ybnormal

Toto is correct. I certainly don't believe that atheists are any more or less honest than anyone else, and your attempt to put words in my mouth is another example of flawed logic.


I did not attribute it to you, certainly not intentionally. I have already attributed it to Yb, and that is exactly what he said, right Yb? The only one not being honest here is he, if he is following this thread.

If he denies it, I will track down the thread and post.

Rad

Before I attempt to "clarify" my past, please explain how I got into this... now, I see where you want to make some jump to me, in order to respond to someone else, but I don't see a legitimate point in your doing that.

We've all sat around and allowed you to lump all nontheists into one single blob, blaming Buffman and Toto for something said by a user who only posted once or twice in a 9 page thread. We've also, simultaneously, allowed you to get away with distancing yourself from any xians you feel the need to get away from.

So which is it? You can't continue to have it both ways. Either take your share of the responsibility for ALL actions by ALL xians, or stop using what one Atheist says against another Atheist. It doesn't matter to me personally, which one you choose. So as far as I'm concerned, if you are about to use my words against someone else, then you are opening yourself up to a world of pain. To do so will be taking all the history of Christianity right up thru tonight and putting it squarely on your shoulders.

Deal?

Daggah

ROFLMAO. Just when you thought he couldn't be any more ironic.

ybnormal

Sorry, Rad, but to use one of your most infamous tactics...

I don't see where I used the term, "by admitting they are sinners".

Nor do I see where I used the term, "trusting in Christ as saviour".

Perhaps you would like to rephrase your rephrasing.

Radorth

LOL!!! This from the man who makes statements beginning with "you xians." I am rather careful to use phrases like "some" atheists or "most skeptics here..." And I have openly praised at least one atheist writer and one agnostic historian. We never hear you praising a Christian, do we?

Excuse me, Toto challenged me to go find such a quote by any atheist.

But you can, right? And you can continue taking me to task for all the evils done by Popes and Hitler, dredge up obscure and questionable news stories to impugn "you xians," and define a Christian any way you like.

Nice set of debating rules you have there.

I suggest you are simply avoiding the question of your own pidgeonholing, a sorry example of which we see above. I gave you a chance to clarify and you did not take it, unfortunately.

Anyone ever notice how we human beings find in others the exact faults we are dealing with?

Heh. Even us dumb old Christians notice such things over time. But then, we do have to deal with voices in our heads saying "Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye,...."


Rad

Philosoft

So how does this work? You pull out your high-profile historical Christians and I pull out some historical Buddhists and Hindus and we have a big virtue battle-royal? Absurd. This may be the most indefensible position I've yet seen you take.

And then what? I post excerpts of some Gandhi biography? How on terrafirma do you propose we judge who is more virtuous?

Buffman

Rad

The fact is, most of behavioral norms are born of a Judeo-Christian culture, and we have gone to far in questioning them.

(Repeat)
Let me see if I have this straight. Radorth has just inferred that every single culture/society/civilization that existed before, or since, the compilation of the Judeo-Christian Bible was/is behaviorally abnormal if they didn't/don't practice "his" interpretation of the collective, Christian, wisdom of humankind that finds selective expression in those biblical writings.

Additionally, if anyone dares to question "his" interpretations then they have gone "too far." Is that correct?

If it is correct, then I wonder if Radorth can explain why only some of the biblical writings of ancient times were selected and declared, by mortals, to be divinely inspired? Further, I wonder if he can explain why not all self-declared Christian Sects accept the identical writings as divinely inspired? I even wonder if he knows which ones were declared to be "divinely" inspired...and why they were or weren't?
(End repeat)

I'm still waiting for you to address those questions.

Deal with the issues as I have outlined them. Surprise me! Present reasoned responses rather than the usual, tiresome, duck and weave, Jesus jabber to which we have all become so accustomed. If you don't know the answers, please simply say so. I certainly won't consider that a Sin.

