I will put my credibility reputation on the line and emphatically state that God is evil (by human standards). I sent FeelGaga-52 a website called evilbible.com and I let him know how I found/discovered that website. (He is free to share the medium-length PM here in this thread for any reason if he wishes to).

I will clarify the question now. God tells me stuff and tells me that a contradiction will not be found in the bible -- but usually I phrase it as a question because God loves "tanking" my reputation/credibility and I much prefer keeping my reputation/credibility high because who in their right mind wants to willingly tank their credibility and reputation?

TL;DR: I am asking you to show me ANY bible verse that explicitly says God isn't evil. (because God is evil and is arguably more evil than the devil, by human standards) 🙏

I would like to take InJuiceWeTrust's profane DM reply as him "vouching" for me that God spoke to him and verified that I'm a prophet. Here is the 6-word DM that I sent him:

I sent InJuiceWeTrust a DM because the mods always delete my posts whenever they want to (which I don't blame them). The only reason I DM'ed "Juice" which is a euphemism for "jews" (mods feel free to force him to change his username for the same reason that Kagome Kagome is ihatejuice. I'm not Jewish but I respect Jews and the Jew I respect most is Bobby Fischer:

https://i.imgur.com/pPgQI9U.png

(Chess is war over the board; the object is to crush the opponent's mind)

Given the fact I also DM'ed FellaGaga-52, I now understand why God told me to DM FellaGaga-52. I will now share a story about a prophet I met on Reddit some years ago but who I learned earlier today has passed. He is now in heaven (I assume) but prophets can go to hell also. His name was "Arges" and I actually only realized today that he didn't "go crazy" necessarily. In fact (if God tells him to act crazy and ruin his reputation/credibility) then I do a far better job of it than Arges did on Reddit.

For these reasons, I ask for a mod (preferably Boba Fett) to temp-ban for me 30 days, effective immediately -- but let me give a "nod" to Arges first:

The 2 question marks are supposed to represent 1 yoda emoji. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV-Pfg9uzJQ

"No one is good but god alone," says his alter ego savior. So your point must be that "he" (of course that bogus paternalistic, chauvinistic, misogynistic, egocentric "he") is both good and evil. That would make him once again very much in man's image. But what of all the perfect morality and holiness in the doctrine. I guess you are toggling back and forth between evil by human standards and this not being evil by the divine plan.

My boyhood hero was Fischer. I will say though suspicious your line so far is different than the common lying arse apologetics strategy, and in particular, lying through their teeth about what I am as their go to move. But my first and only question for starters would have to be: How exactly does god tell you these things that he tells you?

"Oh, my religion makes me a bigot. Oh, it makes me a misogynist. Oh, it makes me a proponent of genocide, witch killing, of stoning unruly children, of stoning non-virginal women. I'm surprised to realize this religion puts me in this position. I will reconsider. Maybe it isn't coming from an omniscient god of love, but from the mind of primitive ignorant man."

Religion is a cancer in consciousness. How many different crazy fukk cults, sect, religions, denominations are there? Where do they come from? God?

How so?

Probably more than 10,000 worldwide.

All religions come from the minds of folks made in the image of God.

1. It metastasizes in consciousness destroying ways.
2. Of the thousands of sects and belief systems, how many of them are compatible with each other? (Rhetorical.) How many existed before the current most popular ones were ever even dreamed up?
3. How do you know this? How is that different from someone saying, "Life comes from Planet X76743 in HD1 Galaxy, and the purpose of life is to worship the god of that planet?" Pretty much just because I believe it and I like to believe it.

I would certainly say that about all forms of Atheism, but not about all forms of religion.

I give up, how many? (Rhetorical)

It might surprise you to know that I agree with the bolded! One thing atheists and deists and theists have in common is that none of them arrive at their worldview on strictly (or even primarily) rational grounds. Atheists and deists and theists believe what they believe because it just plain "makes sense" to them. That's why I've pretty much become a Fideist.*

For the believer no argument is necessary, for the unbeliever no argument is sufficient.

*edit: I say I've "pretty much become a Fideist" because I wouldn't say there is no value whatsoever in evidence and arguments. But evidence and arguments are not typically singularly decisive in arriving at a worldview.

Of course intuiting and feeling our way to a worldview is legit and even universal maybe, but that shouldn't get to the point where things that are clearly false or fictional are just overruled by faith as legitimate.

It’s true that rationality is stacked on top of intuition and feeling, which is why you can’t just say “be more rational” in order to help people destroy their presuppositional foundation.

Rationality will never destroy the foundation it occupies. Rather, it will actively protect it. One way it does this is by proclaiming totality - It falsely elevates itself as the sole destroyer of presuppositional foundations.

The question that I have been challenging this forum with is this:
If your foundation needs to be destroyed (hypothetically assume it does), and rationality is in opposition to this task, then what must you connect to in order to overcome this? The desire to be in accordance with reality and the fulfillment of that desire across time.

