Still angry? Dude, you admitted to being a troll.
Once a troll …
1 Like
Angry 
? Is someone still angry 
?.. LOL
Whitefire13, it is either uncontrolled anger, or he is using the pretext to troll us. I did not go through the effort in dissecting his posts, but IMO almost all of them are conflicts, with little actual contribution to a constructive debate.
My conclusion is that an admitted troll is conducting himself as a troll would.
1 Like
David, David, David, 
Unless you can address my post #160’s content above, other than to embarrassingly RUN AWAY from it, why even post? Huh? Don’t you realize that others are watching you RUN?
.
Hey David - remember Monty pythons fighting knight???
Nobody is running away.
If you find something toxic, do you continue to use it? No, you avoid it.
That’s you…you are the toxin people are avoiding.
I’m only posting to you, in hopes of correcting your penchant for ad hominem attacks…an unlikely detoxification attempt, if you will.
Three letters, capitalized…an abbreviation…an acronym…NPD.
I mean, If you are triggered by the word “silly”, you may have an issue.
Peace Emily
…one for you grin, u cluckly bustrage.
2 Likes
No it didn’t, and I invite everyone to read his post, where as I previously stated, he simply disagreed with you.
EDIT Here is dogalmighty’s post #25 quoted verbatim, to show how dishonestly you are misrepresenting him, and me.
dogalmighty "Stop…you are now using dishonest debate tactics to try and what…sway an atheist, to become an atheist?
You do your arguing with theists your way, I’ll do it mine. I do not need to validate my means of debate, or answer to you, or god forbid, adopt your requirement to define which god a theist holds dearly…especially when they can’t get past objective evidence of existence. Why is it necessary you push your way as the best way?
I mean I just explained to you, after you persisted, why there is no need to specify which god, clearly and concisely, and had to ask you if you understood my view point…which you still haven’t answered.
I thought it was obvious, I am not interested in your debate process…nor am I interested in arguing with you. I have already explained to you my viewpoint, If you don’t understand it…oh well."
I shan’t waste my time responding to yet another of your disjointed ad hominem rants. I tried to reason with you, as have others, so that you might gain something from this forum, but sadly you still seem unable to step back from this angry and overly disputatious keyboard warrior persona you’ve created for yourself. Well at least I tried.
1 Like
I rarely interject when a child throws a tantrum. I just buy more stock in popcorn.
FYI, this will probably be the last time I interact with you. I post observations, but unlike you, detest trolling. And the incontrovertible truth is that you, a troll are particularly defenseless against being trolled.
I do not waste my time on fools and angry children.
4 Likes
@everyone BUT
What’s the difference between a POE or a lying sack of shit?
The “lying” part… the sack of shit at least presents itself as a sack of shit.
This poster is no more an atheist than it is a “true Christian”…
1 Like
@21stCentury Re: “Unless you can address my post #160’s content above, other than to embarrassingly RUN AWAY from it, why even post? Huh? Don’t you realize that others are watching you RUN?”
Hey, 21st! Have you ever been walking down a trail or a sidewalk or a road and run across a large steaming pile of horse shit? I’m sure most everybody has at one time or another in their lives. Were you afraid of that pile of horse shit? Did you go running away screaming in terror at the sight of that noxious fly-swarmed mound of poop? I would imagine you did not. I would think you simply took a few extra steps away from the repulsive mass in order to avoid stepping in it and maybe to keep from having to smell the worst of it. Why?.. Because it was just a huge stinking pile of horse shit. Nothing to be afraid of. You just didn’t want to get near it because it stinks and is disgusting. 
So, with that in mind, rest assured, nobody here is “Running away” from you. 
5 Likes
Brilliant Tin, a summary for the ages.
1 Like
According to whom did god have this plan?
Using anger of a supposed deity’s supposed failure to act is not rational grounds to believe in such a deity.
Saying “god cannot exist because this and this bad thing happened” or saying “if god existed then this and this bad thing would not happen” is at best a very weak argument to not believe in God. Many people are atheists only out of anger because of a perceived inconsistency in the notion of god’s omnibenevolence but nobody stops believing in the existence of manufactured goods just because they have failed to perform as advertised.
People took their delusions too far not only believing there is some sky god, but that they can actually know anything about the nature of that sky god.
People shouldn’t believe in a god simply because there is and has never been any evidence for its existence in the first place.
I’ve heard may christians say exactly that. (Ok,anecdotal)
It’s common for Muslims to begin and/or end a sentence with inshallah (in the name of Allah) or Bismillah (in the name of Allah)
Actually theologians have struggled with theodicy for centuries, because the existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly merciful deity that also has limitless power and knowledge.
Epicurus summed up it quite eloquently, over three centuries before Jesus is claimed too have been born. .
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
That depends on how one defines god.
YHWH of the old testament is a monster. His qualities reflect those of the tribe of illiterate bronze age goat herders who invented him. Their lives were nasty, brutish and short. Naturally, their god was an evil arsehole,often severely smiting his recalcitrant creations, even going so far as genocide.
Later Jews redefined him,as did the christians and muslims. Their god was defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent .Plus possessing infinite compassion, mercy and forgiveness .
So far, non of the abrahamic religions have manged to justify the existence of evil and suffering with their god of infinite attributes.
It’s been about 50 years since I’ve been able to take theology seriously. Same goes for the disciplines of biblical hermeneutics and exegisis. They are all predicated on the existence of god as a given. In my opinion that makes them intellectually dishonest. As such, they may be dismissed.
1 Like
The passage you’ve provided seems to describe a belief that some people hold about God’s plan and its role in life events. It reflects a particular theological perspective that suggests that everything that happens is part of a divine plan, even if it includes tragic events or suffering.
However, it’s essential to approach such discussions with respect for the beliefs and experiences of others. Not everyone shares the same beliefs, and it’s crucial to be sensitive to the fact that attributing personal tragedies to a divine plan can be distressing for some individuals.
@geradflopme, couple of things…
When you are responding to a particular person, use the @ symbol and you will get the ability to look for their name. This will let everyone know to whom you are directing your comments. If it is a response to a particular line in a post, highlight it and you’ll see the “Quote” choice. This puts that quote as the start to your response and let’s everyone know what specifically you’re talking about.
If you’re responding to the OP (Original Post/er), it was three years ago that this string was started and the OP is no longer around.
1 Like
I do not completely agree. Sometimes a person can start a discussion supporting an idea that is completely repugnant. For example, if someone is saying that a group of people with something in common should be injured or killed based on that commonality, they do not deserve nor will they receive respect for those beliefs.
1 Like
If the argument is being offered as a direct response to a particular belief, then I don’t see why it has anything to do with people who don’t hold such a belief, or why such people might find it “disrespectful”?
FYI, I try to respect people, as long as they reciprocate, but I think beliefs must stand (or not) on their own merit.
Again why would people who don’t hold a belief care about arguments that specifically address that belief?
Why, I don’t see why people would be “upset” by a belief they do not hold, also personal distress is not relevant to debate, if anyone thinks debate is too upsetting for them, then they should not involve themselves in it.
Perhaps I am not understanding you fully?
1 Like