Mr P wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:I don't see anything un-Christian about my attitude. The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point. And it's been well proven, all you have to do is read this discussion.

And I'm not making any excuse. I changed my username because an admin asked me to.

WRT highlighted section; Actually deliberate provocation does make you a troll, that's the very definition of the term and you can't arbitrarily change that to suit your own agenda. Also your back-peddaling has been noted.

No, it doesn't, because the purpose was not to start trouble but to prove a point. Which has been well proven.

Don't tell me that those who have a vulgar avatar of Christ shitting while being on the cross are not deliberately provocating. It doesn't make them trolls.

Would you care to say what is agressive about the "New Atheist" approach?

ispoketoanangel wrote:Don't tell me that those who have a vulgar avatar of Christ shitting while being on the cross are not deliberately provocating. It doesn't make them trolls.

I don't think it is an unwarranted assumption to say that Christ probably had a shit while he was on the cross. He was up there for quite a while.

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools.

This is really the central disagreement of the whole issue.

You believe that your bible is the word of your god. You've chosen that book over all the others that also make a similar claim to divine authorship. It's your choice.

Atheists don't think that gods write books because there is no proof that any book was written by, or inspired by, any god. It's a matter of belief, which is something that atheists decline to choose to do.

The pretense that such a blind leap of faith is somehow virtuous, would be laughable if the faithful weren't so annoying in their insistence that they have 'truth'.

ispoketoanangel wrote:See, here's the thing. The new atheists have chosen the aggressive approach, but it seems like they don't like it when believers answer it back. If theists are called deluded, I don't see why they can't answer back and call atheists fools.

And before the Holy Spirit regenerated me, I have no problemt to admit was a fool, and completely blind to the reality of God.

A few points, what's a new atheist? Another tiny little pigeon hole so people can categorise and demonise without having to take responsibility for the consequencies of their actions?

Secondly you've admitted you came here to provoke so you can't complain when you get your wish, that's just hypocritical (please note I'm criticising your style of argument here and not you personally).

ispoketoanangel wrote:Don't tell me that those who have a vulgar avatar of Christ shitting while being on the cross are not deliberately provocating. It doesn't make them trolls.

If we were all posting on a christian site then you would have a valid point but not here.

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools.

The Bible also makes it clear that bats are birds. And here I was thinking they were mammals. Silly me.

Mr P wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:See, here's the thing. The new atheists have chosen the aggressive approach, but it seems like they don't like it when believers answer it back. If theists are called deluded, I don't see why they can't answer back and call atheists fools.

And before the Holy Spirit regenerated me, I have no problemt to admit was a fool, and completely blind to the reality of God.

A few points, what's a new atheist? Another tiny little pigeon hole so people can categorise and demonise without having to take responsibility for the consequencies of their actions?

Secondly you've admitted you came here to provoke so you can't complain when you get your wish, that's just hypocritical (please note I'm criticising your style of argument here and not you personally).

When did I admit that I came here to provoke? That I had a provocative username is no different than the anti-Jesus or anti-Christianity avatars, it doesn't mean those people registered here to provoke as well.

Again, the only point was to prove the double standard (that atheists show indignation when atheism is attacked, but welcome all vicious attacks on religions with open arms).

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Mr P wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:I don't see anything un-Christian about my attitude. The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point. And it's been well proven, all you have to do is read this discussion.

And I'm not making any excuse. I changed my username because an admin asked me to.

WRT highlighted section; Actually deliberate provocation does make you a troll, that's the very definition of the term and you can't arbitrarily change that to suit your own agenda. Also your back-peddaling has been noted.

No, it doesn't, because the purpose was not to start trouble but to prove a point. Which has been well proven.

This discussion's about to descend into "no it isn't... yes it is"

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Mr P wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:See, here's the thing. The new atheists have chosen the aggressive approach, but it seems like they don't like it when believers answer it back. If theists are called deluded, I don't see why they can't answer back and call atheists fools.

And before the Holy Spirit regenerated me, I have no problemt to admit was a fool, and completely blind to the reality of God.

A few points, what's a new atheist? Another tiny little pigeon hole so people can categorise and demonise without having to take responsibility for the consequencies of their actions?

Secondly you've admitted you came here to provoke so you can't complain when you get your wish, that's just hypocritical (please note I'm criticising your style of argument here and not you personally).

When did I admit that I came here to provoke? That I had a provocative username is no different than the anti-Jesus or anti-Christianity avatars, it doesn't mean those people registered here to provoke as well.

Again, the only point was to prove the double standard (that atheists show indignation when atheism is attacked, but welcome all vicious attacks on religions with open arms).

You seem to be ignoring context here. If I signed up to a christian site with a provocative username and avatar then it would be hypocritical of me if I took offence at any criticism I recieved, yet you seem to be demanding a double standard be applied in your case.

ispoketoanangel wrote:I don't see anything un-Christian about my attitude. The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian.

When the psalmist makes it "clear" that atheists are fools, he (or she) commits at least eight logical fallacies in one verse. I wrote the following on Usenet about 15 years ago.

