Thursday, November 17, 2011

Christians, please help boycot the ridicule artists.

I've been trying for years to start a serious boycott of atheists on message boards. we should just totally refuse to talk to them as long as they play their little stupid games of mocking and ridicule.

Look at this little game they play. They ask a serious question, then you try to answer it they just mocking. Of course the carm admins have to bear a huge load of the guilt becuase they wont stop it. I stopped all such behavior on my boards. No one my boards ever asks that way. That's becuase I said in the very beginning "I will not allow this." Of cosrue the price I pay for that is that I have very few active members. Yet most of them highly intelligent so we have great discussions and no pissing contexts.

On carm thread:
"why is God good."


It has just occurred to me that when arguing for the existence of God, his moral perfection is just kind of assumed. The standard god arguments give you a bare theistic god, which could be completely benevolent, malevolent, or some where in between like us. I would say it appears the latter is true.

So I am interested, what arguments or evidence do Christians have for a maximally good god?
Occam tried a brilliant answer about eternal values being simpler, but it needs his defense badly because I don't understand what he's thinking, it sounds like he has some thought behind it. He's not around to defend it. So I made my own answers:


Meta:
Lance, one doesn't have to extract all of one's beliefs about god from whatever argument one uses to argue for the existence of God. It's not like that argument becomes the whole religious tradition in itself. it's just a beach head for belief its meant to replace beliefs. I think that assumption may come from the assumption that philosophy is like a scientific experiment and it's done to determine how things turn out. Of course that's a false assumption.

philosophical arguments are just arguments. We assume God is good in Christian tradition as part of revelatory truth about the nature of God. then we do our own correlation bewteen the argument and the God of the tradition.

the philosophical argument is just a attempt to give the non believer some sort of stepping stone through which he/she can grasp the belief. What we already got through phenomenological means.

Immediately the hate Metacrock squad begins their little antics.

Accelerator:


That makes sense to me. I use philosophical arguments to help a-Leprechaunists to understand my relationship with the Great Leprechaun who lives on the moon.

I resort to shame:
Meta:
Of course you are think you really made a big clever point but all I see is when you are confronting with thinking you fold up and start insulting because you can't really unction on an intellectual level can you?


this guy ask a question. I tried to answer it. so that make really really stupid because I believe something Soyuz don't' believe hu?

that's an excuse to mock if you are real stupid and you can't think about the issues.

stupid people resort to mocking ideas they can't comprehend.


you want this level of animosity don't you? You don't want meaning and understanding because you know that atheism can't compete intellectually with real ideas.
he continues:
Accelerator

If you had the Great Leprechaun in your life you wouldn't be so hateful. I know you don't believe me, but that's because you haven't had the same phenomenological experiences that I have had.

then we are off to the races, it's becoming a rieicule gauntlet, meaning a feeding frenzy of similar stupidity.

Deist
(who is no deist)

Has anyopne ever proved that you didn't have a Great Leprechaun in your life? How can they say he doesn't exist iof they can't disprove him. A certain Chaplain here using that reasoning, and if he can use it, I don't see why you can't. Mormonism was started with just one guy, whom "god" chose to reveal himself to. Now, Mormons, who fall under the protective Christian umbrella, number in the millions. Their apologists make a very compelling case, too. The Great Leprechaun? Is he as mean as the Christian God?
He's just continuing the taunt and no mention of the serious attempts to answer the question.
Of course this is because they can't answer it. They can't deal with ideas. The atheist movement doesn't exist to answer questions and find turth, it exists to give the members a feeling of power when they bully the targeted hated group (Chrsitians).

We are only giving them the opportunity to play their little games when we try to engage them in real discussion.

there's this one called "phizzel" who just spits back song lyrics at me as it fo say "you are usless you can't think you are not worth a real response."

phizzal
If God exists and is omnipotent then he sets the moral standard. To question his moral perfection would imply that there were a set of moral guidelines that he had to follow himself and that would mean that he wasn't God. If God were to, say, decide that it was morally justified to eat tacos made of babies then eating tacos made of babies would be morally justified.

One of the most compelling reasons against the Christian God, IMHO, is Christian mistreatment of homosexuals. In our modern society there is absolutely no practical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to do as they please but God abhors them so to even condone what they do makes you a Godless heathen who will burn in hell since you are disagreeing with God.


in response I said this, which I meant as a totally serious comment:

Christianity is a hospital. The patients in this hospital sometimes, when they start getting better become cocky and start thinking they are superior to all the people who have not gotten treatment yet. So that's a human mistake because the hospital treats humans, so the patients getting are still human.

That doesn't make the hospital bad or the treatment unnecessary.

God doesn't set the moral standard arbitrarily. It's based upon his character of love.
in my foolish little foolish thinking that is being magnanimous to admit that we are sick. Not enough for little selfish monster who has to have it all his own way.

he says:

Drunk driving is no joke
It is no accident
Drunk driving can get you into a collision
It can also get you killed for the gravedigger

-Wesley Willis


that's the only response he makes to me. To me that just says he is not looking for answers he' just a little game playing monster who can't think. We should be boycotting these guys becuase we need to cut off their supply endorfins. they get high from bullying Christians. so let's stop giving them Chritians to bully.

3 comments:

godandsociety said...

There is a topic going around the net which has arose since Dr. Craig has finished his Reasonable Faith tour, and that is: the death of new atheism at the hands of Christianity.

It would appear that professional Christians have caught the professional atheists back peddling.

Richard Dawkings won't debate Dr. Craig. PM Myers won't debate Vox Day (a Christian blogger and author). Then there are the numbers of debates where Christians have not only held their own, but out debated atheists.

I think the only thing we can do is not demand the atheist to produce a rational model for their own worldview, instead of letting them fall back on perpetual scepticism.

Metacrock said...

please! I have been kicking atheists asses for 12 years. Craig beatens them every time, he's only lost a couple of times in like 20 years.

we are all pretty sick of he snide arrogant stupid attitudes of these illiterates who constantly flap their ignorance gums about things they know nothing of then pat each other on the back like they really did something great.

I didn't get any idea from Craig. I proposed this boycott idea years ago.

Metacrock said...

I hope that means that Craig is calling for boycott.