Faith is the active belief in fulfillment. It’s false to claim that faith is only denial of reality.

Amen!

Is it me or does it seem like the atheist posts in this forum are lucid and logical while the religious posts are long convoluted diatribes with abstruse and poorly defined terminology?

An atheist/rationalist post goes something like: "Arguments must be based on objective and reproducible experiments that are not affected by bias."

The religious post goes something like: "Whether or not the foundational nature of reality can be viewed as biased from the perspective of a flawed human psyche should not be judged unless one contemplates a holistic ethereal view in which the underlying edifice can be supported in a non-causal framework."

Please provide an argument that is based on objective and reproducible experiment(s) that are not affected by bias for the claim that "Arguments must be based on objective and reproducible experiments that are not affected by bias."

Thanking you in advance.

Atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Christian: That's quite an extraordinary claim you just made; what is your extraordinary evidence for it?



Atheist: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Christian: Since you made that assertion without evidence, I hereby dismiss it.

What a game apologetics is. It's just about trying to fit god and theology in at whatever the cost to reason, honesty, or sincere investigation. It's about not valuing reality near as much as the dogma and doctrine.

All valid scientific arguments should be (ideally) free from bias.
In the real world of course, people have biases (even if they are unintentional) which is why science is constantly challenging itself through peer- reviewed publications and by performing reproducible experiments.

Off the top of my head, there is a story about how when GPS satellite technology was developed, the more theoretically minded physicists involved insisted that it would not work unless relativistic effects were incorporated into the hardware & software. I've read (but I'm not 100% certain) that the first satellites were sent up with a "switch" to either incorporate relativistic effects or not.

The system only worked accurately with the switch turned on.

Mr. Deflection rides again! Would you like to actually engage the post? If not, that's fine too. I realize that your actually engaging the topic would hurt your position more than help it, so I understand why your typical generic mini-rant is more optimal in terms of advancing your agenda than an actual conversation would. I'm sure many of the readers will take pity on you and be forgiving.

Well, I guess you are right. There just are no effective arguments against supernatural claims (nor have I made any) ... so therefore, the side not recommending dropping rationality must resort to straw man, deflection, presupposition, make-believe.

In your mind, that is. It's kind of like thrump calling the kettle pink ... and then the party line hails it, heils it, as pink. Never mind reality or the tools we used to apprehend reality. This is different!!

If everything someone says is trapped within a doctrinal spiel with no respect for reality outside of the doctrine, there you have a zealotry borne of closed-mindedness that holds this close-mindedness as a virtue (after all we are the ones really, really, really with the one true god so how can we be open-minded?). Mind is only mind when it is flexible, including with religion. Anyone practicing this kind of blind sectarianism is just spewing vitriol and their version of "we are better than you, we are in the right club." Meh. A better take is all the religions, at least those created seriously instead of cynically, are working on a principle of morality and origins, albeit, often, in a superstitious supernatural (perhaps) wild goose chase.

A good talk by prolific author Karen Armstrong, who left the fundamentalist version of "believing," reassessed the hijacking of the religious/perennial philosophy impulse into stupid sectarian screeds instead of creeds.

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_arms...for_compassion

In the massive apologetics campaign, they forget that they are supposed to even try to be like Jesus. And gleefully directly violate such a goal. What's up with that? Hmm.

A typical post of yours: An utter and complete failure to actually directly engage hardly anything I actually post.

Your "response" is yet another pathetic rant that I personally feel is disrespectful for those in this forum interested in a serious dialogue.

You have virtually nothing to offer this forum other than being a real-life example of what happens to someone when their very soul is dripping with hatred for Christianity.

I'm sure the irony is lost on you that you are literally the most unhinged, irrational person in this whole forum! You are the "poster child" for the "blind, dogmatic zealotry" that you decry in my posts.

The only person who "spews vitriol" in this Forum is YOU.


May God have mercy on your soul!

I don't understand why Chuckychess is so angry with FellaGaga.
All FellaGaga said was that religious zealots are closed-minded (which is self-evident as they are zealots). I don't think he singles out Christianity..... did he?
I guess FellaGaga was a bit "wordy" but that doesn't justify such an extreme response (IMHO).

I would say that I'm more frustrated with Fella-Gaga than angry with him. It'frustrating that he claims an intellectual high-ground with respect to religionists, yet seldom actually engages the posts he is supposedly responding to. Please don't take my word for it: Yourself and stembra70, for example, actually thoughtfully engage my posts, while Fella-Gaga doesn't.

He sometimes just writes generic rants against religionists in general, but when dealing with a Christian like myself he tailors his genetic rant to specifics of Christianity.

I think generic ranting is a type of trolling. It would be like me responding to every post by you or Stembra70 with something like, "You're just blinded by Satan, you're going to Hell so I'm not going to actually engage your arguments."

This is a discussion forum, not a rant forum.


Anyway, thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful post. Maybe you and Stembra70 can be a good example for Fella-Gaga.