MINI-FAQ: Psalms 14:1

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good." (Psalms 14:1)

ad hominem fallacy: An argument is discounted based on attacking the character of the person making the argument. ("He is wrong when he says there is no God, because he is a fool.")

strawman fallacy: Arguing against a position by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that position instead of the original. ("There is no God" misrepresents "There isn't sufficient evidence that God exists.")

circular reasoning: The truth of the conclusion is assumed in order to justify the premises. ("The fool says there is no God, because anyone who says there is no God is a fool.")

begging the question: The argument creates a secondary proposition that is related to the primary proposition, which requires a similar argument that is missing. (The existence of God is assumed, while addressing propositions of whether God exists.)

fallacy of inconsistency: The argument is inconsistent with other arguments within the same context.
In the Christian context, Jesus commands against the invective in Psalms 14:1, warning that "whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire" in Matthew 5:22.

special pleading: The inappropriate attribution of emotive functions to objects that do not have that capability. (Hearts are not capable of "knowing" or of feeling emotions.)

redundancy: Psalm 53 is identical to Psalm 14.

questionable premise: It is obviously not the case that all atheists do nothing but bad deeds. This premise is invalidated by a single example of an atheist doing a single charitable act.

How is deliberate provocation not deliberately provoking something - in this case, an emotional response?

Deliberate provocation is always trolling.

Jesus had a thing or two to say about turning the other cheek or something as well. I guess that bit doesn't matter though and isn't actually christian.

ispoketoanangel wrote:When did I admit that I came here to provoke?

Oh, here...

ispoketoanangel wrote:So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point.

CookieJon wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:When did I admit that I came here to provoke?

Oh, here...

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point.

That I chose a provocative user name (just like some people choose a provocative avatar) doesn't mean I came here to provoke.

Who is it exactly that you think you're fooling? Engaging in deliberate provocation means you made the conscious decision to provoke.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools.

The Bible also makes it clear that bats are birds. And here I was thinking they were mammals. Silly me.

And that rape is cool. Just make sure you marry the chick after you rape her. Don't worry about her thoughts or feelings though. That's not in the Bible.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:When did I admit that I came here to provoke?

Oh, here...

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point.

That I chose a provocative user name (just like some people choose a provocative avatar) doesn't mean I came here to provoke.

So when you wrote "it was a deliberate provocation" you didn't actually mean "it was a deliberate provocation", eh?

I see, do carry on...

ispoketoanangel wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:When did I admit that I came here to provoke?

Oh, here...

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools. So insulting atheists is not un-Christian. That it was a deliberate provocation doesn't make me a troll, it was to prove a point.

That I chose a provocative user name (just like some people choose a provocative avatar) doesn't mean I came here to provoke.

Could you explain your reasoning behind that statement please as it doesn't seem to follow. You chose to be provocative but not provoke, you're contradicting yourself.

ispoketoanangel wrote:
1. It's necessary to postulate that He exists because according to me He exists. I don't have any evidence to provide to you, nor do I care about providing evidence to you.

2. No, I don't believe that I spoke to an angel.

OK.

Thanks for clearing point two up. I wasn't sure about that one.

I find your response to #1 quite unusual. Surely if you were a believer and were given a platform to explain why you have a certain faith position, wouldn't you not only feel keen to use it, but almost obligated to share your reasons ? Under our FUA, you may not preach, but you MAY share what is your viewpoint and why. I'd be fascinated to find out why you went from a life of rational thinking to embrace superstitions.

On an other matter, you are acting quite aggressively and state that atheists are fools and cite the bible as your justification for saying this. I find this somewhat uncharitable and unchristian, but it does make me wonder how you reconcile stating this sort of thing in the face of "love one another" and "turn the other cheek" and other quite commendable moral teachings from the bible. Are you cherry picking the bits you favour or perhaps maybe just forgetting some of your lessons about love, tolerance and peace ? I realise that you're getting some hostile responses to your old user name and your moral standing on terminal illness, but given your initial provocation, surely that's understandable. We get plenty of theist members who are warmly welcomed here and engage in meaningful dialogue with a range of members.

I find the bible to be contradictory in these areas as well as in a number of areas. In fact, I've found the bible to be errant, self-contradictory and fallacious in many aspects. There's some nice stuff in there without a doubt, but it also contains some of the most repugnant, violent, disgraceful acts and morality imaginable. Happy is he who dashes the babies against the rocks and that sort of thing...(Psalms 137 if I recall correctly).

So why would you base your life on accepting the bible's teachings when there are clearly parts that make Mein Kampf a gentle children's fairy story ?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Who is it exactly that you think you're fooling? Engaging in deliberate provocation means you made the conscious decision to provoke.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:The Bible is clear atheists are fools.

The Bible also makes it clear that bats are birds. And here I was thinking they were mammals. Silly me.

And that rape is cool. Just make sure you marry the chick after you rape her. Don't worry about her thoughts or feelings though. That's not in the Bible.

But only marry her if she puts up a big enough fight. If she seems in any way compliant, she should be stoned to death...