Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

And that is extremely important, isn't it?

Except for all the other assumption you make without honest objective observations.

Come on, Chriliman, we all have seen through your bluster long ago. The only one who still thinks you are honest is yourself. (And I am not sure about that.)

Your word against mine. The only way to tell if I'm being truthful is to objectively start a thread like this and see for yourself, who brings God into the convo first. If an athiest does you can safely assume I'm telling the truth, if a theist does you can then say I'm wrong for assuming athiest will bring God into the convo first. Thats it problem solved, only if you actually do it.

 

[bhsmte]

Your word against mine. The only way to tell if I'm being truthful is to objectively start a thread like this and see for yourself, who brings God into the convo first. If an athiest does you can safely assume I'm telling the truth, if a theist does you can then say I'm wrong for assuming athiest will bring God into the convo first. Thats it problem solved, only if you actually do it.

You are an easy read. The content of your posts, give enormous clues as to your motivation and intellectual honesty.

Let me put it this way; you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Chriliman]

You are an easy read. The content of your posts, give enormous clues as to your motivation and intellectual honesty.

Let me put it this way; you aren't fooling anyone.

I've given you a way to tell if I'm being truthful, it just requires you to take action. What else do you expect from me?

 

[bhsmte]

I've given you a way to tell if I'm being truthful, it just requires you to take action. What else do you expect from me?

You don't pay much attention to what others observe and point out about your posts. Many have pointed out how you contradict yourself and are not intellectually honest and of course, you ignore. Don't ask me to show this again, because it has been done countless times in more than one thread.

What do I expect from you? I expect you to continue to follow your same behavior patterns and you have not disappointed as of yet.

 

[Freodin]

Your word against mine.

No. Your own word against yours. Because I am not talking about "atheists bringing up God" here.

The only way to tell if I'm being truthful is to objectively start a thread like this and see for yourself, who brings God into the convo first. If an athiest does you can safely assume I'm telling the truth, if a theist does you can then say I'm wrong for assuming athiest will bring God into the convo first. Thats it problem solved, only if you actually do it.

I'd say this is a perfect example of the basic weasel-wiggle dishonesty that you display in your conversations: switch and bait.

You made an assumption. Your assumption was shown to be correct. Is that a sign of honesty? No. Is that a sign of objectivity? No. Is that a sign of you telling the truth? No.

First of all: you didn't tell any "truth". You didn't make a statement that was later shown to be correct... you played a waiting game.
Second: you didn't make an objective observation... you stacked the deck in your favour, and heavily so.
Third: betting on a rigged game is alread rather dishonest... but the point here has nothing to do with your little sleight of hand at all.
It is your assumption that, because you were right in one thing, you are also right in other things that are completely unrelated.

I have shown your constant contradictions in this thread a number of times... I won't repeat myself. And I don't need to jump through your hoops to prove anything.

 

[DaisyDay]

Your word against mine. The only way to tell if I'm being truthful is to objectively start a thread like this and see for yourself, who brings God into the convo first. If an athiest does you can safely assume I'm telling the truth, if a theist does you can then say I'm wrong for assuming athiest will bring God into the convo first. Thats it problem solved, only if you actually do it.

But in your first post in this thread you asked "honest atheists" to answer your questions. Not everyone in the forum, just atheists. For the first 2 pages, you were the only Christian posting to this thread, and you were not objective as you already knew what you were going for. I don't see how this is honest, either.

 

[Chriliman]

But in your first post in this thread you asked "honest atheists" to answer your questions. Not everyone in the forum, just atheists. For the first 2 pages, you were the only Christian posting to this thread, and you were not objective as you already knew what you were going for. I don't see how this is honest, either.

I have no control over an atheist bringing God into a conversation about perfection. I just find it interesting that they do. I've already admitted I could have included theists in the discussion and that would have been better. I'm not a perfect human, but I have been as honest as possible in this forum.

