ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Balder]

What are the positions we've seen expressed here?

"God commanded these things, so they are just. If God commanded me to do them, I would."

"God commanded these things, so they must be just, even though they don't appear so. If God commanded me to do them, I would not obey."

"God, if he is good and just, would not command such things. Therefore, if someone told me to do them, I would not trust them and would not perform these acts."

"YHWH may have commanded these things, if you don't insist on God having to be good, wise, or just. As for me, I would not follow a jerk like that."

Does that about cover it? Are there others?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What are the positions we've seen expressed here?

- fool is an idiot.
- allsmilies is a dork
- Granite is a knucklehead
- Balder is a loser

I think that about covers it.

 

[allsmiles]

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What are the positions we've seen expressed here?

All joking aside, I think the main thing that has been exposed on this tread is fool was trying to trick Bob into making a statement that would suggest that Bob supports relative morality.

fools tactic has been painfully exposed, refuted and flushed.

 

[Balder]

Ah, c'mon, Knight! I've beaten your arguments, so I can't be too much of a loser!

But here's another position, in the spirit of your post:

Knight likes to act in this forum as capriciously as God apparently treats human beings! "Do as I say, not as I do, you worms!"

 

[Balder]

All joking aside, I think the main thing that has been exposed on this tread is fool was trying to trick Bob into making a statement that would suggest that Bob supports relative morality.

fools tactic has been painfully exposed, refuted and flushed.

I thought Fool was more interested in seeing if Bob would support the slaughter of babies under any circumstance, and found out that he would.

 

[allsmiles]

All joking aside, I think the main thing that has been exposed on this tread is fool was trying to trick Bob into making a statement that would suggest that Bob supports relative morality.

fools tactic has been painfully exposed, refuted and flushed.

Knight, i've got a pretty good idea how much you value my opinion, but if all joking is aside, i would say you've got a bit of a victim complex.

no one is out to trick you or Bob :nono:

there isn't a big conspiracy.

we're not evil people... :think: on second thought, Balder and Fool aren't evil.

i, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem with my wickedness :devil:

:chuckle:

 

[Balder]

And also, all joking and ribbing aside, I was trying to present a fair summary of perspectives that have been voiced on this thread. In my view, all of them (including the view that us pagans and atheists are criticizing) are founded on a desire to do what is right and good. It is the understanding of what that actually involves that differs.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

no one is out to trick you or Bob :nono:

there isn't a big conspiracy.

Who said anything about a conspiracy???

It's obvious that fool was attempting to decieve Bob! He asked an intentionally misleading question to get a desired response so that he could attack it. He even went so far as to test the question here first at TOL. When it didn't work on TOL he crafted it in a far more vague way and tried again on Bob's show.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Other things that have been exposed on this thread...

- fool is a (self described) moral absolutist
- allsmiles is a (self admitted) moral relativist
- Granite is a yapping puppy dog
- Balder is military loathing hippy

 

[Balder]

And apparently Knight is trigger happy, ready to kill babies for God and to condemn anyone who objects as a loser, idiot, wuss, and hippy.

Come on, Knight, this could be a constructive conversation.



I think.




On second thought, probably not.

 

[Granite]

Other things that have been exposed on this thread...

- fool is a (self described) moral absolutist
- allsmiles is a (self admitted) moral relativist
- Granite is a yapping puppy dog
- Balder is military loathing hippy

:rotfl:

Hang on, hang on...

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Keep the comedy coming, man.

 

[allsmiles]

how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who can't take correction? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who can't admit when they're wrong? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who refuses to agree to disagree? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who's paranoid and insists that those who disagree are lying to him?

 

[Balder]

For the record:

Yes, I used to have long hair and I have wandered around India, Indonesia, and the rest of world with a big backpack. So, on the hippy thing, guilty as charged...for a few years of my life.

Yes, I do wish there was no need for a military.

But...that ain't how it is. So the military is necessary, and certainly not loathsome.

Individuals in it may be loathsome, though, if they are gungho about indiscriminate killing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ah, c'mon, Knight! I've beaten your arguments, so I can't be too much of a loser!

Hmmmmm :think:

How about this....
You come up with an argument that you think you have won on this thread. Post your argument and then post my "beaten" response to it and then explain why it is you think your argument "beat" my response to it.

Sound like a deal?

 

[Stripe]

What are the positions we've seen expressed here? "God commanded these things, so they are just. If God commanded me to do them, I would." "God commanded these things, so they must be just, even though they don't appear so. If God commanded me to do them, I would not obey." "God, if he is good and just, would not command such things. Therefore, if someone told me to do them, I would not trust them and would not perform these acts." "YHWH may have commanded these things, if you don't insist on God having to be good, wise, or just. As for me, I would not follow a jerk like that." Does that about cover it? Are there others?

yeah one more .. grants view is: "god ordered these things, grant has no defence for the actions or for god himself, grant would not do those things"

 

[Stripe]

how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who can't take correction? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who can't admit when they're wrong? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who refuses to agree to disagree? how can you have a constructive conversation with someone who's paranoid and insists that those who disagree are lying to him?

definitely off topic...

my dear sir .. you just refuted all possibility of constructive conversation in any circumstance .. i think youve just proved TAG .. well done.

but as i say .. off topic ..

 

[Balder]

yeah one more .. grants view is: "god ordered these things, grant has no defence for the actions or for god himself, grant would not do those things"

Bob would ask Grant: "Is Grant nicer than God?"

 

[Stripe]

Bob would ask Grant: "Is Grant nicer than God?"

uh .. is grant nicer than god? nice is an insult where grant comes from ... so .. probably. other than that .. grant is not sure what relevance the question has ..

 

[Balder]

Hmmmmm :think:

How about this....
You come up with an argument that you think you have won on this thread. Post your argument and then post my "beaten" response to it and then explain why it is you think your argument "beat" my response to it.

Sound like a deal?

Deal! :thumb:

I demonstrated that your advocacy for indiscriminate killing of civilians was morally on par with the actions and reasonings of terrorists.

Your response dealt with some abstract stuff about roles and terms, avoiding the actual moral dimensions and ramifications of the act itself.

I consider your argument therefore to have been successfully shot down, or at least shown for what it is.

I have also shown how your several criticisms of me and my arguments have been based on distortions, misrepresentations, or misunderstandings of what I actually said, thus toppling your straw men.