Radorth

Actually it is the low profile Christians which have done the most admirable things without making a lot of noise, and how little you learn of them here! But you're right. It is a difficult position, and virtually impossible if your opponent cannot even stipulate that all but two or three American founders were Christians, or that Jesus' teachings were fundamentally egalitarian, or that Locke and Hooker practically invented modern western democracy. OK I give up. I can't "win" the argument. But I can't lose it either because individual Christians haven't missed any mark.

Rad

Radorth

Huh? Nah, you can question them all you want Buffman. That's what this site is for, and why I come here. I enjoy watching the truth come out, as when we all discovered Barton was far more learned and fair-minded than you told us.

No thanks on your offer. I've learned not to let skeptics ask all the questions and make all the rules. I've concluded there are things in heaven and earth not dreamt of in your library.

Rad

Radorth

Believe it or not, I was simply trying to put a face on this "group" of Christians which has no integrity and are hypocrites by default. I chose those who have done the above as your most likely targets. Fine, you define this faceless, nameless group, but please stop the intellectual tap-dance.

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

Just look at your latest post and explain why you would consider it a well reasoned one versus a blind faith belief one. (I am well aware that you "honestly" believe that what you are saying is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately for you, honesty and truth are only as valid and reliable as the verifiable evidence upon which they are formulated/presented. For much of human existence, humankind "honestly" believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. The Bible still presents that as the case. However, we have learned that both those beliefs were in error. So which is more "honest?" The supernatural faith beliefs of the Bible or the acquired and verifiable knowledge of the natural world? If you are unable, or unwilling, to critically examine the Bible for errors, then how can anyone accept your claims of honesty? You have founded the honesty of your premises on faulty data and refuse to acknoweldge that irrefutable fact. That's why I believe that you are a splendid example of Christian hypocrisy and a propaganda monger.

Actually it is the low profile Christians which have done the most admirable things without making a lot of noise, and how little you learn of them here!

If they are "low profile Christians," why would anyone have heard of them, let alone anyone here?. However, since there are an estimated 2 billion humans claiming that they are Christians, I have no difficulty whatsoever believing that a significant portion of them do all kinds of humanitarian things for their fellow human beings without recourse to biblical teachings as the motivating factor for their deeds. The Bible is a carrot and stick book, not a morality for morality's sake book. (That's why the Clergy can earn their livelihood explaining to, or interpreting for, the laity what is or is not moral in the Bible.) Christians who live by their bibles do so because they believe they will get a reward for doing so. The ethical Christian does things because he/she follows the Golden Rule...not the Heaven or Hell Bible morality of the Clergy salesmen and women.

But you're right. It is a difficult position, and virtually impossible if your opponent cannot even stipulate that all but two or three American founders were Christians,...

To the best of my knowledge, all U.S. Presidents believed in the supernatural. If I am correct, then they were all religious. With only a handful of exceptions, I also believe that they professed some form of the Christian faith belief because approximately 80-85% of Americans, when queried, also professed some form of the Christian faith. But that has nothing to do with the fact that our Federal Government was created on a "secular, " not sectarian, foundation by these same Religious/Christian politicians.

Most of us know that many individual states were created on sectarian foundations; and some still contain vestiges of that prejudice/bigotry/intolerance within their state constitutions. However, with the ratification of the 14th Amendemnt, those vestiges became unconstitutional.---So exactly what is your difficulty with the fact that as many as the first six presidents were more Deist in their personal religious beliefs than Christian? Had any of these individuals wished to legally declare the USA to be a Christian Nation, there was nothing to stop them. The obvious fact is that they didn't do so. Why not?:


...or that Jesus' teachings were fundamentally egalitarian,...

Please explain what you mean by "fundamentaly egalitarian...."

...or that Locke and Hooker practically invented modern western democracy.

Please provide your verifiable evidence for that claim.

OK I give up. I can't "win" the argument. But I can't lose it either because individual Christians haven't missed any mark.

What are you referencing? What "marks?"