Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.

[NietzscheHimself]

See? Still proving you didn't read it.

Insert evidence Here: ( )

You mean previously or until now? Either case your wrong I even clicked some of those link buttons. I like pressing buttons.

To only myself... Making a sarcastic remark about it and quoting it means I didn't read it? What a crazy world of assumptions this man has ventured into.

Your "position in this regard" is irrelevant, since it's not what the thread is about.

Why is that? Because you think I'm a theist?

A subject for a great poet would be gods boredom after the seventh day of creation.- Nietzsche

Why I drag on talking to this brick wall is beyond me. Not honest with himself how can he be honest with others.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Insert evidence Here

The evidence is in your answers. You are not replying to what I wrote.

You mean previously or until now?

Previously AND now.
And you also failed to read my last post. I didn't mention links.

To only myself... Making a sarcastic remark about it and quoting it means I didn't read it?

To you: quoting it doesn't mean you actually read it.

Why is that? Because you think I'm a theist?

Still not reading I see.
since it's not what the thread is about

Why I drag on talking to this brick wall is beyond me. Not honest with himself how can he be honest with others.

If you're somehow referring to me please show exactly where and how I've not been honest with myself. Or admit that you're assuming. Again.

 

[NMSquirrel]

this is a stupid thread anyway..
the OP title is trying to justify prejudice and bigotry.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

The evidence is in your answers. You are not replying to what I wrote.

Because what you are writing is completely irrelevant...

Previously AND now.
And you also failed to read my last post. I didn't mention links.

Your last post, much like every post you have made in this thread, lacks the substance to make your points clear and or valid.

To you: quoting it doesn't mean you actually read it.

Your right. According to my last quote (taken form your provided irrelevant link) I'm godly enough to know it automatically. Thanks for brainwashing me to a delusional belief. Couldn't have done it without your efforts to make me not read.

Still not reading I see.
since it's not what the thread is about

I don't care what the thread is about. I've been refuting a single illogical post made by you a long long time ago.

If you're somehow referring to me please show exactly where and how I've not been honest with myself. Or admit that you're assuming. Again.

Like you said, the evidence is in my answers.

Which you edited your incorrect statements to:

I'll explain the first sentence and the start of the second one to you, and we'll see if you can work it out from there.
1) Either there's a plan by god or there isn't a plan.
So we have case 1 OR case 2. (Plan or no plan). Got that bit?

Hence I made NO claims whatsoever about my assumptions/ conclusions/ beliefs or any other thing regarding the no plan situation.

"If we aren't (following God's plan) then god isn't all-powerful and crap at planning to boot (i.e. not omniscient either), therefore he's not god."

Sure sounds like a conclusive assumption of your beliefs....

 

[Dywyddyr]

Because what you are writing is completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately you're wrong.

Your last post, much like every post you have made in this thread, lacks the substance to make your points clear and or valid.

It's quite simple: you failed to read my post because your response is NOTHING to do with what I wrote about.

I don't care what the thread is about. I've been refuting a single illogical post made by you a long long time ago.

No, you've been refuting a point I didn't make.

Like you said, the evidence is in my answers.

Dead link.

Which you edited your incorrect statements to:

Which is an outright lie: my original statement (unedited post) is here.

Either there's a plan by god or there isn't a plan.
If there IS a plan then either we're doing what god intended or we aren't.
If we aren't then god isn't all-powerful and crap at planning to boot (i.e. not omniscient either), therefore he's not god.

The one you quoted (also unedited) is here.

1) Either there's a plan by god or there isn't a plan.

Wording unaltered between the 2.

Sure sounds like a conclusive assumption of your beliefs....

No, it's conclusive proof that you failed to understand what you read, and, additionally (given your accusation) that you are prepared to lie to maintain that misunderstanding.

Two liars in one thread, and both theists/ deists... What are the odds?

Edit: I think I see your error.
You quoted this (as "conclusive proof of my belief" [which you had previously claimed to be: no plan = no god])

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
"If we aren't (following God's plan) then god isn't all-powerful and crap at planning to boot (i.e. not omniscient either), therefore he's not god."

If you actually learn to read that does NOT involve the no-plan condition. It specifically addresses the plan condition and suggests the implication of us not following it.

Would you like to address that? Or would you rather persist in misreading/ misunderstanding and making false accusations?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Two liars in one thread, and both theists/ deists... What are the odds?

incorrect assumption try again...

Edit: I think I see your error.
You quoted this (as "conclusive proof of my belief" [which you had previously claimed to be: no plan = no god])

Nope try again. I'm fairly certain ( if you had actually read my previous post) you suggested that if we weren't following gods plan, he isn't omniscient, therefore he is not god.

Which is an "atheistic leap of faith." Four words I feel ashamed to put together.

 

[kx000]

Unfortunately you're wrong.

Not sure what your talking about, but your wrong a lot.

It's quite simple: you failed to read my post because your response is NOTHING to do with what I wrote about.

Probably because it was irrelevant

Anyways, please run along and let us who actually understand the workings of the All Mighty try and understand were are in relation to Revelation so we can help the willing become as we are. Or, make a claim about God so I can refute it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

incorrect assumption try again..

