Why do theists deceive?

Open discussion for all registered members.

Postby Elman » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:15 pm

dromedaryhump1 wrote:Elman said:
True and I am looking for a more reasonable explanation
.

Uh, no he's not. He's found the explanation he willingly accepts.
God did it for a mysterious purpose.
Let's talk about dihonesty. I never said: "God did it for a mysterious purpose." It is dishonest to say I did.

That he pretends to be "looking for a more reasonable explanation" is more of his seemingly endless supply of intellectual dishonesty. More Xtian deceit.

If he really wanted an explantion that was based in "reason" [the rootword of "reasonable"] he'd pull his head out of his Bibble, and start reading some science books with objective evidence for how and why he exists.

Reason/reasonable never enters into the superstious myth devotee's mind. It's counter to faith
Is it true or not true that a study of these science books will result in finding no reason behind our existing? A science book is attempting to explain how we got here, not why.
Elman
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:13 pm

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:38 pm

Elman sobs:
Let's talk about dihonesty. I never said: "God did it for a mysterious purpose." It is dishonest to say I did.


Never said you did SAY it, other wise the phrase I typed would have been in quotation marks. It wasn't. You see, this problem you have uderstanding rules of grammar and punctuation seem to keep following you around these threads and causing you confusion prompting mistatement.

No, it was my interpretation of your belief based on your self stated belief system. If my assessment is wrong or dishonest, are you now saying god DIDN'T create man? And additionally that YOU DO KNOW WHY it did create / or didn't ?

If,as I suspect based on observation of your repetative posts of childlike testamony, that your'e saying god DID create mankind, and you still don't know WHY, i.e. for what purpose, then by definition it's a mystery, and my assessment paraphrasing your belief is thus accurate. How is that a misrepresentation?

- So, what's Elman's postion today?
- How will he disprove the accuracy of my statement, tap dance around it? Or will he just realize his error and ignore the fact (again) that he's been exposed as unthinking and once again underscore the original premise of this thread's subject line?
- Where is my dishonesty?

Elman says:
Is it true or not true that a study of these science books will result in finding no reason behind our existing? A science book is attempting to explain how we got here, not why
.

True. And when you accept that, you've taken the first step behind the "reason" for existence. Shit happens, and sometimes randomly. You're just part of the random shit. A part that fears and rejects reason.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby Elman » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:11 pm

dromedaryhump1 wrote:Elman sobs:
Let's talk about dihonesty. I never said: "God did it for a mysterious purpose." It is dishonest to say I did.
I did not sob and I was not arrogant or rude.

Never said you did SAY it, other wise the phrase I typed would have been in quotation marks. It wasn't. You see, this problem you have uderstanding rules of grammar and punctuation seem to keep following you around these threads and causing you confusion prompting mistatement.

Arrogance and rudness is not helpful in a discussion.
No, it was my interpretation of your belief based on your self stated belief system. If my assessment is wrong or dishonest, are you now saying god DIDN'T create man? And additionally that YOU DO KNOW WHY it did create / or didn't ?
You have misunderstood what I said. I believe we are created for the purpose of loving others. I have really never changed from that position.

If,as I suspect based on observation of your repetative posts of childlike testamony, that your'e saying god DID create mankind, and you still don't know WHY, i.e. for what purpose, then by definition it's a mystery, and my assessment paraphrasing your belief is thus accurate. How is that a misrepresentation?

See above.
- So, what's Elman's postion today?
About the same it has been since beginning discussions here.
- How will he disprove the accuracy of my statement, tap dance around it? Or will he just realize his error and ignore the fact (again) that he's been exposed as unthinking and once again underscore the original premise of this thread's subject line?
- Where is my dishonesty?
See above.

Elman says:
Is it true or not true that a study of these science books will result in finding no reason behind our existing? A science book is attempting to explain how we got here, not why
.

True. And when you accept that, you've taken the first step behind the "reason" for existence. Shit happens, and sometimes randomly. You're just part of the random shit. A part that fears and rejects reason.
Translation, the reason is there is no reason.
Elman
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:13 pm

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:38 pm

Seems elman doesnt know what he believes or what hes looking for. Seems every time he's caught in a misstateement, he reverses postion, like those shooting gallery bears


Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

donnyton wrote:
Addressing the question of why you exist is not the same as answering it.

"You exist because Zeus and the Fates put you here."

