There was a Hellmuth articlae in cardplayer (or one of those ) that I really enjoyed.

It started with him detailing a hand and why he thought he played it very well at the time. Then he had doubts and wrote a quite lengthy article analysing the hand in geat detail. He concluded that he played it very well.

But that's exactly lagtight's point regarding Christianity.

Religions that developed in the Middle East like to tell the faithful that God ordered them to kill everyone from the next village, but that's what people in the Middle East believe anyway. They enjoy the carnage.

I suspect Staling did too.

There are some young wimpersnapper around these parts that dont realise how easily we forget.

Either that or they're so far gone they've forgotten that they forget.

Or it's a trolley (let's not forget that)

Late 90's ?

In the 80's and I'd say at least into the early 90's the work/drinking culture wasn't quite gone. But maybe it did change a bit earlier than I recall. I know for sure in the 80's it was still a thing.

This reminds me of a girl I dated once........

I think I recall drinking wine at IBM in London (they used to cook steaks on demand as well). But if they served alcohol at lunch then they stopped sometime in the late 80s

Right so lets follow this argument then given that answer of 'yes'.

For simplicity just cite the number and correct any statement I make here that you think does not properly reflect what you have said and please answer my questions as there are only 3 at the end.


lagtight:

1. God and the bible provide a moral framework that guides people to good
2. atheist have no such framework thus have a greater capacity for bad and/or its an easier path for them to do bad

3. Humans have no capacity to second guess God's word or to apply our judgement to it. Even if it appears God is demanding something immoral to our human eyes, by default anything God decrees is necessarily good, since God is good.

So we read in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 that God demands a person 'Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God' cite

4. You reply that a Christian person could read that plainly and believe it rightly, in their view.

Questions:

5. so if a person reads Deuteronomy 13:13-19 and acts upon it, killing the entire town, believing it is not his role to question God or substitute his judgement do you hold to your position that is not our (mankind) role or within our capacity to judge this action as right or wrong, because if God DID decree, as it appears to be written, it is necessarily then GOOD?

6. any judgment of that action must be left to God and the afterlife as only he can truly know if the individual, did in fact follow his command or applied a false interpretation. That is not for us mere mortals to judge. Because if we do judge that we are substituting our judgement for God's word (a scripture writing) which we cannot do?

7. lastly, if you argue he can and should have applied his judgement to the scripture, where judgment would also be defined as skepticism here to what he is reading, do you then agree that judgement and skepticism needs to be applied to the entire bible by every individual thus there is no universal Truth in it?





(Appreciation for the answers in advance, while also asking you to use your words and not to simply quote some lines of scripture assuming I will be able to discern the meaning from it.)

It would be easier if he just wasn’t so dishonest. Honestly, neither of you are clever enough to keep your lies straight, it just leads to embarrassment.

.

So, Trolly, how would you say the plan to get the religion thread shut down is going?

Got it.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

If a person reading Deuteronomy 13:13-19 in the year 2021 A.D. acts upon it, he is guilty of murder. That decree only applied to the Jews living under the Covenant of the Law, which hasn't been in effect for almost 2,000 years.
We can't judge his heart, but we can judge him in a criminal court and throw him in the hoosegow if he's found guilty of murder in a fair trial.

We ought not judge or be skeptical of what the Bible says. Our duty is to endeavor to understand the Scriptures, and obey its teachings.

I hope my responses were helpful.

Great questions, by the way!

This has to be one of the poorest arguments and wrongly applied 'no true scottsman' arguments ever applied.

You would get an F in debate class.


Even if any group demanded that they would not allow membership by any theists as they only wanted atheists in their midst, you cannot then say that any action they take as a group is driven by their atheism or their position as atheist is the cause.

If they go bowling as a group, you cannot say it is due to their atheism.

If they get in a fight with another bowling group and kill them all, you cannot say it is due to them being atheist or a driving factor.


When someone points out that error of application of logic that is not saying 'no true Scotsman'.


The reason we can say 'Religious affiliation often leads to murder in the religions name, and gives succor and comfort to those who commit that murder as just' is not simply just because there is a communality of religion in the individuals and IS because they proudly declare they are doing in the name of religion often to wipe out those perceived as infidels.

To make a similar claim for atheism you need a similar establishment. Just making a leap to 'but they share that communality' is just a complete logical fallacy.

fyp

Trolly apparently enjoys posting in threads he dislikes.

Very good and clear, thx.

So questions below if you would...

Given...

"...That decree only applied to the Jews living under the Covenant of the Law, which hasn't been in effect for almost 2,000 years..."

if then someone like d2, living just over 2000 years ago, living in a community peacefully all his young life, and as a good neighbour to all, announces that he is an atheist in his adulthood, then that person following Deuteronomy 13:13-19 would be fully justified killing every single person in that town and every animal, as per God's word if they tolerate d2 amongst them.

it would not be for any person to judge or substitute their judgement for God and in fact it would be wrong for anyone to do so and thus not act and follow the scripture killing all.

1- Is that correct?
2- Is this 'the bible helping the theist to a higher level of morality than the atheist but we mankind, simply do not have the capacity to understand God's will?

I figure the mods are asking themselves how much value it brings to this politics forum to let the homophobe make these blatant, bad faith shitposts constantly.

I mean, it's almost like morality evolves over time and is not absolute or something. But that can't be right, that would be crazy!

That is very dishonest summation of the issue I challenged you on and the debate between you and that ensued from that.

This is the direct quote (no paraphrase) of what you said

Your statement that he is 'incorrect' moves the discussion from a debate on opinions, and who can support theirs more, to one of FACT.

You are saying he is 'factually wrong'. And your reason for that is that this 'empirical evidence' DOES exist, thus he is factually wrong as its mere existence substantiates that.


So I attacked the foundation of that by pointing out that the same exact strains of 'empirical evidence (testimonials, out of body experiences, etc)' also exist in Scientology and asked you if you then agree 'that if is true that as long as such 'empirical evidence' is present, thus Scientology has the same base of establishment or credibility as the other theist religions'.


To that you replied 'you would need to review the 'empirical evidence' for Scientology to determine that.

I pointed out that then destroys the foundation of your argument.

If it is only TRUE if RFlush assesses the veracity of the 'empirical evidence' and finds it sufficient and at that point you can determine the other person is 'incorrect' that makes it a subjective measure and not an objective one.

d2 therefore can do the same thing you did or reserve the right to do so. He can say 'let me examine your 'empirical evidence' ...find it insufficient, and thus his position is not 'incorrect'.

At best you can agree to disagree over opinion but you cannot render objective judgement and label your position factually correct nor his incorrect.

And... scene.

If there was no shitposting this place would be boring af.

Please make your feelings known in the Moderation thread. Maybe they will permaban me, and you'll be able to sleep at night again.

As an aside, given your continual fascination with my posts, you might be a good subject for a psychological study on obsession.

Are you as ugly as your avatar in real life?

As it so happens, I am exactly as ugly as my avatar.

2644 please and thx, laggy.

Do you not eat pork and shellfish then? Or is the old Testament sort of a free roll? Use it when it says stuff we want to do anyway, like condemning gays....but giving up pork is inconvenient for me so ignore.

Good thing Stalin never did anything like that or one might draw the conclusion that religion isn't the driving factor but merely a prop.

And saying that atheism can't cause someone to murder someone because that's not the nature of true atheism is a classic true scottsman.

You might be surprised at who gets the f.