you didn't respond to anything important or with anything of substance.

Your "thread highlights" are interesting, though, if only to provide evidence of just how delusional some people can get.

-B

Daggah

In another thread, Radorth, you showed an inability to comprehend the concept of a "straw man" argument. Here is a good example of one.

Atheists and everyone else are sinless, because sin requires god, and there is no god. There's no such thing as sin.

Radorth

I never said you didn't answer them, did I? I said you answered them pretty well in fact. I was probably making a general statement in a post you decided was meant for you alone. You also took an assertion about general hypocrisy as a personal remark. There is considerable evidence you thought my time and posts should be for your benefit alone and that any general statement was some how an attack on you. I said you answered them pretty well in fact.

In any case your assertion was simply a lie, which you are now trying to paint a better face on instead of apologizing as you ought to. Try this theory: You are easily offended and can't bear to look at your own stuff. I'm not calling you a liar BTW so don't start feeling persecuted.

I'd like to see you answer five people at once without making a general answer or a challenge, then listen to them whine anyway that you aren't getting around to their questions. (Not that they bother reading my posts anyway) It reminds me of "God would have to visit me personally, and answer all my questions before I would obey him" type of attitude

I doubt anybody here who joins in these Rad-test contests has ever had my experience. If they had, they would know better.

Rad

Magus55

Haven't we already been over this? All you can say without making yourself seem like a self-centered know-it-all is say I don't believe sin exists, because it requires a God i don't believe in.

Until you become omniscient, you can't make the claim there is no God. So kindly stop making illogical statements, especially in reguards to all atheists - since many atheists agree you can't say there is no God, only that you don't believe in him.

To say there is no God is illogical because you don't know everything. In fact humans barely know anything at all ( 1 millionth of 1 percent to be more precise).