That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't. — Hillary

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case.

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage.
I’ll make you a deal though, if you are not that type of theist. You get all the theists to respect the separation of church and state and ensure no theistic inspired action affects people not of that particular theistic belief and Ill make sure no atheist ever talks about or engages about god ever again. :wink:

Is it possible you misinterpreted my words and drew an erroneous conclusion? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes of course its possible.

It becomes philosophical cuz you put the points in numerical order?
And yes, im making a judgement. Being judgemental. So?
I didnt judge you for being judgmental, you might say i was judging you for being self a righteous twat. In fact, i did.

Your judgement of Jackson. Jumped to conclusions about his character. He doesnt know how to be a person? He has an agenda?
All because his question didnt suit your own position, your own agenda.
Every post you’ve made so far reveals your self righteousness. The twat part comes from your dismissive attitude towards a mere question. Positions so easily threatened are seldom solid ones.
So ya, self righteous twat seems appropriate based on the evidence.

Well, its obvious you know how it feels to be a self righteous twat. So theres that.

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then. — Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders.

Yes, egg. Im curious if your reasoning is the same as mine though. Care to share?

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy.

:lol:
That was as solid a rebuttal as anyone could ask for. Too bad it will be dismissed out of hand.
Made me laugh though.
The level of projection at work in this thread is psychologically remarkable. One guy remarked how important this thread must be to atheists cuz its 18 pages (at the time)…from the person whose making 90% of the posts with two other of gods special children. The disingenuous and dishonest discourse doesnt seem like the way jesus would have done it.

Creatures with the power of creation. — EugeneW

I see. What kind of creation do you mean? Like spontaneous creation out of nothing or would a human being creating a song or painting or a baby in their wombs count?
Do you believe in multiple gods then?

Because they want to. .

What is your definition of a god?

Zeus does exist — EugeneW

Ok, so do you believe in all gods or are you going to rely more on something like “Zeus exists as feature of greek mythology”?

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesnt exist? Ill just use that one.

So what you actually mean given your caveat at the end of the OP is that declaring war is unjust, not that war is unjust. Right?

They aren’t out of context, those questions illustrate the possibilities you asked for.

Well the suffering might indeed be part of a greater good, a necessary evil. Thats at least possible, isnt it?
What about the evils that stem from free will being balanced out with greater goods? Do we know the balance? How sure can we really be that those free will evils arent well worth the price?
You could be omnipotent and remain neutral like nature is oft imagined to be, taking no ones side.
What about an omnipotent being who is so far beyond us it is analogous to a human to an insect. Have ever killed a bug? Were you wholly evil when you did?

Not as evil, I think, as the Abrahamic God must be for giving us a form of "free will" too weak for us to freely – easily – choose in every instance not to make others and ourselves suffer needlessly (i.e. "making us sick but commanding us to be well"). Thus, the argument from poor design. — 180 Proof

Ok, so its the lesser of two evils? There are degrees of evil? How does it work, does all the good things count at all in our moral judgement of this god?

Yeah, of course. I do. — 180 Proof

Well this is a matter of internal consistency. We agree on the non-sensical nature of god but if there was a god, omnipowerful but not omnibenovolent, there are possibilities other than god being wholly evil.

Well wouldnt God be evil if he denied free will to human beings as well?
Do we just chalk this up to the inherently nonsensical nature of omni-god or is there space for a more fair assessment than god being evil or evil?

Of course, a deity that is not omnibenevolent is akin to negligent sadist, or devil, and therefore not worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

I don’t see that…sadist? Because god is letting some bad things happen? So if you are omnipotent then you are either omnibenevolent or a sadist/devil?

And what then is the target of economic sanctions? — EugeneW

The economic structures of a country. While its true that can effect civilians, I wouldn't say civilians are the target.

