Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

That does not follow. That's like insisting that a black swan is not a swan because you've somehow gotten into your head that "all swans are white."

You already admitted that you would pick the intelligent designer (Da Vinci) over given natural phenomena; as you compared which is more likely to produce the effect (painting).

So pretty much, you are committing the taxi cab fallacy if you don't apply that same logic to the given real life scenarios (creationism/naturalistic).

After you admitted this, any further discussion about anything in that regard is useless..about as useless as the "s" in island.

You say that and yet there you were, saying you cannot be bothered to go back pages up pages to find out what and how it was said. Why do you response with "I don't remember" as often as you do, had you actually went back to check?

I don't follow.

So go and check, provide links back to any quotes you think is relevant.

Too much work. I don't believe in working that much and not being on the payroll.

But the extra stuff you typed was just an attempt at ridicule.

Oh. You think so?

First you ask me defend not sacrificing human, my response was one ought not sacrifice human because it is wrong.

Again..

Me: Defend your position that sacrificing human lives is wrong.
You: Ok, I will defend my position; human sacrificing is wrong.
Me: .....

Then you asked me why it is wrong, in turn I told you it's wrong because I say so. The ball is in your court.

Ok, so God exists; because I said so.

Why would you think there was any subjectivity of X in the first place?

I most certainly don't. Remember, the subjectivity of X is based on your view.

By going with my views, YOU are appeal to subjectivism. The problem of evil doesn't require nor imply subjectivism.

Your attitude towards the problem of evil is based upon how you view "morality/evil". Since you view morality as subjective, so you will only look at the problem of evil from a subjective lens.

That's the whole point - I get to general because the problem of evil does NOT presuppose subjectivism.

You just don't get it, do you, sir? SMH.

When one typically tries to drop a subject, they concede stuff.

I did.

You "tried" to drop the subject and still have the last word

Didn't work, did it? Ok, how about this; how about I try to drop the subject and give you the last word? Will that work?

, insisting that somehow the problem of evil presupposes a subjective standard of evil, it does not.

It does.

Okay, let me reword that, it isn't about my particular standard but any standard you care to choose.

Well, I am choosing your particular standard for now, literally for the sake of argument.

Does that matter when the argument doesn't impose subjectivism?

......

So you kept insisting, let me repeat my defence again: human sacrifices is wrong because I say so.

LOL. You can have the last word, sir.

[Bust Nak]

You already admitted that you would pick the intelligent designer (Da Vinci) over given natural phenomena; as you compared which is more likely to produce the effect (painting).

So pretty much, you are committing the taxi cab fallacy if you don't apply that same logic to the given real life scenarios (creationism/naturalistic).

Oh, but I DO apply that same logic to the every real life scenarios. For artificial instances of specified complexity (painting,) I would pick intelligent designer (Da Vinci.) And for natural instances of specified complexity (aurora borealis,) I would pick natural phenomena (ionized particles).

What exactly are you bringing to the table other than doubling down on assertion that "it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes?" I would again point to my analogy, that's like doubling down on "all swans are white" in the face of a black swan by denying that it's a swan because well, "all swans are white!"

I don't follow.

I am saying you don't put in any where near enough effort into your post as demonstrate by your frequent "I don't remember" when the conversation is often still on the same page of the forum and all you have to do is scroll up a bit. Perhaps more to the point, simply put in the effort to keep track of a conversation for maybe a day or too.

Too much work. I don't believe in working that much and not being on the payroll.

And how do you think that would look to readers to our conversation?

Oh. You think so?

I do think so, as confirmed by your "LOL."

Me: Defend your position that sacrificing human lives is wrong.
You: Ok, I will defend my position; human sacrificing is wrong.
Me: .....

That is a misrepresentation of the conversation even as a summary. Let me correct that for you:

You: Defend your position that sacrificing human lives is wrong.
Me: Ok, I will defend my position; human sacrificing is wrong because I said so.
You: *insert the above misrepresentation* LOL.

Ok, so God exists; because I said so.

You think whether God exists is a matter of personal opinion? What are you, some "existential subjectivist?"

I most certainly don't. Remember, the subjectivity of X is based on your view.

Well there we have it, the problem of evil does not presuppose subjectivism. At best you've shown that I presuppose subjectivism.

Your attitude towards the problem of evil is based upon how you view "morality/evil". Since you view morality as subjective, so you will only look at the problem of evil from a subjective lens.

That still doesn't mean the problem of evil presupposes subjectivism.

You just don't get it, do you, sir? SMH.

The question is why would you expect anyone to "get it?" What you said is illogical, no one can "get it."

I did.

And yet here you are, telling me that I just don't get it, that's some concession.

Didn't work, did it? Ok, how about this; how about I try to drop the subject and give you the last word? Will that work?

Sure, that would work. You were incorrect when you claims the problem of evil presupposes subjectivism.

It does.

I am getting the last word: it doesn't.

Well, I am choosing your particular standard for now, literally for the sake of argument.

Okay, that still doesn't means problem of evil presupposes subjectivism.

LOL. You can have the last word, sir.

I've been having the last word on that front for a while now, given you've responded with nothing much more than successive LOL's when I point out that given subjectivism, what I say is evil, is evil.