Calling out Jorge Borges

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That sounds much better than your usual self-righteous drivel, to be sure.

That's what this forum is missing. A good ol' "Fire and Brimstone" type Christian. Just think of how great it would be to have someone laying the biblical smack down on forum heathens just like OT God did on all the heathen races.

=======================================

Yo mamma's so wretched she makes jaywill's momma look hot.

- SwissGambit

=========================================


Surely, a sterling example of genuine Christian spirituality free from the excesses of Phariseeism and other religious impurities.

Who else could be so aptly qualified to remove the speck out his brother's eye?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================

That sounds much better than your usual self-righteous drivel, to be sure.

====================================

That's interesting. The only thing I have found more self righteous than self religious people is disgruntled religious people.

Once they get into that "Use to be a Believer - Been There ...[text shortened]... hteously licking your wounds for the rest of your life.

Case in point - old SwissGambit.[/b]

I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind, but now I see. 😀

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================

Yo mamma's so wretched she makes jaywill's momma look hot.

- SwissGambit

=========================================


Surely, a sterling example of genuine Christian spirituality free from the excesses of Phariseeism and other religious impurities.

Who else could be so aptly qualified to remove the speck out his brother's eye?[/b]

Yes, because that's what all of us atheists strive to do: exude Christian spirituality! 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, because that's what all of us atheists strive to do: exude Christian spirituality! 🙄🙄🙄

Hmmm...

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you or do you not think that the judgement rendered to the Amalekites' children was just?

Do you think that the judgement rendered upon the children was the best judgement available
to an omniscient and omnipotent God?

Where'd you go, Jorge?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Where'd you go, Jorge?

Despite his wordiness, his only real argument was that genocide somehow becomes morally acceptable when God does the killing, or orders the killing. Having repeated that until blue in the face, he has no doubt passed out by now.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Despite his wordiness, his only real argument was that genocide somehow becomes morally acceptable when God does the killing, or orders the killing. Having repeated that until blue in the face, he has no doubt passed out by now.

Well, he did mention the argument that in some cases they deserved it because they were either endangering the "messianic line" or sacrificing children.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, he did mention the argument that in some cases they deserved it because they were either endangering the "messianic line" or sacrificing children.

Hence the word 'real'. Neither of those explains the need to comprehensively annihilate an entire culture, down to the youngest children and livestock. Nor does it make any sense to punish a culture that kills some of their own children by killing all of their children.

These two pseudo-arguments are just smokescreens for the real one: God is perfectly morally justified in killing anyone, including infants and animals, just because of who he is.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Despite his wordiness, his only real argument was that genocide somehow becomes morally acceptable when God does the killing, or orders the killing. Having repeated that until blue in the face, he has no doubt passed out by now.

Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others? Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God, you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how inhumane (!) God's actions appear to you.

Give it a rest, will you? The best that you can cough up has been asked and answered more times than can be counted, and yet you and others insist the "argument" is new, or that it hasn't been answered to your liking. Tough. Get over it. You refuse to submit yourself to authority so take your ball and run. Just because you've temporarily tripped up a few unsuspecting believers with such patently obvious sleight-of-hand doesn't mean there aren't others more thoughtful who have solved the "problem" many times over. Even the unsuspecting believers--- when they pursue the issue in earnest--- eventually realize your emperor ain't got no clothes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others? Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God, you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how inhumane (!) God's actions appear to ...[text shortened]... y pursue the issue in earnest--- eventually realize your emperor ain't got no clothes.

Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others?

Because I actually bother to back up my arguments?

Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God

You're funny. I have never acknowledged any such thing. In the other thread, I simply anticipated that that was your position.

you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how inhumane (!) God's actions appear to you

Sorry, but until someone can provide a good answer for my usual argument, I'm going to keep giving it. I couldn't care less if you're bored of it or not. If theists can present [for example] the same bad Josh McDowell-style apologetics over and over again, then I'm well within rights to use the same counters.

Give it a rest, will you?

Nope. Backing down from curmudgeonly theists like yourself isn't in my game plan.

The best that you can cough up has been asked and answered more times than can be counted

And the answers all suck. They include lame ducks like "God can just destroy anything or anyone he wants; since he brought us all into the world, he can take us all out." Sorry, but that's ethically reprehensible.

and yet you and others insist the "argument" is new

Rubbish. I've read Twain's Letters from the Earth. I've read Bertrand Russell. I've no doubt I could find older examples if I looked hard enough.

it hasn't been answered to your liking. Tough. Get over it.

And who made you an authority over me? Piss off.

You refuse to submit yourself to authority so take your ball and run.

Authority isn't the issue. I'm under the authority of my bosses at work, and local, regional, and national governments. The last thing I need is to go out of my way in some silly attempt to submit to an imaginary authority figure in addition to all the others listed above.

Just because you've temporarily tripped up a few unsuspecting believers with such patently obvious sleight-of-hand doesn't mean there aren't others more thoughtful who have solved the "problem" many times over.

Frankly, the more thoughtful theists on this forum have a more sensible God-concept than the mass murdering, thuggish OT God.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others?

Because I actually bother to back up my arguments?

Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God

You're funny. I have never acknowledged any suc ve a more sensible God-concept than the mass murdering, thuggish OT God.[/b]

Because I actually bother to back up my arguments?
No, because you continue to use the same argument, despite the fact that it's been asked and answered to the satisfaction of all, save a handful of folks who refuse to consider anything outside of their so-called standards.

In the other thread, I simply anticipated that that was your position.
And yet you cannot drag yourself to any conjectures based upon that assumption. My, how open-minded of you!