 

[DaisyDay]

I have no control over an atheist bringing God into a conversation about perfection. I just find it interesting that they do.

But you do have control over whether you yourself as the only Christian in the conversation brings God into the conversation.

I've already admitted I could have included theists in the discussion and that would have been better. I'm not a perfect human, but I have been as honest as possible in this forum.

If you've admitted that, then you've admitted that you have not been as honest as possible - unless you're saying that it isn't possible for you to be honest.

 

[Chriliman]

But you do have control over whether you yourself as the only Christian in the conversation brings God into the conversation.

I can be objective when discussing perfect existence or society and never have to bring God in because I already know how God can achieve such a society/existence. When I'm being objective about perfection, its the atheists that end up contradicting themselves or recommending justice that God has already put in place.

If you've admitted that, then you've admitted that you have not been as honest as possible - unless you're saying that it isn't possible for you to be honest.

I was upfront in the OP that I wanted theists to just observe. How is that being dishonest? The only information I withheld was my prediction that an atheist would bring God into the conversation and again I find it interesting that they do this, especially when their non-belief in God isn't even being scrutinized. For some reason they feel the need to bring God into the conversation in order to show how they don't believe in God. This seems strange to me. I don't need to bring Thor into a conversation in order to show how I don't believe in Thor.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I can be objective when discussing perfect existence or society and never have to bring God in because I already know how God can achieve such a society/existence. When I'm being objective about perfection, its the atheists that end up contradicting themselves or recommending justice that God has already put in place.

I was upfront in the OP that I wanted theists to just observe. How is that being dishonest? The only information I withheld was my prediction that an atheist would bring God into the conversation and again I find it interesting that they do this, especially when their non-belief in God isn't even being scrutinized. For some reason they feel the need to bring God into the conversation in order to show how they don't believe in God. This seems strange to me. I don't need to bring Thor into a conversation in order to show how I don't believe in Thor.

Because you're the one that's foolish enough to believe that perfection is attainable or even describable. And the only thing that's able to do such a thing is your God. So we skipped the dancing around got to the root of your argument.

We're not gullible and we're not slow. And plus this is CF so yea the fact that you were "predicting" this without being upfront about it is very dishonest and insulting to our intelligence.

 

[Chriliman]

Because you're the one that's foolish enough to believe that perfection is attainable or even describable. And the only thing that's able to do such a thing is your God. So we skipped the dancing around got to the root of your argument.

We're not gullible and we're not slow. And plus this is CF so yea the fact that you were "predicting" this without being upfront about it is very dishonest and insulting to our intelligence.

You can predict that I'll say whatever you think I'll say and you don't have to tell me your prediction, but if I never say it then your prediction is wrong, if I do say it then your prediction is right, no dishonestly involved.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You can predict that I'll say whatever you think I'll say and you don't have to tell me your prediction, but if I never say it then your prediction is wrong, if I do say it then your prediction is right, no dishonestly involved.

That is dishonesty because you knew that's where you wanted to lead to conversation. You withheld that information. That's the same as lying in my book.

 

[DaisyDay]

I can be objective when discussing perfect existence or society and never have to bring God in because I already know how God can achieve such a society/existence. When I'm being objective about perfection, its the atheists that end up contradicting themselves or recommending justice that God has already put in place.



I was upfront in the OP that I wanted theists to just observe. How is that being dishonest? The only information I withheld was my prediction that an atheist would bring God into the conversation and again I find it interesting that they do this, especially when their non-belief in God isn't even being scrutinized. For some reason they feel the need to bring God into the conversation in order to show how they don't believe in God. This seems strange to me. I don't need to bring Thor into a conversation in order to show how I don't believe in Thor.

Well, now you've gone and changed (is that honest?) your claim. Before, you were saying that your prediction was that an atheist would be the first to bring up God:

In any objective discussion about perfection, where both sides are trying to be as objective as possible the side that does not believe in God, will always bring God into the discussion first.

In fact, only one brought up god (lower case) on the third page after being nudged. The others did not. Neither did they end up contradicting themselves or recommending justice that God already put in place.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, now you've gone and changed (is that honest?) your claim. Before, you were saying that your prediction was that an atheist would be the first to bring up God:

In any objective discussion about perfection, where both sides are trying to be as objective as possible the side that does not believe in God, will always bring God into the discussion first.

In fact, only one brought up god (lower case) on the third page after being nudged. The others did not. Neither did they end up contradicting themselves or recommending justice that God already put in place.

Yes, I believe in an objective discussion about a perfect society/existence, atheists will be the first to bring God into the discussion, regardless, if the discussion is between only one atheist and one theist or between multiple atheists and multiple theists. This would be difficult to test, but possible to demonstrate.

Eudoieme implied a perfect society would only be possible if there were no criminals. God will condemn all those who reject His truth, leaving only those who believe in Jesus to enter into perfect heaven. See the resemblance?

If you can't see how Freodin was contradicting himself in regards to existence, then you're not understanding what he's saying.

If you're accusing me of being dishonest, I simply must disagree.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Yes, I believe in an objective discussion about a perfect society/existence, atheists will be the first to bring God into the discussion, regardless, if the discussion is between only one atheist and one theist or between multiple atheists and multiple theists. This would be difficult to test, but possible to demonstrate.

But who did?

 

[quatona]

I think when you are opening the conversation with reference to the "atheist vs.theist" distinction, you have already implicitly introduced "God" into the discussion.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I believe in an objective discussion about a perfect society/existence, atheists will be the first to bring God into the discussion

You can believe that all you like, but the way you went about proving this point was methodologically faulty at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[Chriliman]

I think when you are opening the conversation with reference to the "atheist vs.theist" distinction, you have already implicitly introduced "God" into the discussion.

That's an interesting point. Do you have a more objective way of engaging believers and non-believers in discussion about perfect society in order to determine who will mention God first?

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, I believe in an objective discussion about a perfect society/existence, atheists will be the first to bring God into the discussion, regardless, if the discussion is between only one atheist and one theist or between multiple atheists and multiple theists. This would be difficult to test, but possible to demonstrate.

Do you think that you were honest and objective in being the only one to know your goal and to put yourself in the position to rig the outcome? That seems the opposite of an objective test nor does it seem honest.

Eudoieme [who? Eudaimonist?] implied a perfect society would only be possible if there were no criminals. God will condemn all those who reject His truth, leaving only those who believe in Jesus to enter into perfect heaven. See the resemblance?

Not unless rejecting His truth is criminal...even then Eudaimonist didn't condemn the criminals.

If you can't see how Freodin was contradicting himself in regards to existence, then you're not understanding what he's saying.

I don't see him contradicting himself, I saw him contradicting you. Perhaps you could pick out two of his statements that contradict each other I would understand as you do.

If you're accusing me of being dishonest, I simply must disagree.

I think you are very lenient in your definition when it comes to yourself and your claims.

 

[quatona]

That's an interesting point. Do you have a more objective way of engaging believers and non-believers in discussion about perfect society in order to determine who will mention God first?

As I said: Firstly, you don´t mention anything that suggests that your point has something to do with God.
Secondly, you don´t exclude one of the groups you want to make a point about from the discussion, obviously (if group B isn´t permitted to talk, anything will be brought up by a member of group A first). IOW you don´t stack the deck.

Apart from that, no. You will always be left with anecdotal evidence, to begin with.
Next, "atheists (or theists, for that matter) will mention it first" isn´t even offering a precisely quantifiable claim. If one atheist (or theist) mentions it first that doesn´t prove "atheists (or theists) mention it first".

So your thread was, at best, an extremely stupid way of approaching your goal. Actually, even the goal was pretty stupid, in the first place. It can´t be done, and even less on a message board like this.