thehomer:

So you're saying that you cannot tell yourself by actually looking at what someone has done whether or not that person has a good character or not?

I doubt if I believe you to understand my statement this way.
You are not taking into consideration that what we are dealing with is not reality but a work of fiction. Anything outside the context of the fiction cannot hold.

So asking if I can tell that a person has a good character, by looking at what he has done, can only be applied in the real world where there are no constraints attached to the behaviour of the people performing the actions.

You can only ask if one is satisfied with the way the evil character was potrayed but you cannot have any opinion outside it. Why? Because you were informed in the first place that none of the events happened in the real world. You cannot make anything once you are outside the plot the story followed.

thehomer:

Who would you say has a better character between Macbeth and Banquo?

I read macbeth a long time ago. I cannot really recall more than where a character, either macduff or macbeth, bragged that no man born of a woman can kill him. Ignorant of the fact that the other was given birth to through a surgical operation.

thehomer:


False. Characters whether fictional or real are judged by what they did. In fact sometimes the writer doesn't say who they think is good or bad.

I beg to disagree. I don't think the characters in fictional or real life are judged based on what they do.

It would be safe to conclude that they are judged based on the intent or motive of the action. Once we begin to judge people based on what they do rather than the intent behind the action, then, I think even measures like self-defence will be considered an evil thing. Then our understanding begin to dumb down.

thehomer:

The Bible contains some fictional elements but again, this point is irrelevant because we're talking about the actions performed by the entities mentioned in the book not whether or not the book was fiction.

Let's not act as if their actions decides how we should form our jugdement of good and evil.
If we assume it, which I think is wrong, we can only solve resolve this challenge by pointing out every portion of the bible where god or the devil did evil.

That will prompt us thereafter to weigh the crimes committed by the respective parties. Then another problem sets in. But if sonehow in the midst of our confusion, we got lucky enough to be moved by the right instincts, we will come to discover that we've wasted our time because our means of assessment is wrong, I the first place.

The intent at every sight of any evil God committed always appeared for the good. The bible will always tell you why the action or evil is for a greater good.

thehomer:

You show it each time you're unable to back up your claim that the devil had a worse character than God.

The problem is that you want me to tell you what and what actions the devil carried out in potraying evil.

You are of the wrong notion that our actions define us. The problem with this is that an evil man can go away with a good name if he can pretend and veil his real self properly.

It cannot be a case against god because the intent of god in the bible was properly established. The same with that of the devil.

thehomer:

Actually, you can as long as you have a brain and can think, you can disagree with the author about whether or not based on what has been presented that a certain entity they created was good or evil. This reveals something else which is either you're afraid of actually reading what the Bible contains and talking frankly about it or you're lazy and want someone else to do your thinking for you

Then you are no longer speaking of the same story. It is either you accept a writer's story as it is, leave it and mind your business, or write a new story to brigde the gap you found in it. You can debate it only if the story is based on true life events.

I don't really understand the meaning of the latter part of your statement. How you arrived at that conclusion I can't tell.

thehomer:

This is why I say you're being lazy. I've cited evidence for you that shows that God is evil based on what he did. You even accept that Yahweh has committed evil acts but for some reason, you're still unable to form any conclusion unless you were spoon fed.

Please don't confuse the two, bro. It is a categorical mistake. When two identities are compared, one committing an evil is entirely different from his being more evil.

The question was if there is any portion of the bible that can say that god is more evil than the devil. That question you neglected, since it can be verified from the bible, should determine which is the greater evil. You seem not to be looking at the reasons behind the actions committed by god. Abeg na!

thehomer:

I'm saying on the basis that Yahweh performed terrible acts while the devil didn't. I've listed some of the acts that Yahweh did that count as evil but so far, you've not been able to do the same for the devil.

I understand this argument so well to know that examples of evil acts committed by any of the parties will not take us any where.

The question should be, what did the bible say was his reasons? Was he labelled as a dictator for doing so? Was even seen as an evil?

thehomer:


You said I lied. I asked you to show me the lie and you change tack? Come on.
And this would be laziness to the extreme. It shows a refusal to actually think about what you're reading. Sorry but I actually think about what I'm reading. Don't just show me a quote saying "the devil is worse than God", show me what the devil did that makes him worse than God. That is the difference between someone who thinks about what they read and someone who merely counts letters.

Why this outburst when what I only asked was a simple question? My question still is, would you accept that the devil is evil if I can show you a portion of the bible were it was made clear? Is that not simple enough to deserve a honorable response?

thehomer:

Just state the evil actions done by the devil, compare them to God's actions and then you're ready to work.

Lol. Piling up evils will not prove anything. Like I responded in response 2, the intent is what determines why anyone is good or bad and not their actions.

thehomer:

Go back and read it. I quoted what you said after the colon.

I still can't find it. You will do well to post it in responding to this.

thehomer:

Of course it is attached. Didn't you read what I wrote? You've already made the blunder.

Lol. C'mon! How can one make a blunder when he is asking for clarifications?

thehomer:

Actually, you are and that is why you're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God and devil and forming your own conclusion about it.

