The Problem of Evil

[Skybringr]

Or god could have just not put the completely pointless tree of knowledge there to begin with. Also, never suggested in the bible that after eating that fruit people would actually become evil, only that they would have knowledge of both good and evil. Therefore, they could actually use that knowledge to make choices based in morality.

The tree had a very important point to it, it gave man the choice to follow or go against God.

It made them autonomous.
Now there's a word I know you know



You won't understand the Tree of Knowledge by taking it literally.
It is a symbolic teaching:

~The Devil came to mankind with a proposition that they could be like God if they were given knowledge of good and evil. The lie was in that they would only be like Satan, they would never be God.~


Maybe you should just marinate on that a little. All too constant griping, and no personal reflection.

 

[Skybringr]

THIS THREAD HAS GONE COMPLETELY TO HELL BY ONE, JUST LET THE THREAD DIE. HE'LL DO THE SAME TO ANY OTHER HE ENCOUNTERS UNTIL THE MODS REALIZE THEY SHOULD HAVE BANNED HIM YESTERDAY.

 

[Skybringr]

Hell isn't a curse word. It's another word for "Infernum", a place for the condemned.

So much for that!

And
You are a troll. A gigantic, enormous, swelled up troll whose intention of joining this sie was to be just that to religious people.
Nothing you have stated on this site is of any value, your post history is a heaping joke after another of childish nonsense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Now if you wanna blame God for allowing the enemy (Satan) to exist and for allowing him to do the things that he does, then fine... But Satan is ultimately responsible...!

No, actually he isn't.... If God created Satan knowing exactly what he would do, then God is ultimately responsible. The only way Satan would be responsible is if you abandon the claim that your god is omniscient.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The tree had a very important point to it, it gave man the choice to follow or go against God.

It made them autonomous.
Now there's a word I know you know

You don't need a tree in order to be autonomous. And besides, if they didn't know the difference between good and evil prior to eating the fruit, then they had no basis for determing what they did was wrong.

Without the knowledge of good and evil, they can't label following god's commands as "good" or following satan as "evil". They'd have curiosity, but no way to determine what they're doing is wrong. In a modern court, they'd be found not criminally responsible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are a troll. A gigantic, enormous, swelled up troll whose intention of joining this sie was to be just that to religious people.
Nothing you have stated on this site is of any value, your post history is a heaping joke after another of childish nonsense.

I don't think it's fair to call him a troll, he's raising valid points. Your responses have been nothing but ad hominem's for a while now. A word of advice, I recommend you address his arguments and not attack his character.

 

[Skybringr]

I don't think it's fair to call him a troll, he's raising valid points. Your responses have been nothing but ad hominem's for a while now. A word of advice, I recommend you address his arguments and not attack his character.

LOL

The guy is giant troll, dude. Go back and read his posts, if you disagree, then there's something quite wrong with you as well.

As for my ad hominems, I don't really care. I'm fed up with it. I've reported it, and he will be banned because trolling is against the rules, and he is an internet troll altogether. End_

 

[PsychoSarah]

LOL

The guy is giant troll, dude. Go back and read his posts, I mean, if you disagree, then there's something quite frankly wrong with you.

It is technically against the rules of this forum to accuse people of trolling, you are supposed to just report it to the mods.

 

[Skybringr]

It is technically against the rules of this forum to accuse people of trolling, you are supposed to just report it to the mods.

That's nice. I'll gladly get in trouble for the sake of it being caught up on quicker. The guy needs to go, and you all should reflect on how you defend internet trolls because they are atheist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's nice. I'll gladly get in trouble for the sake of it being caught up on quicker. The guy needs to go, and you all should reflect on how you defend internet trolls because they are atheist.

No, I was just trying to help you not get in trouble by rash actions. Don't let trolls drag you down to their level, they feed on that more than anything else. And I don't care if the troll is atheist or any other such thing, trolls be trolls.

 

[Dave Ellis]

LOL

The guy is giant troll, dude. Go back and read his posts, if you disagree, then there's something quite wrong with you as well.

As for my ad hominems, I don't really care. I'm fed up with it. I've reported it, and he will be banned because trolling is against the rules, and he is an internet troll altogether. End_

I've read the posts on this thread and he has raised some valid points which you've ignored and attacked his character.

Even if he was a troll, you're still not debating honestly.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've read the posts on this thread and he has raised some valid points which you've ignored and attacked his character.

Even if he was a troll, you're still not debating honestly.

I don't even know who is being talked about

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's nice. I'll gladly get in trouble for the sake of it being caught up on quicker. The guy needs to go, and you all should reflect on how you defend internet trolls because they are atheist.

I'm not defending him because he's an Atheist, I'm defending him because he's raising valid points.

The best way to combat a troll is to give calm, rational answers for their trolling, which forces them to go into looney-tunes land to keep trolling. Once they do that, then you can justifiably report them.

