:
NOT
NOT
I'm not surprised you once again dodged the question at hand and still play your silly little game!

Just for the record if you think you are going to be let into heaven, you better think again! God would be ashamed of himself, letting you in!

I can just see it, you and God having a conversation and you obviously trolling him non-stop, as soon as you get let in, you be even faster thrown back out!

Okay. It's on record.

You really want to hear why or trolling again? I mean, I'll bite I guess. You are smart enough to realise that God does not let bad people into heaven. People who treat others the way you do. No way he's letting you in! You have a terrible attitude, chip on your shoulders, you behave like Satan himself! You are never getting in!

Please keep telling me more and more about what I believe. It's not like that has *ever* gone wrong for you in the past.

Also, please tell me more about theology. Clearly, you know so much more about it than I do. How do you know all these things about God?

Lots of tl;dr lately itt

Do you know what it means? Clearly not! So you can't be un-biased or willing to hear new ideas without learning? You have to learn first?

Anyway I have pointed out in previous posts that I am open to learning, just that I thought it was not needed to carry on listening to Aarons argument. I have stated that if he thinks I don't understand something then he can elaborate further.

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Church/Religion manipulates those people into donating their money. You say that's a good thing?

Then start looking at these high flying religious leaders on TV and their net worth, private jets, homes cash in the bank! You still think it's ok?

Fine!

My assertion "I am talking about you believing that God exists and that Jesus is the son of God" You ask me why I make this assertion. So here you are denying it, right! I mean you are asking me why I am making this assertion.
I asked you "why do you believe God exists" without any evidence, you simply ignore my question."

So in your 2nd post you state that you have plenty of evidence for God existing but in your 1st post you are asking why I am making the assertion "I am talking about you believing that God exists and that Jesus is the son of God"

I'm confused. Literally in your 1st post you are saying I do not believe in God then in your 2nd post you say you have plenty of evidence for God existing.

So which one is it?

What's wrong with your reading abilities! Where do I tell you what you believe in that post?

That's your problem, it is a "YOU" problem, that you need to fix. You constantly make up fantasy about a post, misinterpret it completely, then go on and nitpick it, like I written it in the first place. Omg worthy of troll of the year! Just priceless.

Comes in a thread called "Christianity is a scam" claiming to have evidence! Troloololol!!! I state you will simply not provide any evidence and bury your head in the sand. Guess what guys! You do exactly what I predicted!!! Tries to intellectually bully me, with every post I make, and did exactly what I initially said he would do. Just priceless!

Keep it real kid! Gotta keep trolololol!

Had to clean it up because bias mod could not handle the truth!

I believe he was referencing the part where you said he believes God doesn't allow bad people in Heaven.

I didn't say it was a good thing, I said I don't have a problem with people giving money to a church if they want to. I don't think the level of manipulation used here is any stronger or more objectionable than the level of manipulation used to convince people to drink Coke, or watch the latest blockbuster or football game, or most of our discretionary spending.

Yes.

To quote you directly from page 6 of this very thread:


Can I interpret this to mean you're okay with the likes of Peter Popoff and Ted Haggard?

Here's the full quotation:

Notice the two bolded statements. In this passage I was trying to draw a contrast between tithing, understood as giving money to the worse off, as a good thing, and tithing, understood as just giving money to the church as something I find in principle unobjectionable, although not necessarily good.

So yes, my view is that tithing as charity is a good thing and tithing as paying for church is an ordinary consumption expense.

I don't have a problem with people making money. A lot of people think it is somehow hypocritical or immoral for ministers to have a high income. It might be hypocritical, but I don't see why it is immoral. I don't think it is immoral for movie stars or executives to make a high income, not sure why I should have a different view of ministers.

Don't you think there's a difference between a movie star and a conman?

The reason a lot of people think that, is because it is hypocritical. They are men of God, why do they need money, they have God, right! Some of them live over the top lavish lifestyles, from donations. I mean are they upfront with all the people who donate? Are they telling all those people that they buy million dollar houses and private jets? Do people think they are donating so the Church can help the less fortunate?

You think it is ok, if people get persuaded to donate because donating is a good thing, right. What if you are donating to a criminal, unintentionally, is it still ok? I mean the act of donating is a good thing, right!

How can it ever be correct if you have to manipulate a person into doing something! That is not free will! Regardless if the act or outcome is good or bad. Nobody should have such influence over another person and that goes for the Church too.

You're so bad at this. You're now at the level of splicing together unrelated statements and trying to make it appear as if I said something I didn't.

