J Hubner wrote:

More soliciting!

Im being very sarcastic if you failed to notice, the point is you people should stop harassing me to replie to each and every one of you and wait for me to read the comments and replie to whom I chose to.

I hope I made this clear.

Well, that would be all very well, if it weren't for the fact that the responses you chose [sic] not to replie [sic] to addressed your vacuous crap comprehensively, yet you then chose [sic] to act as if your drivel hadn't already been fed into the shredder. It's called intellectual dishonesty, and it's especially unbecoming when committed by somebody who purports to be in a position to fucking lecture us on morality.

I hope I made this clear.

J Hubner wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Hahahaha. You think your intellectual farts are worth money? Fuck me, but this is priceless!

Meh, you people actually have site donators for your collective brain farts, its only fair that I try to make a little money of my own.

trubble76RS Donator you could send me a little donation, not much, just enough to buy myself a couple of cups of coffee or a few packs of Gum.

It would be much appreciated and I would give you a cedit of 10 replies ( basic treatement)

I would be happy to donate a small amount for intelligent replies. I don't hold out any hope that you will qualify.

hackenslash wrote:

J Hubner wrote:

More soliciting!

Im being very sarcastic if you failed to notice, the point is you people should stop harassing me to replie to each and every one of you and wait for me to read the comments and replie to whom I chose to.

I hope I made this clear.

Well, that would be all very well, if it weren't for the fact that the responses you chose [sic] not to replie [sic] to addressed your vacuous crap comprehensively, yet you then chose [sic] to act as if your drivel hadn't already been fed into the shredder. It's called intellectual dishonesty, and it's especially unbecoming when committed by somebody who purports to be in a position to fucking lecture us on morality.

I hope I made this clear.

You need a fresh bar of soap to wash your mouth out, and another for the rest of you is propably required as well.

J Hubner wrote:You people answer so much to our claims because we are few and you many here. Send me a money order by pay-pall, pm me for this, il give you the info, and il do the work and take a look at all of your claims. 10$ for the basic responses, and 25$ for the delux treatement.

I don't work for free.

Thus is religion; a pyramid scam.

J Hubner wrote:
You need a fresh bar of soap to wash your mouth out, and another for the rest of you is propably required as well.

What a fabulous riposte! I wish I had your rhetorical skills.

As it happens, my mouth, and the rest of me, are sufficiently clean for my current purposes. And I'll tell you this for nothing; I'll take expletives over lies every day, and twice on Sundays.

Now, any chance that you're actually going to address the arguments? I still await your response to my total evisceration of your arse-gravy in your other thread, you know, that one where you keep asserting that nobody has answered your questions, despite my having done so reasonably comprehensively, as well as others?

Based on the quality of Hubner's posts so far, it is he who should be paying us to read that shit.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Mister Agenda wrote:Our existence and behavior undermines their beliefs: we exist and we're demonstrably not that bad.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course from an atheistic perspective (ie from whatever moral code du jour the majority of atheists adhere to) you're not that bad. You're probably even better than a lot of Christians. However, from a Christian perspective, you ARE demonstrably that bad, since you aren't a Christian. According to Christianity, you are guilty of the worst possible act of evil, rejecting Christ. In other words, you are morally worse than a pedophile, or a serial killer. Pedophiles and serial killers can ultimately have their sins washed away by Christ's blood; atheists can't, since they deny the very mechanism that allow them to wash away their sins and evil.

But that's precisely what he said...

According to you, your religion teaches that all atheists are morally worse than killers and paedophiles. But they are demonstrably not, as a rule, so undermine the veracity of the religion that says they are.

Therefore, for the believer to keep pretending they haven't wasted their life on a load of old bollocks, they must keep insisting that non-christians are evil, as you have just done.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Christians do have an objective morality, because it is rooted in a perfect, omnibenevolant being.

Christians each have their own subjective ideas of what God's objective morality should be, because the only manifestation of their perfect being is voices inside their own heads....

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
~ S.B. Anthony

So true!

ispoketoanangel wrote:As a reminder (so readers know with what kind of person we're dealing here):

Quote from Starr (senior moderator) about Cali's behavior: Calilasseia has been told that his personal post was not appropriate and that if he makes a similar post in the future it may result in serious repercussions.

Ahem, this was in connection with a totally different matter, not concerning you or your apologetics. I also note with interest how you left out the following text from Starr's post, which followed immediately afterwards [emphasis mine]:

Although we do not support his action in this one specific instance, the staff do continue to support Calilasseia as a valued member of our team.

You do realise that quote mining is viewed here with particular disgust, don't you? Since your above post is a blatant instance thereof, many here will conclude that they are seeing supernaturalist duplicity writ large once more, though this would hardly be the setting of a precedent, given how a good number of supernaturalists have demonstrated time and again, that they're willing to lie for doctrine.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Let's go back at the topic then, shall we?

I did start a thread a while ago about a similar discussion, readers might be interested to read it:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 14395.html

And you had your worthless apologetics shredded in that thread too. I had a hand in that, not least by noting here that your beloved Craig's position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". And, from a later post of mine in that other trainwreck thread of yours, I presented four sound reasons why no one is entitled to treat your magic man as anything other than a product of the human imagination, viz:

[1] Complete absence of any substantive evidence for the existence of this entity, and complete failure on the part of supernaturalists to provide evidence for any of their various asserted magic entities, despite having had 5,000 years in which to deliver the goods;

[2] A large body of evidence, courtesy of 300 years of continued scientific inquiry, that supernatural entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to vast classes of real world observational phenomena;

[3] The paradox-ridden manner in which this entity is constructed in the relevant mythology;

[4] The fact that the relevant mythology erects assertions about the real world that are demonstrably wrong.

