Cipher Girl

Rad you said earlier
Okay, so he is good. I would call love good, but apparently you don't. How is a fear-inducing god, good? How do you define good then?

Jayjay

You rarely adequately address the issues, so of course people will keep pestering you about the same things over and over again. Besides, when people don't respond, or if only one or two people do, you marvel how the skeptics are running away from you.

(I know I've often had the urge to point the obvious holes in your arguments, but have not done so because I can see 3-4 other people doing it and one more would just give you more excuse not to bother with in-depth responses to individual posts.)

If insincerity is enough reason for you not to answer a question, then you're lucky to have anyone posting in this thread. The question you posed in the OP was itself insincere, because you weren't really interested in finding out what atheists think, just to provoke some profanities out of them because it makes you feel superior and more secure in your beliefs.

I suppose you should get off your high horse and start actually talking about the issues, not crying persecution from the "Rad police". If you could keep up a decent dialogue for more than one post at a time, that'd be an improvement.

I think your perceived "incoherence" is not that people don't understand what you're saying. It's that you have no interest of keeping up a long term debate on anything, but prefer repeating your sound bites and strawmen instead. ("Should God whack 6 billion people over the head?", "He saved the thief!", "Atheists just want to keep on sinning", "Yada yada don't whine to God blah blah", ...)

Bumble Bee Tuna

No, you responded to the parts of my post that didn't matter, or you responded to parts that mattered with a question that I answered and then you didn't respond to the answer. Thus effectively no useful response. And yes, I did mention how worthless your response was in the first post after it. In fact it was the very sentence that you legalistically interpreted that has caused so much flak: "You did avoid responding to anything I said".

Riiiight, there's no commitment. No, there's just no marriage. The point was made as a direct response to something you said, so I fail to see how it's off-topic. It's something you don't like to talk about because you have delusions in your mind that it shatters, fine.

No, it's about you not responding to anything important, EXCEPT for a question that got an answer about my sex life which you then did not respond to. I was unaware that speaking in a manner that when interpreted 100% literally was considered a "sin". That's all I did. Of course, you claim you're not a fundy so you must not interpret the Bible literally in all cases...Guess the Bible is sinful writing. Jebus, you sure do love legalistic interpretation.

Sure. Readers, did Radorth's response address any serious issues I raised? Or did it just dodge the points in the vague hope that they would be forgotten?

Your responses in this thread to me were just pathetic. The things you do when you're backed into a corner and can't take the "you're being mean to me, now I don't need to bother responding" defense are funny. You actually ask to be insulted so that you can use that excuse.

Well, it was fun and all, but I'll add myself to the list of people who aren't going to bother debating you anymore. Except I won't get sucked into like these gluttons for frustration do. I'll just do the ol' "single cutting question that rips apart the argument" approach form now on. If you're ever interested in another debate don't start until you respond in this one.

-B

Jack the Bodiless

I am STILL waiting for a substantive reply to my Hinduism scenario, Radorth.

You accused us, falsely, of not addressing your scenario. It is now your turn to address mine.

Dr Rick

You're not so special, JtB; everyone has been waiting for Radorth to post ANYTHING substantive...

Rick

Daggah

Except that isn't the case here. Simply not believing in god does not "do injustice to the innocent." And many believers, whose souls are destined for heaven, continue to "do injustice to the innocent." (Like you said, the thief can be saved on his dying day, right?) So really, only a lover of injustice could ever call that justice.

Could I love and serve such a god? No, of course not. It would go against my moral code. Similiarly, serving Hitler would violate that same code.

But then again, being a humanist, it comes as no great surprise to me that my moral code is superior to the Christian one.

Daggah

As a rational person, I fail to see how your tweaked definition changes the point I've been trying to make.

No god, no sin.

Radorth

Surprise surprise. The Rad police all showed up at once to claim once again Rad never answers anything, he's a terrible witness, claim their own holiness, declare Rad is a waste of time, and say they will never bother with him again. (The new members anyway)

That's not the reason. You just said nobody thinks I'm interested, and besides that there are two or three "intelligent" atheists who can get my attention, and to whom I respond in all seriousness. And it's certainly not "different" people who show up at the end of the thread. It's the same old grudgemeisters, of whom you are chief, who declare over and over I'm not responding to the questions and I never posted "anything" substantiative. Sorry, it's not about "hoping I get it" and I think even the choir knows that.

I think Hitler has me beat, hands down. He was a Christian by the definition of all but a couple skeptics here. Or are you guys now retracting that assertion? I do have several motives for being here, which I have listed before. I also said one of my weakesses is being unable to ignore opportunities to satirize the position of some skeptics. But I do care enough to change my tune, should Sabine Grant ever lead one of you to the Lord.

I never once said they "run away" from me. I do assume my carefully and sincerely presented scenarios went unanswered by some because they raise the important issues here and go to motive.

Heh. Fat chance of that. I just think both sides of the story should be presented. I'm surprised you don't welcome it with open arms, particularly from a moron.

You wouldn't know one if you saw it. Your question was more rhetoric than a question. I also gave the conditions under which I would worship a Hindu God and there is no such Hindu God.

No I didn't. In fact I acknowledged that some did answer, and that there was no "right" answer as well. As it turns out, Bumble Bee had an ulterior motive for asking me if he had answered well enough, and his apparently "sincere" response was nothing of the sort.

Rad

Daggah

How does one satirize a position one doesn't understand? You obviously can't even understand how we don't accept what the Bible says about anything. I wouldn't be surprised if you think we don't REALLY disbelieve in god.

Radorth

A good point as far as it goes. In the case of the thief, an "unjust" person appears to have gotten a particularly good deal. However anyone calling Jesus "Lord" has manifestly repented of his sins and shows that s/he is welcome in the kingdom. If one decides at anytime to repent in fact, then God can do the rest of the work (perhaps through pergatory). Only pride and self-righteousness prevent us from being saved. If one believes the cross fulfils God's righteous and just law, then s/he cannot be said to "love injustice." Of note is that the thief had no expectation of heaven, and repented anyway. Such an attitude melts God's heart in an instant.

"Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." Via the cross righteousness is imputed to those who thirst. Those who wish to justify their own sins instead of repenting will never see it and have no love of justice or mercy IMO.

They will leave the weightier matters of the law forvever undone.

Rad