• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I was only trying to point out how strange it is to say that some behavior of mine proves The Bible.

It is just as strange to say that you "opened the door to disproving The Bible" by displaying a lack of "love for your enemies." Why should your, personal behavior disprove The Bible? Why should my, personal behavior prove The Bible? It's a weird notion. I do not know how you can hold such ideas and think them perfectly rational/logical/normal.

It's simple, I've encountered hundreds of skeptics since my conversion and they ALL exhibit the same behavior, making the behavior statistically significant. And today your excuse for not showing me love and respect (and saying I'm abnormal) is . . . because you don't love me, really. And here's your chance to prove the Bible wrong again, but you won't "can't" take it!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Every skeptic you've encountered is immoral? I don't buy that.
Every skeptic you've encountered is rude? I don't buy that.
Every skeptic you've encountered is unable to contemplate basic Bible truths? I don't buy that.

Sounds like confirmation bias or a self-fulfilling prophecy to me to me - you are seeing what you want to/expect to see.

And you know, anybody can be a skeptic. Even a Christian. ;)

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Absolutely not? So you think the Constitution gives you the right to force your religion onto others in a public school setting where kids don't have any choice in the matter? That your right to your own religious beliefs doesn't end when it interferes with other peoples' right to their own religious belief?
How do you figure?

And you think skeptics are the rude ones?

How about we stick to my example instead of moving to another one that is very different from the one we're talking about.

I already said I would have been delighted if the Christians witnessed to the Jewish kids more in school. You are preaching to the choir!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
There is nothing wrong with double negatives if used properly. If you need a translation I can give it to you. In fact I will break up the sentence that you had trouble understanding:

The writers of the Bible were not total idiots. Amazingly you do not seem to realize this.

There you go. Two separate sentences. You made the error of basing your belief partially on a defensive verse. It is almost as silly as basing your belief upon:

"My opponents will try to stop me when I strike at them". A person goes out and attacks several people and amazingly other people stop him. Would that confirm that persons "bible" or was it merely a statement of the obvious? Be astounded by the obvious should not count as evidence for a god.

Yet again, your exceptionally rude attitude verifies the Bible. THANKS!
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It's simple, I've encountered hundreds of skeptics since my conversion and they ALL exhibit the same behavior, making the behavior statistically significant. And today your excuse for not showing me love and respect (and saying I'm abnormal) is . . . because you don't love me, really. And here's your chance to prove the Bible wrong again, but you won't "can't" take it!
I never called you "abnormal" - not once. Unfortunately, workings of the mind very much like yours are all too normal. And you're right, I don't love you... I barely know you. How can I be expected to "love" something I do not know even the more general aspects of? I can have a reverence for life without literally loving every creature. I can hold my fellow man as an important aspect of the world without literally loving every human being. I think throwing the word "love" around to be applied to anything you feel even a slight amount of intrinsic respect for cheapens the word. You've watered it down to mean something basic, and just "present", regardless your actual feelings toward the target person/thing. For example - so many of your words I would never be able to even come close to categorizing as "loving", and yet you state that you "love" me. At this point such a statement means very little. If the tone and direction of our conversation is any indication, your "love" at least seems of very little worth. What if, after all I have said, I stated that I "loved" you? What would you think? Now apply that feeling to me when facing you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I already said I would have been delighted if the Christians witnessed to the Jewish kids more in school. You are preaching to the choir!
Wow! An open statement of immorality. So it should be okay for me to lock up a bunch of Christian children in a school and deride their god? Or are you going to make a special pleading fallacy?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I never called you "abnormal" - not once. Unfortunately, workings of the mind very much like yours are all too normal. And you're right, I don't love you... I barely know you. How can I be expected to "love" something I do not know even the more general aspects of? I can have a reverence for life without literally loving every creature. I can hold my fellow man as an important aspect of the world without literally loving every human being. I think throwing the word "love" around to be applied to anything you feel even a slight amount of intrinsic respect for cheapens the word. You've watered it down to mean something basic, and just "present", regardless your actual feelings toward the target person/thing. For example - so many of your words I would never be able to even come close to categorizing as "loving", and yet you state that you "love" me. At this point such a statement means very little. If the tone and direction of our conversation is any indication, your "love" at least seems of very little worth. What if, after all I have said, I stated that I "loved" you? What would you think? Now apply that feeling to me when facing you.

