Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI realize you’re desperately looking for a way out of this conversation. I don’t blame you.
Don't bump me after 4 minutes or I won't answer you at all.
Originally posted by @romans1009Again, I'm an atheist and speaking as one. How can a God that doesn't exist outside exist inside?
Really?
FMF thinks “outside agency” referred to ancient texts and dogma.
So “outside agency” refers to God. And how is it that God, who indwells Christians, is an “outside agency” to a Christian?
I understand fully what 'you' believe as a Christian. But I reject that. Can you confirm that you understand?
Originally posted by @fmfMaybe you and Ghost need to get your stories straight. This winging it and flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants thing isn’t working. Especially since Ghost’s knickers are around his ankles.
My interpretation is the same. The “outside agency” is a god figure that "exists" only as mythology and dogma.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou can’t attempt to present a Christian’s position but ignore what a Christian believes because you’re an atheist. It makes no sense. But you know that.
Again, I'm an atheist and speaking as one. How can a God that doesn't exist outside exist inside?
I understand fully what 'you' believe as a Christian. But I reject that. Can you confirm that you understand?
Originally posted by @romans1009Who do you perceive is your intended audience for this kind of posting?
Maybe you and Ghost need to get your stories straight. This winging it and flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants thing isn’t working. Especially since Ghost’s knickers are around his ankles.
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009I presented an atheist view on your Christian position.
You can’t attempt to present a Christian’s position but ignore what a Christian believes because you’re an atheist. It makes no sense. But you know that.
Not sure why you struggle with that.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfWhat you call "God's standards" are your own subjective moral standards that you choose to refer to as "God's standards".
What you call "God's standards" are your own subjective moral standards that you choose to refer to as "God's standards".
Your use of this kind of debating gimmick came up before back in the days when you were asking numerous people over and over and over and over again about how could atheists possibly say that torturing a baby for fun was immoral when the ...[text shortened]... ective moral standards that you choose to refer to in a superstitious and self-aggrandizing way.
You claiming this doesn't make it so. You have yet to demonstrate how the words written in the Bible are my subjective standards, if they are 'absolute and unchanging'. Yes my interpretation of some of these words may be subjective but by and large they are clear and unambiguous. Take the ten commandments for example. Most people would agree with most of them. I think even you would agree with most of them. No where in the Bible does God instruct anyone to torture babies for fun so you asking me to assume that is absurd.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe have discussed this before in detail. My stance on your personal opinions about your approach to morality have not changed in much the same way as my personal opinions about my approach to morality have not changed.
You have yet to demonstrate how the words written in the Bible are my subjective standards, if they are 'absolute and unchanging'. Yes my interpretation of some of these words may be subjective but by and large they are clear and unambiguous. Take the ten commandments for example. Most people would agree with most of them. I think even you would agree wit ...[text shortened]... e does God instruct anyone to torture babies for fun so you asking me to assume that is absurd.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYes, and how quaint that you retreat to ambiguity when you’re on shaky ground and trying to pull a fast one.
He doesn't seem to understand that an 'outside agency' can apply to a number of things.
How quaint.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou attempted to represent the Christian point of view while simultaneously ignoring what a Christian believes because you don’t agree with it. It was dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous and a disgrace to this forum and all forums across the Internet, and it has forever tarnished and besmirched your already shaky credibility.
I presented an atheist view on your Christian position.
Not sure why you struggle with that.
Good day, sir!
Originally posted by @romans1009Again, who do you perceive as being your target audience for this kind of posting?
You attempted to represent the Christian point of view while simultaneously ignoring what a Christian believes because you don’t agree with it. It was dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous and a disgrace to this forum and all forums across the Internet, and it has forever tarnished and besmirched your already shaky credibility.
Good day, sir!
Originally posted by @fmfI post like that and post about tiger, kiddo (that’s you, by the way,) Principal Saunders, Miss Alawat and Heartpence because I think it’s funny. I enjoy the creativity associated with posting about tiger and Ghost’s knickers and chuckle to myself while I’m doing it. I suppose my target audience is whoever wrote the post I’m replying to, except Snorkel Boy is always reading about tiger.
Again, who do you perceive as being your target audience for this kind of posting?
Originally posted by @romans1009And what about if the people you aim this kind of bizarrely repetitive "creativity" at look upon you as unfunny and puerile, is that the result you seek from your engagement with them?
I post like that and post about tiger, kiddo (that’s you, by the way,) Principal Saunders, Miss Alawat and Heartpence because I think it’s funny. I enjoy the creativity associated with posting about tiger and Ghost’s knickers and chuckle to myself while I’m doing it. I suppose my target audience is whoever wrote the post I’m replying to, except Snorkel Boy is always reading about tiger.