Afraid!! Na wa o! I still don't understand. What is it that I am afraid of? I seriously want to know.

thehomer:

So when the producers of the movie don't write Bruce Willis is the good guy in this movie in the introduction, you find it difficult to tell who the good guys were in the movie Die Hard.
Or how do you think the good guys are? Isn't it by what they do? Or do they list the characters and say good guy after it?

No. I don't tell who the good guys in a movie are by their actions. I consider why they do whatever they do to be the basis of my formulation.

If we are to follow your advise then there will be no way to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Based on their actions: the good as well as the bad guys kill, both are usually very strong. These parameters can never tell you who is really good.

thehomer:

I couldn't form a conclusion based on what you wrote. As I said, I'd rather arrive at my own conclusions rather than be spoon fed.

Oh please, c'mon. I am now not asking you to react based on what truely happened in the story. Just take it as my little contribution to the work of art.
Again, who is the better character?

Reyginus: I doubt if I believe you to understand my statement this way.
You are not taking into consideration that what we are dealing with is not reality but a work of fiction. Anything outside the context of the fiction cannot hold.

Once more you show that you have no idea of what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

Reyginus:
So asking if I can tell that a person has a good character, by looking at what he has done, can only be applied in the real world where there are no constraints attached to the behaviour of the people performing the actions.

You can only ask if one is satisfied with the way the evil character was potrayed but you cannot have any opinion outside it. Why? Because you were informed in the first place that none of the events happened in the real world. You cannot make anything once you are outside the plot the story followed.

Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. We can tell moral character in both real life and fiction. Saying you can't just shows that you're unable to think on your own. Or you just want to run from the Bible as usual.

Don't you know that you follow the plot of a story? Or do you need to have each person explained to you as being good or bad?

Reyginus:
I read macbeth a long time ago. I cannot really recall more than where a character, either macduff or macbeth, bragged that no man born of a woman can kill him. Ignorant of the fact that the other was given birth to through a surgical operation.

Read the plot on Wikipedia. It's short. You can also read the short story in maybe Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare. Now you're even afraid to take a look at Macbeth?

Reyginus:
I beg to disagree. I don't think the characters in fictional or real life are judged based on what they do.

It would be safe to conclude that they are judged based on the intent or motive of the action. Once we begin to judge people based on what they do rather than the intent behind the action, then, I think even measures like self-defence will be considered an evil thing. Then our understanding begin to dumb down.

Do you think that the action is irrelevant? Since you're so hung up on intent, go ahead and show me using the intent and actions in the Bible who had the better character. Draw up your list let's take a look at it. While you're at it, can you tell me the intent for the actions I listed Yahweh as carrying out?

Reyginus:
Let's not act as if their actions decides how we should form our jugdement of good and evil.
If we assume it, which I think is wrong, we can only solve resolve this challenge by pointing out every portion of the bible where god or the devil did evil.

That will prompt us thereafter to weigh the crimes committed by the respective parties. Then another problem sets in. But if sonehow in the midst of our confusion, we got lucky enough to be moved by the right instincts, we will come to discover that we've wasted our time because our means of assessment is wrong, I the first place.

The intent at every sight of any evil God committed always appeared for the good. The bible will always tell you why the action or evil is for a greater good.

What was the good intent for God killing the 42 children, drowning everyone in Noah's flood and commanding the genocide? Then go on and list the devil's actions and the intent behind them let's take a look at it. Don't run from this task you've set for yourself.

Reyginus:
The problem is that you want me to tell you what and what actions the devil carried out in potraying evil.

You are of the wrong notion that our actions define us. The problem with this is that an evil man can go away with a good name if he can pretend and veil his real self properly.

It cannot be a case against god because the intent of god in the bible was properly established. The same with that of the devil.

So you can't say what the devil did that was evil. You can't say what his intentions are for the actions. You can't say what God's intentions were for the acts I listed so what conclusion can you draw from the Bible?

Reyginus:
Then you are no longer speaking of the same story. It is either you accept a writer's story as it is, leave it and mind your business, or write a new story to brigde the gap you found in it. You can debate it only if the story is based on true life events.

I don't really understand the meaning of the latter part of your statement. How you arrived at that conclusion I can't tell.

Have you ever heard of literary criticism? Look it up and realize that people can and do study works of literature. What did you find confusing in what I wrote?

Reyginus:
Please don't confuse the two, bro. It is a categorical mistake. When two identities are compared, one committing an evil is entirely different from his being more evil.

The question was if there is any portion of the bible that can say that god is more evil than the devil. That question you neglected, since it can be verified from the bible, should determine which is the greater evil. You seem not to be looking at the reasons behind the actions committed by god. Abeg na!

What was the category error you claim I made? Or will this also be like your accusing me of having lied? No that isn't the question I asked you. The question I asked you was whether Yahweh or the devil had the worse character. Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it. You can state the reason why it was good for God to test people by asking them to kill their children and by commanding genocides.

Reyginus:
I understand this argument so well to know that examples of evil acts committed by any of the parties will not take us any where.

The question should be, what did the bible say was his reasons? Was he labelled as a dictator for doing so? Was even seen as an evil?