Just because they have that in common doesn't equate them. Not differentiating between civilian and military personnel is a defining characteristics of neither economic sanctions nor terrorism.
Further, terrorism does distinguish between military and civilian targets. They specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones.
For these reasons I cannot agree that economic sanctions are terrorism.

arner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me — ToothyMaw

What they mean is mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, but often manifests itself with religious symbology and themes. I dont think they meant religiosity is a mental illness, nor saying religious people are mentally ill.
I mention it because “sociopath” seems a pretty drastic take on the comment.

Kicking and screaming, mostly against their will is the only way humans get moved forward. :wink:

I agree, if you dont understand fallacies you dont really understand how to not contradict yourself except in the most obvious ways. Especially in todays era of misinformation and lies, critical thinking and basic sense making skills are hugely important in navigating our modern world. Our education systems are archaic. New ideas like yours are whats needed. :ok:

I think thats a great idea. Alternates to standard education are getting more and more common. I think our current standards don’t give kids enough credit. They can handle more than just repetition and narrow subject matter.
Aside from ethics, what else do you think makes the cut from philosophy as invaluable education? I think there are definitely many parts of philosophy which are either useless or so esoteric they won’t land with most kids/people.

I appreciate your gracious response. Ill try not to let it go to my head. :wink:

I don't think so. You just need not to be a bad person. — Cuthbert

Rght, and you learn to not be a bad person by learning ethics. You aren’t disagreeing with me here.

100,000% it is specifically the fact that children are impressionable that induces the need for ethics. — Garrett Travers

I don’t think I can agree. Certainly children being impressionable means its a good time to teach ethics, but its a good time to teach them anything. Little sponges they are. I wouldn't called that inducement though. What induces need for ethics being taught to kids is simply the tragic absence of ethics in the adult world.
If by inducing the need for ethics you mean you are worried about kids being taught wrong things then I think ultimately we go back to square one again…you need to teach the good things as early as possible. This touches on my earlier mention of teaching critical thinking and logic even before ethics…what better way to ensure ethical behaviour than teaching the skills to tell the difference on your own?

I would remember that children and young people are amazingly observant, impressionable and very alive to hypocrisy. The best education is to model good behaviour. If — Cuthbert

Right, but in order to be a model of good behaviour one needs to be educated in ethics. Perhaps you disagree but I find such models of good behaviour to be quite rare, bringing us back to square one with a necessity to teach ethics in school…and as early as possible imo.

Thats a good start I suppose, but ethics are sorely lacking in the average person sonI can’t help but want more. I think its just as important as any other school subject.

Not just high school. If they are old enough to learn math and spelling they are old enough to learn about morality and ethics. I would add or even supersede ethics with critical thinking and logic.
I would prefer to see these subjects be treated like math and science, with dedicated classes and teachers. Navigating ethics requires good critical thinking and logic skills though so I would actually start with that as a base.

What would your own ideal education in ethics look like in elementary and high school?

You have your head way up your own ass if you think cancel culture doesnt exist. You simply can’t have looked into it in any depth.
Congratulations on being fooled by left wing framing.

I don't see the basis for your claim. If God is the creator, then God had real existence, prior to your existence, just like your grandmother had real existence prior to your existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, “if”. You would have to show the previous existence of god or a creator. Not so with dear grandma, whose previous existence is not in question.
Since you havent shown god to have previous existence then its fallacious to use this grandma analogy to make your point/case.

The relationship with you grandmother already existed. The same cannot be said about god. The relationship with god doesnt have a previous existence upon which to base it like dear old grandma does. Thats the key, that you cannot have a relationship with something that never existed in the first place.

Pft. Not very imaginative.
You can also laugh AND tell them to go fuck themselves. Live a little Banno.

Well yes, exactly the point being made. Banno is saying there isnt any.

That is also in relation to others. All of your examples are.

When I look at your brain I see a grey, squishy mass. Is your mind a grey, squishy mass? Are you saying the entirety of your experience of the world is just various quiverings of a grey squishy mass? — Harry Hindu

Yes, with your naked eye.