Sorry, but until someone can provide a good answer for my usual argument, I'm going to keep giving it.
See above.

Backing down from curmudgeonly theists like yourself isn't in my game plan.
No one asked you to "back down" from anyone. You are being encouraged to try a new tack since this one isn't getting you anywhere. You continue to reinforce your own thinking, without a hint of considering the possibility that there may be something you're missing. I'm telling you that your error is the incorrect assignment of value. You are using the wrong standards for drawing the inevitable wrong conclusions. Case in point:

They include lame ducks like "God can just destroy anything or anyone he wants; since he brought us all into the world, he can take us all out." Sorry, but that's ethically reprehensible.

This is clearly not the biblical answer to the situation you are questioning, even though it is generally true.

I've no doubt I could find older examples if I looked hard enough.
And even the two miscreants you quote thought they were saying something new, something clever. You absolutely can find much older examples of this line of questioning. And, with the question you will also find equally old answers.

Authority isn't the issue.
Without question, authority is the issue. You want to take a portion of an authoritative document but reject the remainder of said document. You are majoring in a minor point and yet remain oblivious to the overall major point. Were you to submit to the authority of God, rather than any other authority first, your obstinance would be made known to you. As it stands, you are unable to see it, even if willing!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Because I actually bother to back up my arguments?
No, because you continue to use the same argument, despite the fact that it's been asked and answered to the satisfaction of all, save a handful of folks who refuse to consider anything outside of their so-called standards.

In the other thread, I simply anticipated that that was your p uld be made known to you. As it stands, you are unable to see it, even if willing![/b]

No, because you continue to use the same argument

So what? If it's a good one, why change it?

despite the fact that it's been asked and answered to the satisfaction of all, save a handful of folks who refuse to consider anything outside of their so-called standards.

Presumptuous much?

And yet you cannot drag yourself to any conjectures based upon that assumption. My, how open-minded of you!

Silly me - I assumed that, since it was your position and not mine, that you might actually want to argue it, instead of asking me to do all the work for you. But, as I reflect on your posting history, that's not your style. You're just a proclaimer.

You are being encouraged to try a new tack since this one isn't getting you anywhere. You continue to reinforce your own thinking, without a hint of considering the possibility that there may be something you're missing.

I tried it your way for years. If I wasn't able to consider the possibility that my thinking and beliefs were wrong, I would not have been able to become an atheist in the first place.

This is clearly not the biblical answer to the situation you are questioning, even though it is generally true.

Nevertheless, this argument is oft used by biblical theists.

You absolutely can find much older examples of this line of questioning. And, with the question you will also find equally old answers.

Why are you fixated on the age of the counterarguments? Why does it matter?

Without question, authority is the issue. You want to take a portion of an authoritative document but reject the remainder of said document.

Ever heard of Argumentum Ad Absurdum?

Were you to submit to the authority of God

Why would I submit to the authority of a non-existent being? Try to put yourself in atheist shoes here. Pretend I asked you to submit to the authority of Santa Claus. What would your reaction be?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
....the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God....

Is this really the case?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, because you continue to use the same argument

So what? If it's a good one, why change it?

despite the fact that it's been asked and answered to the satisfaction of all, save a handful of folks who refuse to consider anything outside of their so-called standards.

Presumptuous much?

And yet you cannot drag yourself to a ...[text shortened]... etend I asked you to submit to the authority of Santa Claus. What would your reaction be?

So what? If it's a good one, why change it?
That's an 'if' that lacks internal support... thus the reason to change it.

Presumptuous much?
Had I not previous exposure to the works of Clemens, BR and yourself, your question of presumption would be warranted. However, given that I've extensively read all three and given that I am very much aware of the weight of the arguments presented by each, it is not presumtuous for me to come to the conclusions reached in light of the cold hard facts of the matter.

I assumed that, since it was your position and not mine, that you might actually want to argue it, instead of asking me to do all the work for you.
The argument has been posted many times over, albeit more times than not, the stating of the argument is typically interrupted before any steam is made. For some reason, the atheists/agnostics herein refuse to hear of anything beyond what they are willing to accept, at least as it relates to God. Amusingly, they will spend thread after thread engaged in meaningless conjecture, but when it comes to considering the attributes of God, ears are suddenly plugged.

You're just a proclaimer.
This isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it's an outright lie. In the two-plus years I have been posting on here, I have taken great pains to support my theology--- using Scripture and reason. But don't take my word here for it: go back and look at the threads that are verifiable proof of such efforts, instead of taking a potshot you know you can't back up. Sure makes for a great soundbite, though, doesn't it?

I tried it your way for years.
I appreciate your openness. However, I don't know that you have tried it 'my way' in that your objections are typically aimed at statements I would never give.

If I wasn't able to consider the possibility that my thinking and beliefs were wrong, I would not have been able to become an atheist in the first place.
Then your open-mindedness certainly shouldn't stop now. It is comforting to know that you are a believer, regardless of your current state of mind. As I've said in the past in these types of situations, when we get to heaven, we'll share the equivalent of a pint and have a good laugh over your obstinance and my pathetic inability to change your thinking.

Nevertheless, this argument is oft used by biblical theists.
I'd reject it, too. But it is clearly not the argument that I am making.

Ever heard of Argumentum Ad Absurdum?
Yes I have. I hope you're not suggesting that it is being employed here.

Pretend I asked you to submit to the authority of Santa Claus. What would your reaction be?
My question would be: what's in it for me?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Is this really the case?

Yes.