Are you seriously saying that actions don't matter? Since you're so hung up on the intent, you say what the intent of the characters were.

Reyginus:
Why this outburst when what I only asked was a simple question? My question still is, would you accept that the devil is evil if I can show you a portion of the bible were it was made clear? Is that not simple enough to deserve a honorable response?

And I've answered by telling you to present your evidence based on what the devil actually did not based on what someone else vaguely hinted that he did.

Reyginus:
Lol. Piling up evils will not prove anything. Like I responded in response 2, the intent is what determines why anyone is good or bad and not their actions.

Actually, it goes a long way to reveal your character. Since you want to add intent to what you need to show, please go ahead and tell me the intent behind your God killing all the people he killed.

Reyginus:
I still can't find it. You will do well to post it in responding to this.

Lol. C'mon! How can one make a blunder when he is asking for clarifications?

If you're seriously saying you cannot read a post sequentially including one that contains a quote you made, then there's nothing I can do other than to link you back to my original post and you tell me what you don't understand. Here's the link. Please highlight the phrase you find confusing.

Reyginus:
Afraid!! Na wa o! I still don't understand. What is it that I am afraid of? I seriously want to know.

You're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God.

Reyginus:
No. I don't tell who the good guys in a movie are by their actions. I consider why they do whatever they do to be the basis of my formulation.

If we are to follow your advise then there will be no way to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Based on their actions: the good as well as the bad guys kill, both are usually very strong. These parameters can never tell you who is really good.

Are you seriously saying that what they did isn't important? If so, please also tell me why God felt commanding genocides and killing 42 children was a good idea but the devil hasn't done anything remotely evil.

Reyginus:
Oh please, c'mon. I am now not asking you to react based on what truely happened in the story. Just take it as my little contribution to the work of art.
Again, who is the better character?

And I'm telling you that your summary didn't provide enough information. Why don't you leave it at that? e.g what did Merlin do? You just say he performed magic. What did Morgana do? She also performed some magic. You then say that Merlin performed more evil than Morgana at the rate of 10:1 but I can't judge that for myself because I don't know the acts they did, I can't compare what they did so how do I arrive at a conclusion based on what I've seen?

Reyginus: I doubt if I believe you to understand my statement this way.
You are not taking into consideration that what we are dealing with is not reality but a work of fiction. Anything outside the context of the fiction cannot hold.

So asking if I can tell that a person has a good character, by looking at what he has done, can only be applied in the real world where there are no constraints attached to the behaviour of the people performing the actions.

You can only ask if one is satisfied with the way the evil character was potrayed but you cannot have any opinion outside it. Why? Because you were informed in the first place that none of the events happened in the real world. You cannot make anything once you are outside the plot the story followed.
I read macbeth a long time ago. I cannot really recall more than where a character, either macduff or macbeth, bragged that no man born of a woman can kill him. Ignorant of the fact that the other was given birth to through a surgical operation.

This guy is a joke.

There is a similar argument that some irrational christians make that is related to the one that Reyginius made in bold.

"If there was no death and people could just come back to life after death just like restarting a videogame, murder would not be evil"

The silly reasoning behind this argument is that since there are very little or no consequences, the action can not be wrong.

The counter to the silly reasoning is that there is intent and that every action has a consequence- mudering someone with nine lives still would cause harm- wasting the victims time by forcing him to respawn and still causing him MENTAL pain.




Funny enough, Reyginius goes on to talk about intent.....lol

So, what Reyginius is saying is that one can not judge scarface in the movie to be bad because
a) The movie doesnt expressly say that he is bad (infact he argies that people wrongly call him the bad guy to make themselves feel good)
b) The movie is fiction and all the people Scarface killed were not real.

lol....Reyginius is saying that we cant judge scarface to be bad despite the numerous people he murdered and the drugs he did

Reyginus: What it really is. A word used to denote a male animal.

Thats all? ur dictionary is incomplete.

thehomer:


Any questions?

Yes. Can I have some of what you're on?

thehomer: The six month old babies that drowned in Noah's flood. And the ones that died in the genocide he commanded.

Where exactly did the bible record six month old babies?

thehomer: I know the meaning. But you see, due to the difference between humans and programs, your metaphor is too weak to work.

I guess there is more than one way to say "I don't understand the metaphor"

thehomer: Well why didn't he? It looks like he does in Heaven so what was the problem?

The problem is he doesn't? Everybody in heaven still have their free will. Only they've chosen to follow God. The dfevil was once in heaven too, wasn't he?

thehomer: I'm sure you can too if you try. For starters your God drowned a lot of people in Noah's flood. How many did the devil drown?

God destroyed his initial creation for their evil. Like I've asked you before, how is destroying an bad thing a bad thing?

How many did the devil drown? Let's see, since the devil is the originator of sin, and he spitefully passed on his evil to mankind, and those people were drowned for indulging in said evil, can we not say it was partly the devil's fault they were destroyed?

