Which I countered with the same question from an atheist perspective.
I asked the question.
Right.
See, but it's a pointless question, just fallacious, tit-for-tat, rubber-glue vendetta.
Again:
Atheist 1: Human values as alternative to religious belief.
(#208↑)
Inquiry: Human values, sure, but what is the rational justification of those values?
(#209↑)
Atheist 2: Explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values".
(#215↑)
To have "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" leaves you asking a particularly meaningless question. It is not the theist's job to write the atheist's argument. But, hey, at least you're able to say you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".
At least I don't kill people because they disagree with me on my atheist views. I respect the rights of people and I make every accomodation to afford all their rights. I can vehemently disagree with any point of view, as long as it is founded on fact.
And yet you go out of your way to disrupt discourse with meaningless questions, but, hey, at least you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective". No, really, you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" without regard to whether doing so made any logical sense. As matters of fact go, yeah, so much for founding on fact.
And you, Tiassa, went way over the line with your smug speculative prejudicial slurs.
Assessments of what you have already done are not necessarily prejudicial.
I do expect civil reciprocation, not veiled ad hominems, casting doubt on my motives.
Let me see if I can soften this up a bit so as not to hurt your feelings as badly:
Do you expect some manner of tabula rasa from thread to thread? No, you're not the only one I've wondered about over the years. It comes up from time to time.
Remember, this carries over between threads. Personally, I find it ironic that two disputes derived from a single episode display similar vendetta behavior. But, sure, just go out of your way to be fallacious and disruptive across two threads for the sake of judgmentalism and pursuit of satisfaction, and go ahead and "expect civil reciprocation".
So ... yeah. Good one.
Damn, you make me angry, I am not learning anything....
Well, you're too busy judging theism as severely wanting in moral and ethical behavior according to "theist tenets" you have yet to demonstrate any awareness of. Well, that is, when you're not too busy judging according to atheist assignations of theistic duty. But at least you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".
You're not learning anything, and I'm still waiting for a discussion worth having. Woo hoo. Welcome to the Religion subforum.
†
While I really do consider your vendetta puerile, I also find fascinating a weird phenomenon these discussions. Sometimes people make weird accusations that sound elaborate, and it's true this habit generally annoys me, but for the moment I get to try a version of it: Consider that part of the problem is my apparent violation of cult by failing code in not properly reciting creed. One irony of the crossthread overlap really is that you did the same thing I was criticizing Jeeves for; another, though, is that in both threads, dispute arose in response to posts that were not hostile. In Jeeves' case, clarification of a facutal point appears to have upset some atheists, and very strangely it seems the problem is the responsibilities of empowerment. Or maybe not; the pushback included a heap of victimhood, so maybe these atheists just don't perceive any empowerment.
In this thread, Bob's not doing anything
wrong, as such; it's just ... well, it should be harder to lose an argument with Musika about certain subjects, but apparently it happens. And I really mean it: Someone passed on a chance to answer an important question, and others swarmed with trope and fallacy, and the resulting mess, for those inclined toward atheistic pride, isn't really anything to be proud of.
In either thread, though, my posts failed to observe customary demand, thus violating basic cult; in not reciting appropriate creed of doctrinal, antireligious statements, I have failed to observe the code describing applicable values. And what that gets in return, apparently, are strings of rubber-glue vendetta bawling about theists, even to such point that you want them to write the atheistic argument, but at the very least, you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".
No, really: The persistent religious behavior stands out.