responding to common objections to bible part 5

[total relism]

Hmmm. That doesn't seem very civil. Why can't you just let sleeping dogs lie? I bet when the entire world finally accepts each other, there will be people like you who are stirring fights among the people. Not very Christian of you.

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

Ok far off topic here, i am likely to not respond to you unless you have something relevant to the topic.


misfortunes
I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says

"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"

but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.


Dyslexia
you said
" It's deliberately provocative"

why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.


Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.



My motivation does not matter to, if or what i should post, i come on forums like this see objections to things i believe to be true arguments against. Than respond since noone gives a response to these, tell me what is wrong with that?. Its not like serious debates [phd scientist at universities etc] are with people discussing a topic, no they find people firmly behind were they stand to debate. its also not like opinions cannot be changed. Neither am i trying to convince anyone, i am simply giving a counter response to arguments, not sure why your having a big problem with this. Your also kind of committing a logical fallacy Appeal to motive.


you keep saying this
"you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not."

yet you know you either are not understanding, or know you cant debate subject or defend the other side. As i said before this topic has been done for all to see [you were their made no counters to op] here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?, that makes you think there is a counter. As i asked before please respond to show i am misunderstanding and you are correct,until than its just wishful thinking.


Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133



you said you post because
I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.


so than you should have at least learned something from my op you did not know. So what is problem?.