If the devil had taken his defeat and banishment from heaven like a man, and maybe gone off to go create his own intergalactic empire, and had not sought to get back at God by corrupting his creation, who knows, maybe sin would never have entered the world, and we wouldn't have had to be dealing with boko haram...

thehomer: Really you should try to know your Bible.


1 Kings 22

19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

Jeremiah 4

10 Then I said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! How completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats!”

Ezekiel 14

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.


Are those quotes from the Bible satisfactory?

There are many ways to kill a rat?

Ahab had that coming, and God could have destroyed him using any means he chose, including frying him with a thunderbolt sango-style. Maybe he was up for some soap opera...

Destroying a good thing=evil

Destroying an evil thing=good

For example, if God decided to destroy Assad by sending a deceiving spirit to deceive him to his destruction, how is that evil?

thehomer:

Once more you show that you have no idea of what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

On a serious, I don't fancy this sort of response.
What is the meaning of the above? What is the meaning of using this 'once again' I have done so and so, to neglect what was presented before you.

If you had come up with something like:' you are wrong. And it can hold because...', that would have been a plausible response. Unlike the above. In every debate or discussion I engage in, I never allow any distraction to terminate the subject matter.

thehomer:

Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. We can tell moral character in both real life and fiction. Saying you can't just shows that you're unable to think on your own. Or you just want to run from the Bible as usual.

At this point, I don't know if to laugh or to scold you for doing the same thing you did in quote one.
It seems the best way to tackle a well articulated defence is to by dismissing it without backing it up.

In my response I showed you why you do not jugde a character by his actions. I showed that a con artist, a deceiver, will be regarded good if he can hide his true character to an innocent majority.

If you say we can tell a moral character in both real life and fiction without telling how, you're not telling us anything.

Imagine if you were to ask me why I think a certain event is evil, let's say murder, and my response is that because people tell why it is evil. I will only succeed in my escapism if you are too dumb to notice my beautiful nonsense.

thehomer:

Don't you know that you follow the plot of a story? Or do you need to have each person explained to you as being good or bad?

Perfectly true. I like the way you put it. We follow the plot of the story but we cannot amend it if we seriously want to be speaking of the same story.

Yes. You need each person explained to you before you can know who is good or bad. But not in the sense you understand it. You see, in carrying out their roles in a movie, they are explaining to you if they are bad or good.

thehomer:

Read the plot on Wikipedia. It's short. You can also read the short story in maybe Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare. Now you're even afraid to take a look at macbeth?

Are you high on expired drugs, bro? Lol. How am I afraid to look at macbeth? Are you making a figure of speech?

By the way your link took me to google search page where it was difficult determing which. Help me post the plot here.

thehomer:


Do you think that the action is irrelevant? Since you're so hung up on intent, go ahead and show me using the intent and actions in the Bible who had the better character. Draw up your list let's take a look at it. While you're at it, can you tell me the intent for the actions I listed Yahweh as carrying out?

Lol. Another list that will lead us nowhere. I should start listing every portion of the bible were the intent of God prevailed, even though you are yet to accept that intent determines the morality of an action. I am not that Jobless.

I am going to do that on the following conditions:
1. You will first have to accept that intent and not action determines what is good or evil.

2. That the whole argument will be summarized on the list of 50 intents of both parties in several events.

3. The list must be base on the bible. You cannot read a symbolic meaning where a point is literally sensible.

If you can accept this, then we can leave the other things and focus.

thehomer:

What was the good intent for God killing the 42 children, drowning everyone in Noah's flood and commanding the genocide?

At this point I need to allow the bible defend itself.

Genesis 6: 11-12 'Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth'.
I will not be surprised if you still ask me to provide the intent.

thehomer:

Then go on and list the devil's actions and the intent behind them let's take a look at it. Don't run from this task you've set for yourself.

As narrated by the bible, the one-third of the millions, or is it billionns, of angels who left to hell with the devil stormed earth to mate with the beautiful daughters of the day. Their intent was to destroy man and the works of god by corrupting the human race. And they almost succeeded.

thehomer:


So you can't say what the devil did that was evil. You can't say what his intentions are for the actions. You can't say what God's intentions were for the acts I listed so what conclusion can you draw from the Bible?

How you manage to wriggle out of what you are meant to address baffles me. Even after telling you that the bible accused him of being the reason behind every of god's evil action you still go ahead to play this game.

And have you even accepted that the intentions defines anything if you are employing its service? t is you agree that the intention defines the act or the actions, which is wrong. But since you are yet to take the intent as the determinant factor you have no justification to employ its service.

thehomer:


Have you ever heard of literary criticism? Look it up and realize that people can and do study works of literature. What did you find confusing in what I wrote?

Still the same problem. The point is that literary criticism doesn't change a a story.
It is only but an opinion showing disatisfaction at the way a story was composed. It doesn't change the story. That's the point you should get.

For the records, I didn't use the word confuse in the quote you are responding to. Because I know how things work here. One can invent a word and later accuse the other.

I find nothing confusing about your post.

thehomer:

What was the category error you claim I made?