Here's the actual post: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=162

You might notice that I bolded something just above where I asked the question. I wonder why I might have done that. Surely, it was because I was trying to reference a statement in some other post that wasn't quoted. That's the most logical way of reading it.

Again, it's hard to say that I'm ignoring the question when I'm openly addressing it. In order for you to understand why I believe what I believe, you must have a more robust understanding of why people come to believe what they believe. I'm not going to go to step 2 until you complete step 1. All that requires of you is to go back and assent to the idea that your analysis of belief in Santa Claus is worthless, and then to work through the process of fixing it.

You're definitely confused. I think this is at least the third time that you appear to have failed at reading comprehension. If I literally said something in my first post, you would be able to quote me saying it. But yet, you didn't. Maybe that's because I literally didn't say that.

Yes. I don't think that most ministers, who make a fairly average income and work hard at a stressful job even very successful ones, are con men.

So the assertion that you believe without evidence. Ok fine!

So I ask you a question now: Do you only believe your beliefs are correct if you have evidence?

Also go ahead and show your evidence.

You have evidence that God is real and that Jesus is the son of God. Show me the proof!

Priceless btw!

For the record not playing your stupid game kid!

Your next step is now to present your argument, how YOU form beliefs, then why/how your beliefs are suddenly facts and not just beliefs and lastly show your evidence that God is real and Jesus is the Son of God.

When we are done here we will continue with some other stuff I want answers to.

I doubt you make it further as I pointed out already exactly what you would do!

If someone is lying to people about what they are doing with the money they donate, then that is wrong and should be condemned. That is fraud. I'm referring to your double standard where you criticize successful ministers for having a high income, but don't criticize successful people in other industries. What is the justification for this? Hypocrisy? Which religion is it that says it is wrong to make a high income?

Yes, of course. Often criminals are some of the worst-off people in society and so most in need of help.

Why is it not free will? Do you think no one could freely decide to be religious?

Good. You've accomplished grade 1 reading comprehension.

You're adding another question to the mix. Are you sure you want to do that?

No. That's not the next step. The next step is that you must have a more robust understanding of why people come to believe what they believe. Your concept of evidence, as demonstrated by your Santa Claus example is severely lacking. Indeed, you made an argument that's about as anti-evidence as possible because the *ONE* piece of evidence (presents under the tree) argues in FAVOR of Santa Claus and not against it. Yet you concluded wrongly.

Are you certain this is true? I think there's sufficient evidence to the contrary. You just haven't realized it yet. So your rejection of reality stems not from a lack of evidence, but from a lack of understanding.

No, the next step is for you to learn and to understand. I've said this from the beginning. If you can't even properly conceive of how someone would come to believe something simple, such as the non-existence of Santa Claus as a fat home invader, then you have no chance conceiving of how someone might come to look at complex phenomena.

I just barely got you to do elementary reading comprehension. You're not ready yet. Let's work on getting you to learn about Santa Claus and why your presentation is terrible.

Balls in your court now! I am not playing your stupid game kid!

Read last post if you want to continue!

What double standard are you referring to? Can you point to the double standard you are referring to. All you have done is assume something I did not write. I have not criticized anyone, just pointed some stuff out. If you are going there then that's fine, I think other people in other sectors should be in jail too if they are manipulating and scamming people.

Really no double standard just your imagination running wild, assuming stuff that I did not even write!

Yes of course criminals should be able to manipulate other people to get paid? Is that your stance on the matter? Weird!


It's not free will because people get suckered into scams like these. If people had true free will they would never get scammed would they, unless they wanted to get scammed but I assume here that that's not the case.

I don't know the answer to that. I would have to analyse everybody to come to a rational answer.

I apologize, I assumed you didn't think it was wrong for people to earn high incomes.

Yes.

Two points: 1) Suckers still have free will. 2) Most church donations are not scams.

Two of them, if I'm counting correctly.

You still are.

Okay. I've read it again.

What's wrong with earning a high income?
Wait, why do you think it's ok for criminals to take advantage of people by manipulating them?

We are referring to a different game. I not playing your game, step 1, step 2 BS, were you think you are a teacher and I'm your student. You are waiting for me to tell you how people form beliefs. If it so important to you, go ****ing look it up! Again I am not playing that game. You either continue or stfu!

I guess you keep avoiding and delaying because you now realise you are way way in over your head. You babble evidence, and bring zero to the table!

I guess that you will not continue because you have 0 proof! Keep believing in dem fairy tales m8!