I don't recall you ever attempting to address these.

Meanwhile, addressing this side salad:

J Hubner wrote:

incoherence of omnipotence

Demonstration, rather than assertions? You seem to be adept at slipping these tid-bits... However the carfull reader will notice that the '' inchorence of omnipotence'' is far from being an established fact.

Wrong. Want to know why omnipotence is an incoherent concept? I'll tell you why. Because when it was first erected, it was erected with the intent of asserting that your magic man was subject to no constraints upon the purported power or behavioural remit thereof. This immediately becomes incoherent when one takes that assertion of no constraints at face value, as originally and naively intended by supernaturalists, because it permits the logically absurd to become real. Logical absurdities such as fabricating an entity that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist, for example. This was recognised fairly early in the game, when the question "can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" was asked.

On the other hand, if one engages in the later apologetic redefining of "omnipotence" to escape these absurdities, this involves the imposition of constraints upon the purported power of your magic man, and renders the term null and void in its original sense. Not least because the moment one imposes constraints in order to avoid logical absurdities, this naturally leads to the question of what other possible constraints exist, constraints that have an even more serious impact than the requirement to be consonant with logical possibilities. That centuries-old question I've reproduced above yields another problem, namely that there exist paradoxes inherent in the concept of omnipotence as originally constructed. It is impossible to answer that question with either 'yes' or 'no', without imposing a constraint upon the behaviour of your magic man, which tosses the entire concept as originally formulated into the bin. Which of course is only to be expected when supernaturalists engage in their usual habit of making shit up about their magic man, which is precisely what happened when the original assertion was erected.

Now, of course, if you wish to argue that your magic man possesses privileged capabilities not available to the rest of us, then we're playing a slightly different ball game, but before you can erect assertions along these lines, you have to place the existence assertion upon a proper, evidentially supported footing, because without establishing in a proper manner that your magic man actually exists, all other assertions you erect about this entity constitute nothing more than speculation and fantasy on your part. So, care to get to work providing a rigorous demonstration that your magic man actually exists, and secure yourself the Nobel Prize for Physics whilst you're at it?

J Hubner wrote:

the incoherence of omnipotence has been demonstrated time and time again on this forum.

Dont make me laugh.

See above. Checkmate.

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

I dont have time to answer all the bilge you spout on a huge topic!

Ah, evasion. Funny how the rest of us can spend time dissecting your manifest bilge.

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

I dont have time to answer all the bilge you spout on a huge topic!

Hahahahaha that's the worst excuse I've heard in days

When you christians "spout bilge" (whatever that means), we take time to demonstrate you're wrong, point by point. (Just look at Cali's average lenght of posts...)

But when we ask you to prove what you say, you just don't have time ?

Even to a simple mind, it shows without any doubt that you have nothing you answer.

And by the way, "huge post" ? 5 pages is a huge post to you ????

You people answer so much to our claims because we are few and you many here. Send me a money order by pay-pall, pm me for this, il give you the info, and il do the work and take a look at all of your claims. 10$ for the basic responses, and 25$ for the delux treatement.

I don't work for free.

If I charged supernaturalists by word count for my rebuttals of their nonsense, I'd be knocking Bill Gates off his pedestal in the Forbes Rich List.

J Hubner wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Hahahaha. You think your intellectual farts are worth money? Fuck me, but this is priceless!

Meh, you people actually have site donators for your collective brain farts, its only fair that I try to make a little money of my own.

This constitutes a gigantic assumption on your part, that your vacuous apologetics are worth paying for. The consensus here is that they aren't.

J Hubner wrote:trubble76RS Donator you could send me a little donation, not much, just enough to buy myself a couple of cups of coffee or a few packs of Gum.

Tell you what, throw in some circus clown acting and we'll consider it.

J Hubner wrote:

More soliciting!

Im being very sarcastic if you failed to notice, the point is you people should stop harassing me to replie to each and every one of you and wait for me to read the comments and replie to whom I chose to.

I hope I made this clear.

Actually, we're still waiting for you to provide one substantive answer to one of our questions. Got one?

J Hubner wrote:You need a fresh bar of soap to wash your mouth out, and another for the rest of you is propably required as well.

Guess what? We don't fucking care, not least because we regard your posturing on the matter of propriety here as entirely synthetic, on the basis that it's nothing more than another piece of evasion.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Alister McGrath comes to mind.

** Runs into the garden to eat her dad's shed **

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Mister Agenda wrote:Our existence and behavior undermines their beliefs: we exist and we're demonstrably not that bad.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course from an atheistic perspective (ie from whatever moral code du jour the majority of atheists adhere to) you're not that bad. You're probably even better than a lot of Christians. However, from a Christian perspective, you ARE demonstrably that bad, since you aren't a Christian. According to Christianity, you are guilty of the worst possible act of evil, rejecting Christ. In other words, you are morally worse than a pedophile, or a serial killer. Pedophiles and serial killers can ultimately have their sins washed away by Christ's blood; atheists can't, since they deny the very mechanism that allow them to wash away their sins and evil.

My 'moral code du jour' simply appeals to motivations, consequences and outcomes. Morality is concerned with action - my actions speak for themselves regardless of partisan appeals to this-or-that arbitrary authority.

When a moral code appeal only to authority any claim for a default rectitude for one's actions can be simply waved away.