Oops. Wrong.

Nope try again.

Really?

No plan doesn't mean no God. I don't see why you attempted to make the assumption.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2826816&postcount=116

At no point after this (until now) did state anything about my claim that us not following the means that god isn't omniscient.

Still, what can I expect from a liar?

I'm fairly certain ( if you had actually read my previous post) you suggested that if we weren't following gods plan, he isn't omniscient, therefore he is not god.

Fairly certain?
WTF I clearly stated that. In a number of posts.

Which is an "atheistic leap of faith." Four words I feel ashamed to put together.

False. If you think not then please show otherwise.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not sure what your talking about, but your wrong a lot.
Probably because it was irrelevant
Anyways, please run along and let us who actually understand the workings of the All Mighty try and understand were are in relation to Revelation so we can help the willing become as we are. Or, make a claim about God so I can refute it.

Ah, the other liar arrives to inject his inanities.

 

[kx000]

Ah, the other liar arrives to inject his inanities.

I never left. If I said it its the truth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If I said it its the truth.

Wrong.
And also compounding the dishonesty.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Oops. Wrong.

How so?

At no point after this (until now) did state anything about my claim that us not following the means that god isn't omniscient.

So I skipped a step of your false logic in my explanation.

Still, what can I expect from a liar?

it won't be slander you expect from me.

False. If you think not then please show otherwise.

You made the claim. Please back it up.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How so?

Evidence. Your own words.

So I skipped a step of your false logic in my explanation.

No. You made an assumption about what I had said and disputed that. Then, finally, you declared you had been challenging a different statement.
And you haven't shown my logic to be false, only declared it so.

it won't be slander you expect from me.

Should I expect more lies?

You made the claim. Please back it up.

It HAS been backed up. Go back and read the damn thread, you've replied to posts where I have given that backup.
If you think my logic is faulty then show the error.

 

[NMSquirrel]

you guys are so busy dismissing/judging/demeaning each other, that your not contributing anything intelligent to the thread.

this thread should be closed anyway.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

If you think my logic is faulty then show the error.

Your logic assumes that If we choose not to obey a plan the human mind can't conceive Then God's existence is faulty.

If a kamikaze decides at the last second to pull up, does it mean the plane is faulty?

 

[wynn]

this is a stupid thread anyway..
the OP title is trying to justify prejudice and bigotry.

Really? How?

It is prejudice and bigotry if the non-theists refuse to let themselves be fucked in the head by the theists?

this thread should be closed anyway.

Theists need to be made aware what they are doing to people in the name of God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your logic assumes that If we choose not to obey a plan the human mind can't conceive Then God's existence is faulty.

Still wrong. AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED TO YOU.
One of the DEFINITIONS of god is that he is omniscient.
If we can do something that wasn't planned for then god isn't omniscient (it wasn't foreseen and accounted for) and therefore isn't god.

So it would appear that (yet again) you are misrepresenting my position, a position that was outlined FOR YOU in previous posts. Is there no end to your dishonesty?

If a kamikaze decides at the last second to pull up, does it mean the plane is faulty?

Not as faulty your arguments.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Still wrong. AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED TO YOU.
One of the DEFINITIONS of god is that he is omniscient.

Yes he consists of every natural object... Good luck changing that with your mind...

I shot down your assumptions which you refute with no evidence... Please provide a real life example....

If we can do something that wasn't planned for then god isn't omniscient (it wasn't foreseen and accounted for) and therefore isn't god.

It it wasn't forseen or accounted for by god (a small word for all that actually exists in natural reality). (Ie not bound by cause and effect) It didn't happen sorry.

So it would appear that (yet again) you are misrepresenting my position
Not as faulty your arguments.

Well if you would support your argument I couldn't possibly refute it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes he consists of every natural object.

Supposition.

I shot down your assumptions which you refute with no evidence.

Pardon? Can you write English?
And, one more time: fail.
As you have already been told:

we're talking about the god of the bible.

Here.

The god under discussion is the Christian god of the bible.

And here.

But we ARE discussing the Christian god

As stated here.
Now, can you stick to the topic or do you wish to derail it further?

It it wasn't forseen or accounted for by god (a small word for all that actually exists in natural reality). (Ie not bound by cause and effect) It didn't happen sorry.

So you're claiming that, free will or not, we can't divert from the plan?
Also not part of the topic. Diversion is what we are talking about.

Well if you would support your argument I couldn't possibly refute it.

I have done. And you obviously can't because you have to change the argument and conditions completely to provide any sort of "refutation" (term used sarcastically).

Not only a liar but a total idiot to boot.

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

Why shouldn't we treat theists in the same manner that they've been treating us for thousands of years? Why shouldn't we ban them from public office in the same way that atheists are currently banned from public office in a number of countries and seven states here in the US? Why shouldn't we change the laws so that they're considered guilty until proven innocent the way theists treated atheists up until the 1800s? Why shouldn't we up and kill them on the mere rumor that they're theists the way that atheists are still being killed today?

If the behavior is good enough for you theists then why should you balk when we exhibit it as well?