Responding with the impression that what you are after is who has the worst character and not why I say the devil has the worst character. Remember now. The former has been known from the very beginning, the latter is the reason we are still here.

thehomer:
Or will this also be like your accusing me of having lied? No that isn't the question I asked you. The question I asked you was whether Yahweh or the devil had the worse character.

This was not the question. We've dealt with this from the outset.

thehomer:
Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it. You can state the reason why it was good for God to test people by asking them to kill their children and by commanding genocides.

Lol. Now you want to amend it to suit my taste. This is actually the question though still put wrongly. It is not ' Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it', but since i've choosen the devil what reasons do I have to it.

The question was not attached like you are trying to make it sound. It came differently. And since it didn't come at the same time, repeating an already answered question like the former is actually a sign of forgetfulness.

thehomer:
Are you seriously saying that actions don't matter? Since you're so hung up on the intent, you say what the intent of the characters were.

Another smart way to shift to burden of response on a person begging for a response.

This method of argument might work with other people around here but not with me. What you should have done is to show me how actions and not intents matter. I'm waiting.

thehomer:

And I've answered by telling you to present your evidence based on what the devil actually did not based on what someone else vaguely hinted that he did.

I don't think you understand that statement enough to answer it. Let me rephrase. Do you agree that everything in the bible is true, not based on faith but as a work of fiction?

thehomer:
Actually, it goes a long way to reveal your character. Since you want to add intent to what you need to show, please go ahead and tell me the intent behind your God killing all the people he killed.

Ol' boy! You are asking me to do your work for you. In situations like this what is required of you is to present a plausible counter-argument against intent. I cannot create a comfort zone for you here, bro.

thehomer:

If you're seriously saying you cannot read a post sequentially including one that contains a quote you made, then there's nothing I can do other than to link you back to my original post and you tell me what you don't understand. Here's the link. Please highlight the phrase you find confusing.

Lol. I am trying to inform you of a typographical error in that quote making it difficult for me to understand but you are busy providing link to your original post. Just correct it and post it here.

thehomer:


You're afraid of looking at what the Bible says about God.

Lol. Why should I be afraid when I am trying to be an atheist? I don't understand you.

thehomer:

Are you seriously saying that what they did isn't important? If so, please also tell me why God felt commanding genocides and killing 42 children was a good idea but the devil hasn't done anything remotely evil.

Did it occur to you in the composition of this text that I was only correcting your illustration of bad and good guys in a movie.

I don't like it when somebody deviates like that. You are of the opinion that you can only know who the good guys are by their actions which I countered by comparing their respective actions. It turned out the same. I then brought in intent which you were supposed to counter but didn't for reasons best known to you.

thehomer:

And I'm telling you that your summary didn't provide enough information. Why don't you leave it at that? e.g what did Merlin do? You just say he performed magic. What did Morgana do? She also performed some magic. You then say that Merlin performed more evil than Morgana at the rate of 10:1 but I can't judge that for myself because I don't know the acts they did, I can't compare what they did so how do I arrive at a conclusion based on what I've seen?

Lolol. Dude stop pretending you don't understand me. You perfectly do. I am talking about the movie any longer. I am now presenting it as my own work of fiction. No excuses this time.

Logicboy03:


This guy is a joke.

Let's see what you have to back it up.

Logicboy03:


There is a similar argument that some irrational christians make that is related to the one that Reyginius made in bold.
"If there was no death and people could just come back to life after death just like restarting a videogame, murder would not be evil"

Lololol. This is one of the most ridiculous of analogies I have seen in recent time.

You don't even understand the statement, in the first place. If you did, you'd have realized that what my quote is saying in essence is that, you can only jugde the character of real people under no obligation to will differently.

Logicboy03:


The silly reasoning behind this argument is that since there are very little or no consequences, the action can not be wrong.

Ode! How you think. Who is talking about consequences here?

Logicboy03:


The counter to the silly reasoning is that there is intent and that every action has a consequence- mudering someone with nine lives still would cause harm- wasting the victims time by forcing him to respawn and still causing him MENTAL pain.

I am seriously shaking my head for you. You have lost it completely. It is not whether there is intent but whether we can comment outside what the writer would have the fiction to mean. And still, retain its original meaning.

Logicboy03:



Funny enough, Reyginius goes on to talk about intent.....lol

I dey shame for you, my atheist brother.

Logicboy03:


So, what Reyginius is saying is that one can not judge scarface in the movie to be bad because
a) The movie doesnt expressly say that he is bad (infact he argies that people wrongly call him the bad guy to make themselves feel good)

I won't dismiss this till I get a brief narration of the movie Scarface. But if the movie didn't present him to be bad in his intent you cannot judge him to be bad.

Logicboy03:


b) The movie is fiction and all the people Scarface killed were not real.

Nna, tell me about Scarface.

Logicboy03:


lol....Reyginius is saying that we cant judge scarface to be bad despite the numerous people he murdered and the drugs he did

This Scatface must be a bad guy

JMAN05:

Thats all? ur dictionary is incomplete.

Lol. I guess you are dissapointed I didn't define it in accordance with your plan.

@reygenius
Expired drugs is what @thehomer is on?

Ok I take back my offer.

rapture_ready: @reygenius
Expired drugs is what @thehomer is on?

Ok I take back my offer.

Lol. I'm yet to form an opinion on it. But please don't look for trouble.

Religion section poster c'mon! More questions please!!

Ok

As an atheist, if you met God right now, what will you say to him?

Reyginus: Please don't try to join the band wagon.

Lb, needs a cranium check. The dude is suffering from intellectual dwarfism.

By the way, how does the post make atheists to appear foolish? I just don't umderstand.

you are saying u believe something from nothing is possible yet the bible account of something from nothing is not to believe because it is in the bible.

rapture_ready: Ok

As an atheist, if you met God right now, what will you say to him?

I will ask him why he made himself so invisible?

Mee234:
you are saying u believe something from nothing is possible yet the bible account of something from nothing is not to believe because it is in the bible.

To be frank, I don't understand you. I don't remember ever having such discussion with you. But I will go ahead and react to it like a newcomer.

Vacuum flunctuation, resulting in the creation of energies in quantum physics, doesn't come from anything. It is a fact. I wouldn't believe it if I found it in bible not just because it is in the bible but because the bible consistently contradicts itself. It cannot be taken seriously.

Reyginus: I will ask him why he made himself so invisible?

He didn't make himself invisible. It's just that you guys are going about finding him the wrong way.

Like you rightly admitted, "he cannot be discovered by existing scientific capacity". Knowing this, why not try the other prescribed way - Jesus Christ. Accept him into your life and God will reveal himself to you. He may not go the whole popping-his-head-out-of-the-sky-and-saying-"checkmate atheists" route, but he will reveal himself to you opersonally...

Reyginus: To be frank, I don't understand you. I don't remember ever having such discussion with you. But I will go ahead and react to it like a newcomer.

Vacuum flunctuation, resulting in the creation of energies in quantum physics, doesn't come from anything. It is a fact. I wouldn't believe it if I found it in bible not just because it is in the bible but because the bible consistently contradicts itself. It cannot be taken seriously.

ok.

rapture_ready:

He didn't make himself invisible. It's just that you guys are going about finding him the wrong way.

Like you rightly admitted, "he cannot be discovered by existing scientific capacity". Knowing this, why not try the other prescribed way - Jesus Christ. Accept him into your life and God will reveal himself to you. He may not go the whole popping-his-head-out-of-the-sky-and-saying-"checkmate atheists" route, but he will reveal himself to you opersonally...

Lol. Keep your sermon to yourself. The simple question has developed into the assumption that He really exists.

I think there is no better way of determining if what a people is saying of a superior is true than by comparing his supposed qualities, with the quality of service those under him are receiving.

I would have to see the absolute benefit of following god in his followers before I even begin to consider to follow him.

Assuming there is a company, 'rapture international', with the tenets of a healthy and happy life if you are loyal, as expected of you. But on the contrary you see their loyal workers living a life of penury in all ramifications, would you in your right senses join such a company?

Reyginus: Lol. Keep your sermon to yourself. The simple question has developed into the assumption that He really exists.

Actually, the first question was already initially based on said assumption.

However, what I am trying to say is, show some courage and prove to yourself once and for all that God doesn't exist. Open your mind and try to find him. Only try Jesus first accept him into your life as prescribed by the bible and study/follow his precepts for finding God. If you give it a while you still got nothing, you can at least know that you tried... There is even some benefit for you in this - a stronger atheist conviction!

Like you said, all evidence does not have to be scientific. C'mon I know you can do it, pls pls pls pls pleeeeeaase?

Reyginus: I think there is no better way of determining if what a people is saying of a superior is true than by comparing his supposed qualities, with the quality of service those under him are receiving.

I would have to see the absolute benefit of following god in his followers before I even begin to consider to follow him.

Assuming there is a company, 'rapture international', with the tenets of a healthy and happy life if you are loyal, as expected of you. But on the contrary you see their loyal workers living a life of penury in all ramifications, would you in your right senses join such a company?

You're saying all christians "live a life of penury in all ramfications"? This is both logically, mathematically and physically impossible. It even contradicts common sense.

For example, the president of the USA, Germany, a lot of other countries and even our own dear GEJ are publically proffesing christians.

rapture_ready:

Actually, the first question was already initially based on said assumption.

However, what I am trying to say is, show some courage and prove to yourself once and for all that God doesn't exist. Open your mind and try to find him. Only try Jesus first accept him into your life as prescribed by the bible and study/follow his precepts for finding God. If you give it a while you still got nothing, you can at least know that you tried... There is even some benefit for you in this - a stronger atheist conviction!

You know, it would have been worth a trial if I am not aware of the sins of religion. If I had come from another planet and was not satisfied with the living standard I available.

But I have been here. I have seen the level a mojarity of christains have been plunged. Sometimes when I doubt my atheism, I look upon the catastrophe caused by christainity and all other religions as inspiration. And I feel right again.

rapture_ready:

Like you said, all evidence does not have to be scientific. C'mon I know you can do it, pls pls pls pls pleeeeeaase?

Lol. You don't have to beg people to join any organization that is really good. A good product sells itself.

rapture_ready:


You're saying all christians "live a life of penury in all ramfications"? This is both logically, mathematically and physically impossible. It even contradicts common sense.

True. I was wrong. I should have used the word 'majority'.

rapture_ready:

For example, the president of the USA, Germany, a lot of other countries and even our own dear GEJ are publically proffesing christians.

Please don't tell me you believe what you have up there. If trully these men are practising christainity then I don't see the essence of becoming a christain.

Reyginus: Though even as an atheist I still find irritating the notion that morality is subjective.For a person who denies the existence of a god to maintain a good ethical position, all he requires is to act accordingly on unwritten objective moral laws. By treating all man fairly. You don'y need god to do that.

We have also on a grander scale seen how well some atheists conduct themselves. I think that should be greatest evidence that it is possible.

You really haven't shown me how this is possible without God. So a few atheists conduct themselves in public, big deal, even my dog conducts herself in public.

Reyginus: Religion section poster c'mon! More questions please!!

How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

Reyginus: Lol. I guess you are dissapointed I didn't define it in accordance with your plan.

You make me laugh. Sorry no be you write the dictionary. this must be a delusion.

Edit

Reyginus: On a serious, I don't fancy this sort of response.
What is the meaning of the above? What is the meaning of using this 'once again' I have done so and so, to neglect what was presented before you.

If you had come up with something like:' you are wrong. And it can hold because...', that would have been a plausible response. Unlike the above. In every debate or discussion I engage in, I never allow any distraction to terminate the subject matter.

At this point, I don't know if to laugh or to scold you for doing the same thing you did in quote one.
It seems the best way to tackle a well articulated defence is to by dismissing it without backing it up.

In my response I showed you why you do not jugde a character by his actions. I showed that a con artist, a deceiver, will be regarded good if he can hide his true character to an innocent majority.

If you say we can tell a moral character in both real life and fiction without telling how, you're not telling us anything.

Imagine if you were to ask me why I think a certain event is evil, let's say murder, and my response is that because people tell why it is evil. I will only succeed in my escapism if you are too dumb to notice my beautiful nonsense.

Perfectly true. I like the way you put it. We follow the plot of the story but we cannot amend it if we seriously want to be speaking of the same story.

Yes. You need each person explained to you before you can know who is good or bad. But not in the sense you understand it. You see, in carrying out their roles in a movie, they are explaining to you if they are bad or good.

Are you high on expired drugs, bro? Lol. How am I afraid to look at macbeth? Are you making a figure of speech?

By the way your link took me to google search page where it was difficult determing which. Help me post the plot here.

Lol. Another list that will lead us nowhere. I should start listing every portion of the bible were the intent of God prevailed, even though you are yet to accept that intent determines the morality of an action. I am not that Jobless.

I am going to do that on the following conditions:
1. You will first have to accept that intent and not action determines what is good or evil.

2. That the whole argument will be summarized on the list of 50 intents of both parties in several events.

3. The list must be base on the bible. You cannot read a symbolic meaning where a point is literally sensible.

If you can accept this, then we can leave the other things and focus.

At this point I need to allow the bible defend itself.

Genesis 6: 11-12 'Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth'.
I will not be surprised if you still ask me to provide the intent.

As narrated by the bible, the one-third of the millions, or is it billionns, of angels who left to hell with the devil stormed earth to mate with the beautiful daughters of the day. Their intent was to destroy man and the works of god by corrupting the human race. And they almost succeeded.



How you manage to wriggle out of what you are meant to address baffles me. Even after telling you that the bible accused him of being the reason behind every of god's evil action you still go ahead to play this game.

And have you even accepted that the intentions defines anything if you are employing its service? t is you agree that the intention defines the act or the actions, which is wrong. But since you are yet to take the intent as the determinant factor you have no justification to employ its service.


Still the same problem. The point is that literary criticism doesn't change a a story.
It is only but an opinion showing disatisfaction at the way a story was composed. It doesn't change the story. That's the point you should get.

For the records, I didn't use the word confuse in the quote you are responding to. Because I know how things work here. One can invent a word and later accuse the other.

I find nothing confusing about your post.

Responding with the impression that what you are after is who has the worst character and not why I say the devil has the worst character. Remember now. The former has been known from the very beginning, the latter is the reason we are still here.

This was not the question. We've dealt with this from the outset.


Lol. Now you want to amend it to suit my taste. This is actually the question though still put wrongly. It is not ' Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it', but since i've choosen the devil what reasons do I have to it.

The question was not attached like you are trying to make it sound. It came differently. And since it didn't come at the same time, repeating an already answered question like the former is actually a sign of forgetfulness.



Another smart way to shift to burden of response on a person begging for a response.

This method of argument might work with other people around here but not with me. What you should have done is to show me how actions and not intents matter. I'm waiting.


I don't think you understand that statement enough to answer it. Let me rephrase. Do you agree that everything in the bible is true, not based on faith but as a work of fiction?

Ol' boy! You are asking me to do your work for you. In situations like this what is required of you is to present a plausible counter-argument against intent. I cannot create a comfort zone for you here, bro.

Lol. I am trying to inform you of a typographical error in that quote making it difficult for me to understand but you are busy providing link to your original post. Just correct it and post it here.



Lol. Why should I be afraid when I am trying to be an atheist? I don't understand you.



Did it occur to you in the composition of this text that I was only correcting your illustration of bad and good guys in a movie.

I don't like it when somebody deviates like that. You are of the opinion that you can only know who the good guys are by their actions which I countered by comparing their respective actions. It turned out the same. I then brought in intent which you were supposed to counter but didn't for reasons best known to you.


Lolol. Dude stop pretending you don't understand me. You perfectly do. I am talking about the movie any longer. I am now presenting it as my own work of fiction. No excuses this time.

I'm getting tired of your failed evasions so I'll just simplify things with these basic questions. What was God's intent when he commanded genocides? What was his intent when he drowned almost every living thing in Noah's flood? What was his intent when he killed those 42 children? What was his intent when he tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son? Think carefully about your answers.

Manhunter™:
You really haven't shown me how this is possible without God. So a few atheists conduct themselves in public, big deal, even my dog conducts herself in public.

My friend, their is not enough explanation I can provide for any evidence that is always in evident. It is just like asking me to provide an evidence that humans can speak.

I will say I am pleased to see you admit that some atheists conduct themselves well, the motive behind adding 'in public' is something I don't understand yet. Are you saying that the atheist can only act wisely when he is in the outside environment, but retired to isolation he embraces foolishness?

Manhunter™:


How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

First and most importantly, I don't think God did it. A deep look at the argument will show that it goes to show that the christain or muslim god doesn't exist.

This is why I say so. If it is safe to belief that the christain god is responsible for the alignment of the physical constants to maintain life by equillibrium or linear uniformity, then we must also agree that the christain god created the universe 13 billion years ago.
But we must not fail to forget that the manuals for the christain and moslems gods', bible and qoran, has already traced the beginning of man to tens of thousands of years ago.

So god cannot be responsible without contradicting himself.

I can only say it is a case for the universe and not god, though my reason why it is so fashioned is not yet grounded.


So for the christain god to be trully responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe he must go against, not above, his words.

JMAN05:

You make me laugh. Sorry no be you write the dictionary. this must be a delusion.

Okay. Jokes apart. How would you want me to define it?

.

thehomer:

I'm getting tired of your failed evasions so I'll just simplify things with these basic questions.

Lol. What sort of game is this. So, I am supposed to respond to your post accordingly but you will not do same for mine.
Since we are in the spirit of simplifying things, let me simplify things in similar manner.

thehomer:

What was God's intent when he commanded genocides?

What was satan's intent when he rebelled against god, his master?

thehomer:

What was his intent when he drowned almost every living thing in Noah's flood?

What was satan's intent when he sent his angels to flood the earth prior to Noah's flood?

thehomer:

What was his intent when he killed those 42 children?

What was his intent when he destroyed through deceit millions of men?

thehomer:

What was his intent when he tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son? Think carefully about your answers.

What was his intent when he lied to the first man and woman?
Now that's justice.

Guys, this is my last day as an atheist. Any final question to put me thinking.

Reyginus: Lol. What sort of game is this. So, I am supposed to respond to your post accordingly but you will not do same for mine.
Since we are in the spirit of simplifying things, let me simplify things in similar manner.

What was satan's intent when he rebelled against god, his master?

This is why I say you have no idea of what you're doing. You're the one who says intent is all that matters not me. Yet here you come asking me about intent? This means that you want me to do your work for you. You can state what you think satan's intention was and tell me what you think Yahweh's intention was.

Reyginus:
What was satan's intent when he sent his angels to flood the earth prior to Noah's flood?

You tell me.

Reyginus:
What was his intent when he destroyed through deceit millions of men?

Another mere assertion without evidence. You're welcome to answer this too for yourself.

Reyginus:
What was his intent when he lied to the first man and woman?

Did he lie? You tell me.

Reyginus:
Now that's justice.

What justice? All you've done is to show that you have no idea of what you're doing here. Again, you introduced intention not me so it is up to you to state the intentions you think matter. As usual, when you're faced with direct questions, you start trying to be evasive but fail and this response clearly demonstrates this fact.

Reyginus: Guys, this is my last day as an atheist. Any final question to put me thinking.

Final questions? Really? Have you forgotten the questions I asked that you didn't answer but instead started asking me some irrelevant questions?



What a joke. I guess you've finally seen the questions that scare you.

thehomer:

This is why I say you have no idea of what you're doing. You're the one who says intent is all that matters not me. Yet here you come asking me about intent? This means that you want me to do your work for you. You can state what you think satan's intention was and tell me what you think Yahweh's intention was.



You tell me.



Another mere assertion without evidence. You're welcome to answer this too for yourself.



Did he lie? You tell me.



What justice? All you've done is to show that you have no idea of what you're doing here. Again, you introduced intention not me so it is up to you to state the intentions you think matter. As usual, when you're faced with direct questions, you start trying to be evasive but fail and this response clearly demonstrates this fact.

Lol. He missed the point completely.