So, now you've carefully thought through all the issues of why you cannot love me, or even try to do so, but I know the Bible says I can love my enemies and you cannot love me--how does this disprove the scriptures, do you think?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Wow! An open statement of immorality. So it should be okay for me to lock up a bunch of Christian children in a school and deride their god? Or are you going to make a special pleading fallacy?

It would be okay to deride God in school--you surely do so when you visit schools--it is not okay to "lock up" children in school. Young people were free to leave my presentations as they pleased.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
So, now you've carefully thought through all the issues of why you cannot love me, or even try to do so, but I know the Bible says I can love my enemies and you cannot love me--how does this disprove the scriptures, do you think?
There is no "cannot love you" - you've just misrepresented my position. I do not love you. It isn't that I cannot... it is that I currently do not. Do you see the difference? Love isn't just something I throw around to every person I meet (or don't meet). I refuse to use the word so lightly and allow it to lose all meaning in the process.

And it doesn't "disprove the scriptures." In my estimation it just shows the "love everybody" mentality to be a bit naive, and therefore I deem The Bible (at least the New Testament - because let's not forget the Old Testament, in which it is prescribed that you can treat some people harshly) naive by association. Had it said something like "respect the humanity of everyone, and reserve your deepest affections for those who bring the same to you" that seems a lot more realistic, and is, I believe, how even YOU would have to admit you function. It isn't like you "love" a stranger on the street in the same way you love your wife or your children. Right? What differentiation in terms would you use for the differences in amounts of love you are willing to show people? Why are you content with using the word "love" for all of it? I am not content with such, and never will be.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Sorry, like I said before, the confirmation bias appears strong in you. We've been over this. You don't get to claim statistical significance when it turns out that all you have are anecdotes and confirmation bias. That is just making things up.

I don't believe for one second that every single skeptic is rude, immoral and incapable of contemplating what the Bible says any more than I believe things about any other huge group of people. I think you're being hyperbolic. I mean, that's quite the broad brush you're painting with. Maybe even an immoral brush, for you to be making such sweeping judgments with, don'tcha think?

Of course a Christian can be a skeptic. Anyone can be a skeptic.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I already said I would have been delighted if the Christians witnessed to the Jewish kids more in school. You are preaching to the choir!
Which of course, doesn't answer my questions or address the point.

And if someone doesn't want to be (or doesn't want their children to be) force-witnessed to in a public school setting? What of them? Let's address the point here instead of your usual tap dance around and away from it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It would be okay to deride God in school--you surely do so when you visit schools--it is not okay to "lock up" children in school. Young people were free to leave my presentations as they pleased.
No, I am not guilty of your sins. The fact that they teach reality at schools is not " deriding" your god. There are countless Christians that have no problem with the sciences. Now lying creationists may be derided, but they do not even tend to do that in schools. They simply teach the facts.

I always am a bit amazed that people that call their own God a liar can be so touchy when others make fun of their beliefs. That does not happen in schools usually, but it does happen on the internet.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
There is no "cannot love you" - you've just misrepresented my position. I do not love you. It isn't that I cannot... it is that I currently do not. Do you see the difference? Love isn't just something I throw around to every person I meet (or don't meet). I refuse to use the word so lightly and allow it to lose all meaning in the process.

And it doesn't "disprove the scriptures." In my estimation it just shows the "love everybody" mentality to be a bit naive, and therefore I deem The Bible (at least the New Testament - because let's not forget the Old Testament, in which it is prescribed that you can treat some people harshly) naive by association. Had it said something like "respect the humanity of everyone, and reserve your deepest affections for those who bring the same to you" that seems a lot more realistic, and is, I believe, how even YOU would have to admit you function. It isn't like you "love" a stranger on the street in the same way you love your wife or your children. Right? What differentiation in terms would you use for the differences in amounts of love you are willing to show people? Why are you content with using the word "love" for all of it? I am not content with such, and never will be.

You do not love me currently, that is, you will not choose to love me and not choose to disprove the Bible thusly. Why?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Sorry, like I said before, the confirmation bias appears strong in you. We've been over this. You don't get to claim statistical significance when it turns out that all you have are anecdotes and confirmation bias. That is just making things up.

I don't believe for one second that every single skeptic is rude, immoral and incapable of contemplating what the Bible says any more than I believe things about any other huge group of people. I think you're being hyperbolic. I mean, that's quite the broad brush you're painting with. Maybe even an immoral brush, for you to be making such sweeping judgments with, don'tcha think?

Of course a Christian can be a skeptic. Anyone can be a skeptic.

