Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
Thanks Tree5Thanks

Thread: Two questions for theists

  1. #61
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31,864
    Thanks
    15412

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Speaks anyone with each other in the english speaking world?
    When someone so glaringly ignores one's stated position? Yeah. That's a pretty typical response.

    Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

  2. #62
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    731
    Thanks
    117

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    When someone so glaringly ignores one's stated position? Yeah. That's a pretty typical response. ...
    I ignore nothing intentionally. You give no answers. You don't know what the christian religion is - nevertheless you are against this, what you don't know - and you don't have an alternative for this, what you anyhow don't know. Your message is just simple "Christians are evil!". That's why everything is good what you are. You define yourself with your own anti-ideas about others. ... By the way: Is your nick name "Erdogan"? :lol:

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 19th March 2017 at 03:17 AM.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,175
    Thanks
    6908

    From
    TN
    If Christians are so evil,

    Then Why are most Charity hospitals have the names BAPTIST, METHODIST, CATHOLIC, 7TH DAY ADVENTEST, etc.


    Why do most FOOD BANKS for the poor have METHODIST, BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, 7TH DAY ADVENTIST as their names and supporters.

    Why is it most HOMELESS SHELTHERS have METHODIST CATHOLIC BAPTIST 7TH DAY ADEVENTIST ETC. as their source of funding and management.


    YES THOSE EVIL CHRITIANS FEEDING THE POOR HEALIING THE SICK HOUSING THE HOMELESS

    I DARE THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS TO DO SUCH THINGS.


    PE. How many people have you help to feed, heal or house today (outside your family)

  4. #64
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31,864
    Thanks
    15412

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    I ignore nothing intentionally. You give no answers. You don't know what the christian religion is - nevertheless you are against this, what you don't know - and you don't have an alternative for this, what you anyhow don't know. Your message is just simple "Christians are evil!". That's why everything is good what you are. You define yourself with your own anti-ideas about others. ... By the way: Is your nick name "Erdogan"? :lol:
    First, I never said Christians are evil. Second, I did give an alternative. I gave a perfectly viable alternative. Your response to me was inadequate, and displayed a complete lack of reading comprehension. This is why I told you to go back and reread post #57 before responding. Now, If you want me to answer you again, do this. Otherwise, sit back. Shut up. And, learn

  5. #65
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31,864
    Thanks
    15412

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    If Christians are so evil,

    Then Why are most Charity hospitals have the names BAPTIST, METHODIST, CATHOLIC, 7TH DAY ADVENTEST, etc.


    Why do most FOOD BANKS for the poor have METHODIST, BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, 7TH DAY ADVENTIST as their names and supporters.

    Why is it most HOMELESS SHELTHERS have METHODIST CATHOLIC BAPTIST 7TH DAY ADEVENTIST ETC. as their source of funding and management.


    YES THOSE EVIL CHRITIANS FEEDING THE POOR HEALIING THE SICK HOUSING THE HOMELESS

    I DARE THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS TO DO SUCH THINGS.


    PE. How many people have you help to feed, heal or house today (outside your family)
    First, no one said "Christians are evil". Second, is it your contention that performing public philanthropic deeds for the promise of rewards is the act of a good person? Really? So, I can diddle little girls in my closet all day long, just so long as I fund enough children's hospitals, and Cancer Centers, right? After all, all that matters is the public image of "doing good deeds", right?

  6. #66
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,316
    Thanks
    522

    From
    California
    The reason we have the concept of free will is because it is the only way to create a loving omnipotent God in the face of human suffering. God cannot be omnipotent and loving while at the same time allowing human suffering. So, the rabbi's who created this God created the concept of free will to make their case. It is simply a clever ruse to disguise a clearly unjust God. The Greeks did the same thing in a round about way with Pandora's box.

  7. #67
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31,864
    Thanks
    15412

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    The reason we have the concept of free will is because it is the only way to create a loving omnipotent God in the face of human suffering. God cannot be omnipotent and loving while at the same time allowing human suffering. So, the rabbi's who created this God created the concept of free will to make their case. It is simply a clever ruse to disguise a clearly unjust God. The Greeks did the same thing in a round about way with Pandora's box.
    Actually, most of the polytheistic religions - the Greeks, the Celts, etc - were more rational than that. They simply did not conceive of divinity as either omnipotent, nor omniscient. The gods of most polytheists were neither all-powerful, nor all-knowing. They made mistakes. They had flaws. By making them fallible, they made the gods more accessible, and more relatable.

  8. #68
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    731
    Thanks
    117

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    First, I never said Christians are evil.
    You told me I am evil because of this what you think about the christian moral.

    Second, I did give an alternative. I gave a perfectly viable alternative.
    And? How do you call this alternative?

    Your response to me was inadequate, and displayed a complete lack of reading comprehension.
    You spoke for example about Immanuel Kant. We say here "No one is able to read Kant - you have to translate him first from the German language to the German language.". I wasted for example six months in my life only with his little question: "Kann das Ding an sich erkennbar sein?" - and still today I'm not sure whether the answer "no", which the most philosophers prefer, is really the correct answer. So: Who is not lost in comprehension? You?

    This is why I told you to go back and reread post #57 before responding. Now, If you want me to answer you again, do this. Otherwise, sit back. Shut up. And, learn
    Funny. For sure I don't start to go now in an endless regress because you could answer me with some few words, what I like to know now. I like to know why you think it is normal or even good for you to be an enemy of Christians. What's the sense of your hate? How helps this you?

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 20th March 2017 at 01:52 AM.

  9. #69
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,410
    Thanks
    275

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You misunderstand me. I am not referring to what we find good for ourselves "what's in it for me". Rather what is good about ourselves "What must I do in order to feel good about myself". Now many people would equate "What makes me feel good about myself", with "what makes me feel good, " period, full stop. Can you spot the difference Kingrat, and see how the two questions result in two very different results?
    Actually, whatever difference (if any) is irrelevant. In kantian ethics, what one 'feels' is an empirical judgement while a moral duty is an a priori judgment accruing from pure reason.

  10. #70
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,410
    Thanks
    275

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    The reason we have the concept of free will is because it is the only way to create a loving omnipotent God in the face of human suffering. God cannot be omnipotent and loving while at the same time allowing human suffering. So, the rabbi's who created this God created the concept of free will to make their case. It is simply a clever ruse to disguise a clearly unjust God. The Greeks did the same thing in a round about way with Pandora's box.
    Free will is an intuitive premise.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Why should Atheists give a shit about Theists?
    By Czernobog in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 586
    Last Post: 16th January 2017, 01:55 AM
  2. Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?
    By Xerographica in forum Economics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 29th August 2013, 08:45 PM
  3. Iowahawk: Questions, So Many Questions
    By Macduff in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 7th July 2011, 03:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed