Jamest is right!

[Seth]

"GrandMaster Zen Troll" =/= "Socratic analyst"

Unlike you, One-Note Johnny, I have diverse talents and can (and do) occupy many different roles. I analyze when it's called for, and I twit twits like you when it's called for, and I move seamlessly and effortlessly between the two roles as necessary.

Sure you do. You're a troll, plain and simple.

Which would make you simpleton troll bait.

[pErvinalia]

Like Muslims, Marxists are allowed (indeed encouraged) to lie about being Marxists if it forwards the Marxist agenda.

What? All billion of them?

You wouldn't let an atheist away with making such a blanket statement about Christians. I'm not letting you get away without making one about Muslims

You're letting your Christianity slip, by the way. I mean its the only explanation as to why you come down hard on atheists while giving Chrsitians a free-pass while hypocritically making disparaging remarks about Muslims. I guess it's not only Muslims and Marxists who lie to forward their agenda.

He's right. It's called Taqiya in Shia islam and idtirar in sunni. Look it up.

Unfortunately for Seth, he's made his bed of illogic, and he's going to have to lie in it. Just as he says the bible doesn't define Christian theism, he has to say that the Koran doesn't define Muslim theism.

The difference is that the Koran doesn't have the equivalent of the New Testament.

So what? You really don't understand logic, do you? I can use your same argument back against you. You have repeatedly claimed that only God, if he exists, can define what true theism is. So it's no different here. As Ani said, you are a Christian apologist and couldn't give a fuck about other religious people.

The New Testament set the rules for Christians and those rules differ enormously from the Old Testament rules that applied to previous generations.

So what? Only God, if he exists, can define what true Christianity is.

The Koran has remained the same since Mohammed wrote it, with no amendments that would differentiate Muslim practice today from Muslim practice at the time of Mohammed.

So what? Only God, if he exists, can define what true Islam is.

You keep on making the same mistake because you insist on conflating Christianity with the Old Testament.

No, you keep making the mistake of shifting the goal posts in every debate on this forum to suit your purposes at the time. YOU claim that only God, if he exists, can define what true theism is. So the mistake is solely yours, Illogic-man.

And it's my opinion that you do it mendaciously and deliberately, given the number of times I've set forth the distinction to you.

Your opinion isn't worth Jack-shit, as it changes hourly depending on whether you've been caught out in a logic trap.

Besides, what I actually said is that the Bible doesn't define God. It certainly defines the theology that applies to the specific group it addresses. Then again, not all adherents interpret things the same way, and many twist the interpretations to suit their own agendas, which says absolutely nothing about the existence or nature of God.

What you've said is that we can't judge Christians by what's written in their book. Yet you are perfectly happy to judge Muslims about what is written in theirs. You are a hypocritical Christian apologist.

[pErvinalia]

My dad told me not to stick things in power sockets, and I listened to him because I respected him. He didn't have to electrocute me.

Maybe he should have. Might have shocked some sense of compassion into you. But I doubt you listened to him all that much at four years old.

That explains a LOT about you. At 4 years old, I was probably about as smart as you are now.

[Seth]

My dad told me not to stick things in power sockets, and I listened to him because I respected him. He didn't have to electrocute me.

Maybe he should have. Might have shocked some sense of compassion into you. But I doubt you listened to him all that much at four years old.

That explains a LOT about you. At 4 years old, I was probably about as smart as you are now.

What a shame to see how your level of intelligence has declined so markedly as you matured. Must be brain plaque from too much cheese and bacon. Soon you'll need diapers and a binky.

[pErvinalia]

But that doesn't mean we just let them go back to doing what they were doing.

Of course not.

We say that we think that belief is unacceptable behaviour in an evidence based civilised society.

Funny, 85 percent of humanity thinks we live in a religiously-based civilized society. You're in the minority, and therefore you should STFU and kiss the Pope's ring...if you believe in democracy that is. Do you?

So why did you say "of course not" to the above?!? You really don't understand logic, do you?

And that's the same thing we should do with the religious torment of innocent children.

Eighty five percent of the planet's human inhabitants disagree with you. Therefore, democracy demands that you shut the fuck up and soldier.

[/quote]

85% of the planet's human inhabitant disagree with you too. Therefore, blah blah. You really suck at logic.

[pErvinalia]

"GrandMaster Zen Troll" =/= "Socratic analyst"

Unlike you, One-Note Johnny, I have diverse talents and can (and do) occupy many different roles. I analyze when it's called for, and I twit twits like you when it's called for, and I move seamlessly and effortlessly between the two roles as necessary.

Sure you do. You're a troll, plain and simple.

Which would make you simpleton troll bait.

The problem for you is that you don't realise that we troll the absolute shit out of you. You can't be trolled if you are aware of it. That's why we aren't trolled by you, but you are hopelessly trolled by us. You really are fucking clueless.

[Seth]

The difference is that the Koran doesn't have the equivalent of the New Testament.

So what? You really don't understand logic, do you? I can use your same argument back against you.

Only if you're smart enough to do so, which you aren't.

You have repeatedly claimed that only God, if he exists, can define what true theism is.

What I actually said was that theism does not define God. I also said that theology can be misused and misinterpreted by believers to pervert what God actually intends. Christians call that "free will."

So it's no different here.

Sure it is.

As Ani said, you are a Christian apologist and couldn't give a fuck about other religious people.

Not true. It's just that we happen to be debating Christianity at the moment. Islam came into it simply as an example of your errors in logic and reasoning when you conflate the New Testament and the Old Testament.

The New Testament set the rules for Christians and those rules differ enormously from the Old Testament rules that applied to previous generations.

So what? Only God, if he exists, can define what true Christianity is.

So what? Man's understanding of God is obviously primitive and often ill-informed, not to mention deliberately distorted to evil ends. That doesn't mean that everything about Christian theology, or Muslim theology, is untrue or worthless. Nor, of course does it mean either are absolutely true.

The Koran has remained the same since Mohammed wrote it, with no amendments that would differentiate Muslim practice today from Muslim practice at the time of Mohammed.

So what? Only God, if he exists, can define what true Islam is.

So what? My concern is not whether God disagrees with how Muslims are acting, it's about how Muslims are acting according to their own religious doctrine, which openly includes lying, slavery and murder. Christianity does not advocate or support such activities and Christians are expressly prohibited from committing such evils by their own doctrine.

You keep on making the same mistake because you insist on conflating Christianity with the Old Testament.

No, you keep making the mistake of shifting the goal posts in every debate on this forum to suit your purposes at the time. YOU claim that only God, if he exists, can define what true theism is. So the mistake is solely yours, Illogic-man.

So what? Who said that Christianity or Islam as practiced today is "true" to God's intentions? That's the point of the concept you've dredged up. The context of that statement was that people who do evil deeds in the name of Christ are not Christians because Christ did not call for anyone to do evil, so far as we are aware. You consistently present cruel and evil things done by putative Christians as a method of smearing not just all other Christians (a compositional fallacy of its own) but for the purpose of smearing Christianity as a belief system. Obviously this is the sort of broad-brush fallacy that makes your arguments worthless, and if anything, qualifies as "trolling" by your own criteria, not that I care.

If, however, we posit arguendo that you are correct and only God can define what true Christian theism is, you are still making the mistake of conflating old and new testaments, even if we only consider what documents we have as evidence of God's definitions and commands.

And it's my opinion that you do it mendaciously and deliberately, given the number of times I've set forth the distinction to you.

Your opinion isn't worth Jack-shit, as it changes hourly depending on whether you've been caught out in a logic trap.

Besides, what I actually said is that the Bible doesn't define God. It certainly defines the theology that applies to the specific group it addresses. Then again, not all adherents interpret things the same way, and many twist the interpretations to suit their own agendas, which says absolutely nothing about the existence or nature of God.

What you've said is that we can't judge Christians by what's written in their book.

I don't believe I've ever said that.

Yet you are perfectly happy to judge Muslims about what is written in theirs.

No, I judge Muslims based on what they actually do in obedience to their book. I judge Christians the same way. If a Christian distorts the New Testament in order to excuse some evil, intolerant act, then they are just as culpable as a Muslim fundamentalist. The difference between you and I is that I recognize that the number of people who distort and misuse the bible (old or new) for their own ends and to the detriment of others are a tiny, tiny minority of all Christians and that the vast majority of Christians are loving, kind, tolerant, altruistic, charitable, friendly and happy people. You, on the other hand, tar every Christian with the Wayback Machine fallacy by laying at their doorsteps all of the sins and crimes of faux Christians of the past.

I don't blame Muslims today for what Muslims of yesterday did, I judge them for what they themselves do, which is perfectly rational and reasonable.

You are a hypocritical Christian apologist.

Apologist I may be, but I'm neither Christian nor hypocritical, just too rational and logical for you to stand.

[Seth]

But that doesn't mean we just let them go back to doing what they were doing.

Of course not.

We say that we think that belief is unacceptable behaviour in an evidence based civilised society.

Funny, 85 percent of humanity thinks we live in a religiously-based civilized society. You're in the minority, and therefore you should STFU and kiss the Pope's ring...if you believe in democracy that is. Do you?

So why did you say "of course not" to the above?!? You really don't understand logic, do you?

You really have a psychotic belief of what "we" means.

And that's the same thing we should do with the religious torment of innocent children.

Eighty five percent of the planet's human inhabitants disagree with you. Therefore, democracy demands that you shut the fuck up and soldier.

[/quote]

85% of the planet's human inhabitant disagree with you too. Therefore, blah blah. You really suck at logic.

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

[pErvinalia]

You are a hypocritical Christian apologist.

Apologist I may be,

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

[Seth]

"GrandMaster Zen Troll" =/= "Socratic analyst"

Unlike you, One-Note Johnny, I have diverse talents and can (and do) occupy many different roles. I analyze when it's called for, and I twit twits like you when it's called for, and I move seamlessly and effortlessly between the two roles as necessary.

Sure you do. You're a troll, plain and simple.

Which would make you simpleton troll bait.

The problem for you is that you don't realise that we troll the absolute shit out of you. You can't be trolled if you are aware of it. That's why we aren't trolled by you, but you are hopelessly trolled by us. You really are fucking clueless.

And yet you're the one who is all worked up and hurling invective about, whereas I'm calm, cool and rational in my rebuttals. If you think you troll me, you're mistaken. You're not that smart. I respond to your diatribes because they provide me an opportunity to analyze your irrationality, highlight it and bring it to the attention of the audience. I thank you for your unreason and histrionics, they provide excellent proof of everything I claim about Atheists and their intolerant and ignorant dogma.

[pErvinalia]

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

The logic you can't seem to grasp is that you AGREED with me that it's undesirable to base a civilised society on harmful practices founded in un-evidenced belief. Except, of course, when it comes to Christianity, because you are an illogical Christian apologist troll.

[pErvinalia]

Unlike you, One-Note Johnny, I have diverse talents and can (and do) occupy many different roles. I analyze when it's called for, and I twit twits like you when it's called for, and I move seamlessly and effortlessly between the two roles as necessary.

Sure you do. You're a troll, plain and simple.

Which would make you simpleton troll bait.

The problem for you is that you don't realise that we troll the absolute shit out of you. You can't be trolled if you are aware of it. That's why we aren't trolled by you, but you are hopelessly trolled by us. You really are fucking clueless.

And yet you're the one who is all worked up and hurling invective about, whereas I'm calm, cool and rational in my rebuttals.

This week, perhaps. Not for most of your inglorious posting career.

And what does this have to do with trolling/troll-bait anyway? Is this another fine example of your "reasoning"? I don't hurl abuse because I am troll-bait, I hurl abuse because idiots who think they are smart offend me. Because they are idiots, normal debating techniques like logic and reasoning are wasted on them. Although, I even grant you the courtesy of deconstructing your failed logic. You're welcome.

[Seth]

You are a hypocritical Christian apologist.

Apologist I may be,

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist. You're an Atheist apologist.

apologist
[uh-pol-uh-jist]

noun
1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that. A Muslim who stones an adulteress to death is in conformance with Muslim theology, which says specifically to do that.

An evangelical Christian pastor who exhorts money from his congregation claiming that it's to be used for charitable purposes who then goes and buys a big house and a jet is not in conformance with Christian theology, and therefore is not a Christian.

A Muslim mullah who issues a fatwa ordering that all infidels be enslaved or killed is a Muslim because he is doing so in conformance with his theology.

[Seth]

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

The logic you can't seem to grasp is that you AGREED with me that it's undesirable to base a civilised society on harmful practices founded in un-evidenced belief.

Did I? Sorry, I don't recall doing so. Therefore I must deny your assertion.

Besides, it's only you who claims that such beliefs are "un-evidenced." Christians see plenty of evidence to support their beliefs. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Except, of course, when it comes to Christianity, because you are an illogical Christian apologist troll.

Which would make you troll-bait par excellence.

[pErvinalia]

You are a hypocritical Christian apologist.

Apologist I may be,

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist.

Of course I understand the word and I'm applying it exactly as you think. The problem with being an apologist is that it biases your thinking. Which is exactly what Ani and I are saying about you.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that.

Who says the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament? Seriously, you've dodged this question once already in another thread. Answer it.

A Muslim who stones an adulteress to death is in conformance with Muslim theology, which says specifically to do that.

Who says? Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??