When the guy is still raising valid arguments, you can't really call him a troll. That makes it look like you're dodging valid criticisms of your belief system.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't even know who is being talked about

Taqiyya Mockingbird. When you read his replies over the last few pages nothing about them says troll.

Granted, I've only read the last few pages so I can't say for before then.... His style is a little brash, but there's plenty of valid points raised in what I've read. I think brashness is being confused for trolling here.

 

[Skybringr]

I've read the posts on this thread and he has raised some valid points which you've ignored and attacked his character.

Even if he was a troll, you're still not debating honestly.

And what points would those be? You say the sky is blue and he says you are guilty of a million fallacies followed by 'cool story bro'.

THERES NOTHING TO DEBATE

What a wondrous argument. He is not smart, he is not correctly debating, he is a gargantuan, moronic troll.

His entire purpose was to come on here and aggravate religious people with BS.
He's an attack on the site itself, don't come at me with 'Im attacking his character'.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And what points would those be? You say the sky is blue and he says you are guilty of a million fallacies followed by 'cool story bro'.

What a wondrous argument. He is not smart, he is not correctly debating, he is a gargantuan, moronic troll.

His entire purpose was to come on here and aggravate religious people with BS.
HE IS A TROLL, he's an attack on the entire site. He's going to be eventually banned, stop trying to defend him because he's an atheist.

I think you need to take a deep breath, and remember that it is just an online chat. Trolls exist, but if you let anyone get you this worked up the one who loses the most is you.

 

[Skybringr]

Taqiyya Mockingbird. When you read his replies over the last few pages nothing about them says troll.

That's just a flat out stupid lie that is more and more apparent the more you go back and see the whole volume of nonsense that's led up to what he's doing now.

I'm done with this discussion. I've already won, the guy's time is limited on here.
And maybe I'll actually get banned WITH and infraction this time. Last time was for, well, nothing apparently because there's nothing on my infraction list

 

[Dave Ellis]

And what points would those be? You say the sky is blue and he says you are guilty of a million fallacies followed by 'cool story bro'.

What a wondrous argument. He is not smart, he is not correctly debating, he is a gargantuan, moronic troll.

Well, if you're committing logical fallacies or arguing contradictory points, then pointing out the fallacies or contradicitons is correct debating.

The "cool story bro" thing is part of the brashness I was referring to... However even there he's simply dismissing stuff which is off-topic or nonsensical. That's also correct debating tactics. He's avoiding getting bogged down in red herrings.

His entire purpose was to come on here and aggravate religious people with BS.

The fact someone gets aggrivated is entirely their own responsibility, as is any other emotion they may feel. If you're not enjoying debating with him, you can cease debating with him, the fact you're continuing on and getting aggrivated is entirely your own problem.

There's been a number of times on here when I've been debating with people who are not being honest, or have no concept of logical thought. At that point the only thing I can do is walk away and not waste my time with them. I'm certainly not justified in blaming my aggrivation on them though. Granted, when it gets to that point I usually feel pity for the other guy

HE IS A TROLL, he's an attack on the entire site. He's going to be eventually banned, stop trying to defend him because he's an atheist.

Thanks for the accusation of dishonesty, however I repeat I am not defending him because he's an atheist. After all, he self identifies as Buddhist. While that may indeed make him an atheist, it's pretty clear him and I would have plenty of differences of opinion on matters of theology.

If anything, you defending just shows how much of a conflict of interest atheists are on a religious site anyhow.

Where is the conflict of interest?

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's just a flat out stupid lie that is more and more apparent the more you go back and see the whole volume of nonsense that's led up to he's doing now.

To be honest, what I see is that he's written rebuttals to your arguments in a "take no prisoners" style, and you're freaking over over it.

A troll by definition would be someone who throws out ridiculous or controversial statements to purposefully rile people up. For example, someone posting anti-military stuff on a Veterans Assosciation facebook page just to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] people off and set off a firestorm, that's a troll.

If he's coming back with valid points, the fact he's worded them in a snippy or dismissive way doesn't make him a troll. Undiplomatic perhaps, but it's not like you're showing a lot of diplomacy either.


Edit: The fact you've already started launching insults my way just simply for questioning your judgment of him further solidifies my case that he's not the one with the problem in this situation. If you can't take your opinions being questioned without launching into a tirade of personal attacks, then you shouldn't be debating.

 

[Skybringr]

Well, if you're committing logical fallacies or arguing contradictory points, then pointing out the fallacies or contradicitons is correct debating.

I'm sorry, but the very fact that you can sit there and defend someone who, if you were talking to him rather then me right now, would come up with some childish way to call, literally, the simple sentence you JUST STATED right now having a million 'logical fallacies'...

You know what, that makes my point altogether. You're an idiot defending an idiot.