I'm self-aware of my confirmation bias, however, I also have hundreds of anecdotal experiences--enough to be statistically significant. And I've brought clear scriptural explanations to hundreds of skeptics--the kind I've seen hundreds of Christians nod their heads in agreement concerning, despite their doctrinal differences--and met EXACTLY the sort of spiritual blindness the Bible describes, for example, your very responses above, where you are accusing me of confirmation bias, which could explain some, but not all, of the hundreds of encounters I've had with skeptics. I myself will say of my thought process here that bias could explain some of my experiences, not all of them.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Which of course, doesn't answer my questions or address the point.

And if someone doesn't want to be (or doesn't want their children to be) force-witnessed to in a public school setting? What of them? Let's address the point here instead of your usual tap dance around and away from it.

...You mean like Christian kids are subjected to biased teaching regarding evolution, sex education, etc. in public schools? My response and that of my spouse is to either home school or use a parochial school (free will association) or send the kids to government school, yet absolutely without doing the sort of moaning/complaining/accusing I'm seeing used against me on this thread. Parents should interact with the kids and what they're learning, of course!

HEAVEN FORFEND that I took ten minutes to share about Jesus with public school students who have 20,000 hours of secular, anti-God programming placed on them for 18 years before they get to university to have more sheer baloney pressed on them. I'M EVIL AND SHOULD BE IMPRISONED.

This is the problem with the liberal and skeptical biases alike!
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You do not love me currently, that is, you will not choose to love me and not choose to disprove the Bible thusly. Why?
What the hell are you babbling about? How would I possibly "disprove The Bible" by simply stating that "I do not love you."? Because Jesus told us to "love our neighbor" or "love our enemies?" Isn't that just a prescription of behavior? Did Jesus not understand that he couldn't force people to do those things, nor could he automatically expect it? Did he think what he spoke was some sort of natural state of things? If so, then why worry about stating it? Why worry about prescribing behavior if you simply feel that everyone is BOUND to behave in such ways anyway?

Jesus knew people weren't bound to heed his words... which is why he felt them worth saying in the first place. I am not bound to "love you." And me disobeying some command from Jesus to "love" you doesn't disprove anything. Jesus doesn't control me. Jesus doesn't get to decide what I do or don't do. Do you get that? You can't possibly be so thoroughly deluded, so thoroughly entrenched within your own little world in your mind that you actually think I am beholden to Jesus and his thoughts about what people should be doing in some way, are you? Do you honestly think that Jesus holds sway over my life regardless whether or not I give him (or the concept of him) such power? Seriously?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, I am not guilty of your sins. The fact that they teach reality at schools is not " deriding" your god. There are countless Christians that have no problem with the sciences. Now lying creationists may be derided, but they do not even tend to do that in schools. They simply teach the facts.

I always am a bit amazed that people that call their own God a liar can be so touchy when others make fun of their beliefs. That does not happen in schools usually, but it does happen on the internet.

The "touchy beliefs" come from someone incensed that school kids, exposed to 20,000 hours of anti-God/secular brainwashing over a lifetime, even before they get to college (!), were "dangerously exposed" to Jesus claims for 10 minutes one day. How horrible! Your cause is SO righteous!!! Thank you for your Inquisition upholding the purity of state and church separation. I'm grateful for your Phariseeism indeed!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The "touchy beliefs" come from someone incensed that school kids, exposed to 20,000 hours of anti-God/secular brainwashing over a lifetime, even before they get to college (!), were "dangerously exposed" to Jesus claims for 10 minutes one day. How horrible! Your cause is SO righteous!!! Thank you for your Inquisition upholding the purity of state and church separation. I'm grateful for your Phariseeism indeed!
Please, you know better than this. There is no such thing at schools. Why do you repeatedly claim that your God is a liar?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm self-aware of my confirmation bias, however, I also have hundreds of anecdotal experiences--enough to be statistically significant. And I've brought clear scriptural explanations to hundreds of skeptics--the kind I've seen hundreds of Christians nod their heads in agreement concerning, despite their doctrinal differences--and met EXACTLY the sort of spiritual blindness the Bible describes, for example, your very responses above, where you are accusing me of confirmation bias, which could explain some, but not all, of the hundreds of encounters I've had with skeptics. I myself will say of my thought process here that bias could explain some of my experiences, not all of them.
Look at what you just said. You are "self-aware of your confirmation bias" but you're sure that your anecdotes that you've complied using that confirmation bias are statistically significant. Really think about that.

It's a good thing that's not how we do proper science. We'd all just be confirming our own beliefs all over the place.
 
Top