That addresses your question, doesn't it? Yet it's false.

Elman Replied:True and I am looking for a more reasonable explanation.


So, which is it??:
Is elman still "looking for a more reasonable explantion" for why man exists? Or as he says now...
I believe we are created for the purpose of loving others. I have really never changed from that position


Looking, or found...Looking or found...??? elman seems a tad confused.

Has elman found , since Oct. 18th, his answer for why his god thing created man?

Was the dishonesty elman accused me of truly dishonesty, or simply a confusion caused by elman first not knowing, then suddenly discovering the "more reasonable explanation" for creation?

as for elman's protestation:
I did not sob and I was not arrogant or rude.


All your chidlike fable worship, denial of massive portions of the bible that don't fit in with "Elmanism", and repetative platitudes about "loving this and loving that" all reek of sobbing to me.

As for your arrogance, it permeates your "unthinking", slathered in sanctimony posts; while your rudeness is expressed in your continued avoidance of head on handling of questions put to you that you cannot deal with honestly. [ i.e. your earthquake causing god].

elman closes with finally understanding the "reason" life exists on earth:
Translation, the reason is there is no reason.


That wasn't so hard was it elman? Congratulations on your first steps into reality.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby Elman » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:21 pm

dromedaryhump1 wrote:Seems elman doesnt know what he believes or what hes looking for. Seems every time he's caught in a misstateement, he reverses postion, like those shooting gallery bears


Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

donnyton wrote:
Addressing the question of why you exist is not the same as answering it.

"You exist because Zeus and the Fates put you here."

That addresses your question, doesn't it? Yet it's false.

Elman Replied:True and I am looking for a more reasonable explanation.


So, which is it??:
It is that a loving Creator is more reasonable than these myths.
Is elman still "looking for a more reasonable explantion" for why man exists? Or as he says now...
I am always looking for a more reasonable explanation but I have already found a more reasonable one than Zeus.
quote]I believe we are created for the purpose of loving others. I have really never changed from that position

Looking, or found...Looking or found...??? elman seems a tad confused.

No not confused at all.
Has elman found , since Oct. 18th, his answer for why his god thing created man?
No I had it prior to then.
Was the dishonesty elman accused me of truly dishonesty, or simply a confusion caused by elman first not knowing, then suddenly discovering the "more reasonable explanation" for creation?

It was you being truly dishonest. Your still doing it. You don't believe all this crap. It is just argumentation. Keeping the debate going.
as for elman's protestation:
I did not sob and I was not arrogant or rude.


All your chidlike fable worship, denial of massive portions of the bible that don't fit in with "Elmanism", and repetative platitudes about "loving this and loving that" all reek of sobbing to me.
Your wrong again.


elman closes with finally understanding the "reason" life exists on earth:
Translation, the reason is there is no reason.


That wasn't so hard was it elman? Congratulations on your first steps into reality.
You did not understand. I was talking about your lack of reason, not mine.
Elman
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:13 pm

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:15 pm

Elman said: I did not sob and I was not arrogant or rude.


Drome replied: All your chidlike fable worship, denial of massive portions of the bible that don't fit in with "Elmanism", and repetative platitudes about "loving this and loving that" all reek of sobbing to me.

Elman said: Your wrong again.


How can my interpretation of elman's sobbing sanctemoneous posts be "wrong"? Can't be. It's my subjective opinion based on my interpretation of his vast amount of drivel. Can he prove my subjective opinion is wrong? Nope.

I'd offer evidence of elman's sobbing arrogance, but he wouldn't accept it because its "subjective evidence".

Hell, my subjective evidence of his sobbing arrogance is every bit as valid as his subjective evidence of a loving creator. A loving creator who just happens to accidently cause the deaths of his creations through his inept design of geologic, and atmospheric faults; or by his psychopathic murderous bent.

Plus, I dismiss as not elman's own posts, any and all of those posts submitted under his name that DO NOT appear sobbing or sanctemoneous. I accept as only elman's TRUE posts, those that reflect my negative opinion of him.

If elman can reject things in the bible he doesnt like as not being descriptive of his preferred image of god thing, I can reject posts that differ from my perspective of elmans character as being fraudulently offered by another.

If he won't accept logic and common sense, certainly elman can accept
our adoption of his own convoluted concept of evidence and selective cut and paste reasoning.

Welcome to elman's world.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron