Spirituality

[ippy]

Vlad, 'taking the responses to three different statements
and stitching them together as you have is a bit sneaky and confusing', is a very good description of how the majority of your post go.

Check with Blue, he usually manages to sort out your confusing posts for you, you should be taking more note.

ippy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, 'taking the responses to three different statements
and stitching them together as you have is a bit sneaky and confusing', is a very good description of how the majority of your post go.

Check with Blue, he usually manages to sort out your confusing posts for you, you should be taking more note.

ippy.

vis a vis "blue". I have given that man the best years of my life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

vis a vis "blue". I have given that man the best years of my life.

Just think how much time you'd have saved if you'd been honest instead.

[Bramble]

Sriram,

I’ve been away for a few days and only just noticed your response (message 7) to me. I’m happy to take you at your word that you ‘don’t ignore anyone’ so let me reiterate that I have not said that you ‘need to explain’ yourself. This should have been obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post so it was disappointing to find that you chose to join Owlswing in misrepresenting me - to what end I really can’t imagine.

As I’m sure you know perfectly well I simply expressed an interest in what you considered the appeal of your beliefs to be. Judging by the tenor of your two responses it would seem you both found such curiosity a matter of impropriety. Perhaps you could get together to write a guide to poster etiquette on this forum. It would help those like me who labour under the burden of diminished intellect to avoid further lapses of judgement in this regard.

Clearly, I am still captive to the needs and desires of my animal nature and not yet perfect. If I should ever reach those dizzy heights I’ll presumably cease to take any interest in your posts and won’t trouble you with further enquiries.

[ippy]

Sriram,

I’ve been away for a few days and only just noticed your response (message 7) to me. I’m happy to take you at your word that you ‘don’t ignore anyone’ so let me reiterate that I have not said that you ‘need to explain’ yourself. This should have been obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post so it was disappointing to find that you chose to join Owlswing in misrepresenting me - to what end I really can’t imagine.

As I’m sure you know perfectly well I simply expressed an interest in what you considered the appeal of your beliefs to be. Judging by the tenor of your two responses it would seem you both found such curiosity a matter of impropriety. Perhaps you could get together to write a guide to poster etiquette on this forum. It would help those like me who labour under the burden of diminished intellect to avoid further lapses of judgement in this regard.

Clearly, I am still captive to the needs and desires of my animal nature and not yet perfect. If I should ever reach those dizzy heights I’ll presumably cease to take any interest in your posts and won’t trouble you with further enquiries.

I find that Sriram, going by his posts I've seen on the forum, is rather inclined to believe in the power of assertions.

Regards, ippy. 

[Outrider]

None of what you say describes my own walk with God. I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.

I suggest that perhaps you aren't that representative of all of Christendom...

I have been on both sides of the fence and found that many of my assumptions which were very similar to yours were false.

Some of the problem is that all anyone has is assumptions - if this is supposed to be a relationship, why is the communication so one-way?

How do you know that the relationship is abusive.

You mean apart from the threat of eternal punishment for not loving the right way, the explicit admission of jealousy backed by stories of genocide and exhortations to violence and the aforementioned reticence in communication?  You mean apart from that... the controlling attitude towards haircuts and food choices (whilst maintaining a somewhat laid back approach to other more profoundly problematic behaviours)...

Finally such an argument isn’t exactly atheist since it’s sentiments reveal only God resistance.

It's an argument FOR atheism, because it demonstrates that fundamental logical flaws in the presumptions of a theistic point of view - Christians claim God is a perfectly moral, all-loving being, but at the same time it's claimed to be a jealous, vengeful, controlling, genocidal, threatening tyrant trying to paint over those cavernous cracks with 'but I do love you'.

It doesn't make sense.  You've said that's not your experience, that your understanding is different, but you've not explained why you think the threat either isn't there or isn't important somehow.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest that perhaps you aren't that representative of all of Christendom...

I consider myself fairly orthodox actually. You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.

Some of the problem is that all anyone has is assumptions - if this is supposed to be a relationship, why is the communication so one-way?

  If one shuns the relationship is it any wonder that the communication seems one way?

You mean apart from the threat of eternal punishment for not loving the right way, the explicit admission of jealousy backed by stories of genocide and exhortations to violence and the aforementioned reticence in communication?  You mean apart from that... the controlling attitude towards haircuts and food choices (whilst maintaining a somewhat laid back approach to other more profoundly problematic behaviours)...

where have you got this business about the threat of eternal punishment for not loving God the right way from? Also I don’ t know the actual scope of your understanding of punishment. May I ask you how you reason your way to your law abiding good guy ways? Yes that would be an interesting discussion. I fear though such a discussion isn’t possible because of the atheists around here being guilty of a ‘Ve ask ze questions here’ mentality.

It's an argument FOR atheism, because it demonstrates that fundamental logical flaws in the presumptions of a theistic point of view - Christians claim God is a perfectly moral, all-loving being, but at the same time it's claimed to be a jealous, vengeful, controlling, genocidal, threatening tyrant trying to paint over those cavernous cracks with 'but I do love you'.

Your view of Christianity is stripped of well it’s Christianity by appealing to Old Testament views We live in a fallen world. Genocide did not end with the Old Testament. We know that atheists lifted genocide to industrial heights in the last century.

God operates on a different basis to us. Cosmic love is more in line with the sentiment “If you love something set it free if it returns to you then it is yours”. With God death or life is not the be all or end all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I consider myself fairly orthodox actually. You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.

Just to correct you on this (yet) again: atheists (and rationalists generally) don’t correct you on the content of your beliefs. That would be akin to an a-leprechaunist correcting a leprechaunist on his claim of which colour of green leprechauns prefer. What atheists actually do is to falsify your reasons for thinking your claims to be true at all – a trivially simple thing to do.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to correct you on this (yet) again: atheists (and rationalists generally) don’t correct you on the content of your beliefs. That would be akin to an a-leprechaunist correcting a leprechaunist on his claim of which colour of green leprechauns prefer. What atheists actually do is to falsify your reasons for thinking your claims to be true at all – a trivially simple thing to do.       

Apparently a leprechaunist s pride themselves on their ignorance before launching into Christianity. Having introduced Leprechauns on a horses laugh argument and then ignoring it and getting onto other matters.

Example....that Dick Dawkins.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Apparently a leprechaunist s pride themselves on their ignorance before launching into Christianity. Having introduced Leprechauns on a horses laugh argument and then ignoring it and getting onto other matters.

Example....that Dick Dawkins.

Ooh, I see you’ve gone for the omni lie this time – perhaps to save the time needed to write each lie separately?

1. A-leprechaunists/a-theists aren’t ignorant at all of the subject that’s actually relevant - ie the reasoning lerpechaunists/theists attempt to justify their beliefs. What those beliefs happen to be is neither here nor there for this purpose. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?

2. The reductio ad absurdum isn’t a “horse laugh” argument. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?

3. The person here who routinely ignores every falsification he’s given to as to move quickly to yet another diversion is you. You’re notorious for it.

4. “Dick” Dawkins is actually Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, and he does no such thing. Perhaps you should stop lying about that too?

[Outrider]

I consider myself fairly orthodox actually.

Don't they all?

You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.

All I have to go on is the hundreds upon thousands of various Christian commentaries over the ages...

If one shuns the relationship is it any wonder that the communication seems one way?

If someone isn't answering, why wouldn't you shun the relationship?  How come a considerable portion (a majority?) of the people who apparently are in this relationship don't think they're getting an answer?

Where have you got this business about the threat of eternal punishment for not loving God the right way from?

Christians.

Also I don’ t know the actual scope of your understanding of punishment. May I ask you how you reason your way to your law abiding good guy ways?

I'm not a big believer in punishment, it seems like it's largely ineffective - rehabilitation, yes, and a certain element of deprivation can benefit that, but punishment for its own sake just satiates a quest for vengeance.

I reason my way to 'law-abiding' ways by a) attempting to be involved in the formation of the laws, b) being aware of the laws and c) making a decision on whether my own personal moral stance is sufficient incensed by poor laws so as to breach them. You?

I fear though such a discussion isn’t possible because of the atheists around here being guilty of a ‘Ve ask ze questions here’ mentality.

A virtually seamless integration of an ad hominem there, nicely done.  In that inquisitorial spirit, how come if we ask all the questions, you answer so few of them?

Your view of Christianity is stripped of well it’s Christianity by appealing to Old Testament views.

Tell that to the Christians that cleave to it; of course, it's not my view of Christianity in this that's derived from the Old Testament, it's the fact that Christians claim it's supposed to be the same God. It's my view of the character of God that's shaped, in part, by the Old Testament; it's the contrast between the claims of a 'perfectly moral being' and the jealous, judgemental, genocidal sociopath depicted in part 1 of the story.

We live in a fallen world.

And yet in almost every measurable way it's vastly improved on how it was when God was actually reported talking to us...  The environment's taken a bit of a bashing, and we need to work on that, nothing's perfect, but it's so, so much better.

Genocide did not end with the Old Testament. We know that atheists lifted genocide to industrial heights in the last century.

You realise that you're setting 'Stalin' here as the benchmark for God, right?  We do know that atheists perpetrated horrendous acts of mass slaughter - did they do it because of their atheism?  Did, say, the Nazis do their's because of their anti-semitic Christian outlook?  Does the depiction of God have a history of conducting and ordering genocides...?

God operates on a different basis to us.

I though morality was supposed to be absolute - sauce for the goose, no...?

Cosmic love is more in line with the sentiment “If you love something set it free if it returns to you then it is yours”. With God death or life is not the be all or end all.

No, with God death is supposed to be just the start of an eternity of punishment... because he loves you, but you didn't love him the right way back.  Which, apparently, is fine if you're a god, it's only abusive arseholery, what, if you wear a tracksuit?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ooh, I see you’ve gone for the omni lie this time – perhaps to save the time needed to write each lie separately?

1. A-leprechaunists/a-theists aren’t ignorant at all of the subject that’s actually relevant - ie the reasoning lerpechaunists/theists attempt to justify their beliefs. What those beliefs happen to be is neither here nor there for this purpose. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?

2. The reductio ad absurdum isn’t a “horse laugh” argument. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?

3. The person here who routinely ignores every falsification he’s given to as to move quickly to yet another diversion is you. You’re notorious for it.

4. “Dick” Dawkins is actually Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, and he does no such thing. Perhaps you should stop lying about that too?

Hillside I think people in the past have expressed that they are tiredof certain members who mistake expressing an opinion for lying. This seems to have resulted in less members and those who once said it giving up saying it(for reasons unfavourable toward you may I add)

Secondly, has God been falsified? When and where was this? Is it even possible?

Thirdly, come on we all know the famous incident of Dawkins and his leprechaun statement. Details can be found on the web.

Fourthly we come to your continual confusion of reductio ad absurdum and Horses laugh fallacy.
The Leprechaun schtick works like this, and the handwave is exemplified on the Fantastic Beast thread where Enki states why he is aleprechaunist. His argument is based on methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism and concludes that the offered empirical and naturalistic elements have not yielded evidence. Two things here. I agree with him. That is why we are aleprechaunist and one of the pieces that fall out of that is that leprechauns seem ridiculous.

That though is your starting point. In a classic Bluehillside ''what you really meant to say/add was'' argument'' you then move off the methodological empiricism etc into the presuppositional philosophical empiricism etc. Therefore you commit the horses laugh fallacy. By starting at the ridicule and moving swiftly into the philosophical.

The only starting point for equating magic and other non natural techniques/ontologies is philosophical empiricism, naturalism, scientism etc and of course ridicule derived from the lack of empirical evidence by individuals like yourself but conflated with your presuppositional philosophy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't they all?

No I think for instance unitarians or arian christians, seven day adventists etc know they don't belong to mainstream churches and therefor would admit, while proclaiming they have the truth, to not being orthodox or mainstream

All I have to go on is the hundreds upon thousands of various Christian commentaries over the ages...

Ok which one's are you using?

If someone isn't answering, why wouldn't you shun the relationship?  How come a considerable portion (a majority?) of the people who apparently are in this relationship don't think they're getting an answer?

So are you speaking of professed christians? How many of those can you show have never got an answer to is God there, is Christ living? Where are you getting these stats from? What answers do you think Christians are after and not getting?

I'm not a big believer in punishment, it seems like it's largely ineffective - rehabilitation, yes, and a certain element of deprivation can benefit that, but punishment for its own sake just satiates a quest for vengeance.

I was rather asking for your definitions and parameters of punishment

I reason my way to 'law-abiding' ways by a) attempting to be involved in the formation of the laws, b) being aware of the laws and c) making a decision on whether my own personal moral stance is sufficient incensed by poor laws so as to breach them. You?

That's all a bit vague and frankly a tad handwavy. As I said, How you reason your way togood guyship probably needs it's own thread and you will note I did rather forsee the paucity of information in your response.

A virtually seamless integration of an ad hominem there, nicely done.  In that inquisitorial spirit, how come if we ask all the questions, you answer so few of them?

Tell that to the Christians that cleave to it; of course, it's not my view of Christianity in this that's derived from the Old Testament, it's the fact that Christians claim it's supposed to be the same God. It's my view of the character of God that's shaped, in part, by the Old Testament; it's the contrast between the claims of a 'perfectly moral being' and the jealous, judgemental, genocidal sociopath depicted in part 1 of the story.

Yes there are christians who cleave to it and there are the new atheists who feed from them.
You seem to be in a numbers game here. Namely, If we can establish that the majority of christians cleave to the old testament like we atheists think they do, then we need only deal with their arguments. There is as you probably realise the danger of straw manning and caricature,

And yet in almost every measurable way it's vastly improved on how it was when God was actually reported talking to us...  The environment's taken a bit of a bashing, and we need to work on that, nothing's perfect, but it's so, so much better.

The only thing that seems changed if you are prepared to ignore the state of the environment is that one can shut the door on God ......and that's it! But what if you don't want to?

You realise that you're setting 'Stalin' here as the benchmark for God, right?  We do know that atheists perpetrated horrendous acts of mass slaughter - did they do it because of their atheism?  Did, say, the Nazis do their's because of their anti-semitic Christian outlook?  Does the depiction of God have a history of conducting and ordering genocides...?

If God doesn't exist and there has been genocide with or without the word God then your attribution of God to genocide is not really an atheist argument. Two things, to hold that all the wickedness of the world is down to the word God is imho bonkers and akin to believing in magic and secondly to believe that it will all or the majority of it will disappear if we extinguish the religious impulse is something that has not been established

No, with God death is supposed to be just the start of an eternity of punishment... because he loves you, but you didn't love him the right way back.

Carry on up the caricature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside I think people in the past have expressed that they are tiredof certain members who mistake expressing an opinion for lying. This seems to have resulted in less members and those who once said it giving up saying it(for reasons unfavourable toward you may I add)

When I say one thing and you claim that I said the opposite of that, that’s called lying – especially when you keep doing it no matter how many times you’re corrected on it. You do this all the time – many posters here beside me have called you out on your relentless use of the straw man.   

Secondly, has God been falsified? When and where was this? Is it even possible?

QED. I just explained with pellucid clarity that the falsifications concerns the arguments attempted to justify the claim “god”, not the claim itself. I even put this part in italics so you wouldn’t miss it. Why have you just lied about that with yet another straw man version of it?   

Thirdly, come on we all know the famous incident of Dawkins and his leprechaun statement. Details can be found on the web.

No “we” don’t.

Fourthly we come to your continual confusion of reductio ad absurdum and Horses laugh fallacy.

There is no confusion – you’re just wrong, for reasons that have been explained to you at length and that you ignore or lie about.

The Leprechaun schtick works like this, and the handwave is exemplified on the Fantastic Beast thread where Enki states why he is aleprechaunist. His argument is based on methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism and concludes that the offered empirical and naturalistic elements have not yielded evidence. Two things here. I agree with him. That is why we are aleprechaunist and one of the pieces that fall out of that is that leprechauns seem ridiculous.

Utter bollocks. A-leprechaunism and a-theism each rest on having no logically sound reasons to think there to be leprechauns or gods respectively. If you think the problem with that is that reason itself is empiricist/naturalistic that’s fine, but then it’s your job to suggest a different method to sift your claims from white noise or guessing, and then to investigate them.   

Which is when you always run away, generally leaving a flurry of insults and fallacies behind you while you make good your escape. 

That though is your starting point.

No, it’s just another of your straw men. Stop lying.

In a classic Bluehillside ''what you really meant to say/add was'' argument'' you then move off the methodological empiricism etc into the presuppositional philosophical empiricism etc.

I have never done that. I have expressly and repeatedly told you that I do not take an absolutist position about the material. No matter how many times I do it though you just claim that I have said something else and then ask me to defend the position I don’t hold. You should stop lying about that too.   

Therefore you commit the horses laugh fallacy.

That’s a fallacy called the non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (which is a flat out lie in any case).   

By starting at the ridicule and moving swiftly into the philosophical.

I do no such thing. There is a logical construction called the reductio ad absurdum. Sometimes I make arguments that are exactly aligned to it. You then lie about that by claiming these arguments to be the “horse’s laugh” instead. You should stop lying about that too.   

The only starting point for equating magic and other non natural techniques/ontologies is philosophical empiricism, naturalism, scientism etc…

And here you try the lie of lumping together categorically different positions as if they were in the same category. Empiricism and naturalism are not absolutist positions; scientism is. I have told you over and over again that I argue for the former, but not for the latter. Why won’t you stop lying about that?   

...and of course ridicule derived from the lack of empirical evidence by individuals like yourself but conflated with your presuppositional philosophy.

And yet another lie to finish. Yet again: the ridicule derives from the problem you give yourself when an argument you attempt to justify your claim “god” leads with equal facility to a conclusion that’s plainly ridiculous (leprechauns etc).

What do you get from your appalling behaviour here? Seriously, what though?     

[Roses]

Vlad gets his kicks by winding up other posters, it has been rare for him to make any sensible comments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad gets his kicks by winding up other posters, it has been rare for him to make any sensible comments.

If there are wound up posters, they are either easily triggered or a bit insecure in their beliefs.
 

[ippy]

Vlad gets his kicks by winding up other posters, it has been rare for him to make any sensible comments.

It must wind up Vlad terribly when any atheist has a go at him and he can't find any verifiable evidence that would back up his religious claims, that is if there were any.

ippy.

PS Vlad must find it gulling every time he can't find a sensible counter to Richard Dawkins Or Blue's observations.
(N0 I'm not comparing Blue to 'Our Most Gracious Lord Richard')

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It must wind up Vlad terribly when any atheist has a go at him and he can't find any verifiable evidence that would back up his religious claims, that is if there were any.

ippy.

There is no verifiable evidence for philosophical empiricism, naturalism and physicalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If there are wound up posters, they are either easily triggered or a bit insecure in their beliefs.
 

Or perhaps they just don't like being lied about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Or perhaps they just don't like being lied about.

Your accusations of lying are tiresome. I often wonder if we would have a greater membership had you refrained from them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your accusations of lying are tiresome.

Then stop doing it.

I often wonder if we would have a greater membership had you refrained from them.

Which do you think would more effectively drive members away: the liar or the person objecting to his lies?

A couple of posts ago I identified your latest string of lies. Typically you've just ignored the problem, and tried to divert the conversation to something else. Why won't you engage with the problem of your relentless lying?   

[Outrider]

No I think for instance unitarians or arian christians, seven day adventists etc know they don't belong to mainstream churches and therefor would admit, while proclaiming they have the truth, to not being orthodox or mainstream.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Unitarians or the Arians, but the Seventh Day Adventists have an orthodoxy - it's sort of what makes them a distinguishable group.

Ok which one's are you using?

How am I supposed to choose when there's absolutely nothing to base it upon - Christianity, surely, is the sum of the actions and beliefs of those people calling themselves Christians, so all of them.

So are you speaking of professed christians? How many of those can you show have never got an answer to is God there, is Christ living?

I guess so - I don't tend to have the conversation on the off-chance someone might be.  How many, none of the ones I've spoken to have ever had an answers - some report a 'sense' of something, others don't, but no-one's claimed to have had a meaningful response - I don't know about the 'Christ' question, it's not one I recall asking.

Where are you getting these stats from?

They aren't stats, they're my personal experience - that's why I was wondering whether it was a general majority or if that's just my experience.

What answers do you think Christians are after and not getting?

Not answers, necessarily, just communication - just something back from this 'relationship' that's supposedly going on.

I was rather asking for your definitions and parameters of punishment

Because we ask all the questions, right...

That's all a bit vague and frankly a tad handwavy.

I don't pretend like there are easy answers to complex questions.

As I said, How you reason your way togood guyship probably needs it's own thread and you will note I did rather forsee the paucity of information in your response.

Just as I foresaw that, despite your ad hominem about how we don't answer any questions, we just ask them, I've been giving all the answers and you still don't appear to have any.

Yes there are christians who cleave to it and there are the new atheists who feed from them.

What's 'new' about atheism?  Is it new just because we don't feel we have to be quiet about it?

You seem to be in a numbers game here. Namely, If we can establish that the majority of christians cleave to the old testament like we atheists think they do, then we need only deal with their arguments.

No, unfortunately we're in an endless fragmentation whereby we're challenged, we point out the nonsense and suddenly we get 'oh, yeah, but that's not OUR KIND of Christians'... it's a slow, tortuous progress through layer, upon layer trying desperately to find something substantial on which any of this is hung, but it's just varnish all the way down.

There is as you probably realise the danger of straw manning and caricature

I'm not sure there is a straw man, if you look hard enough you'll probably find somebody somewhere who believes everything about God - some of them believe Joseph Smith was visited by an actual angel...

The only thing that seems changed if you are prepared to ignore the state of the environment is that one can shut the door on God ......and that's it!

So you've missed the whole germ theory of disease, orders of magnitude reductions in infant, child and childbirthing mortality, improvements in health, nutrition and education around the world...

But what if you don't want to?

Don't want to what, work to improve the environment?

If God doesn't exist and there has been genocide with or without the word God then your attribution of God to genocide is not really an atheist argument.

It's not supposed to be, of itself; it's yet another demonstration that the allegedly perfectly moral being of God has some pretty fundamental immoral takes on things in the foundational document of the religion that we're talking about.  It's about demonstrating the illogicality of the Christian conception of a god.

No-one, so far as I can see, has ever suggested that atheism is an automatic claim to moral superiority or an innoculation against immorality.

Two things, to hold that all the wickedness of the world is down to the word God is imho bonkers and akin to believing in magic

And if anyone were suggesting such a thing that might be relevant.  You'll note I made use of the fact that Stalin was a bit of a shit to point out that you weren't setting much of a standard for your God, so it's pretty obvious no-one was saying 'all the wickedness of the world' is down to god.

and secondly to believe that it will all or the majority of it will disappear if we extinguish the religious impulse is something that has not been established

And I'm not sure that anyone said the majority of it was down to 'the religious impulse' - or even implied the 'Christian' impulse.  I think if people forwent Christianity some things would improve, some things would get worse, but the things that would get worse we don't need Christianity to replace (charities, community works) whereas some of the bad things that we'd lose there's no obvious replacement for (institutional homophobia, Christian nationalism, certain strands of white supremacy, certain strands of misogyny).

Carry on up the caricature.

I'll tell you what, if you and the other Christians go and sort out your story and tell me what the proper one is, I'll show you the gaping great holes in it, as it is I'm left trying to second guess which Christianity is shifting the goalposts today.

Some 'fundamental' precepts, it seems, to Christianity include:

God is perfect, in morality, in knowledge, in action;
God has the capacity to forgive or condemn;
God will either welcome us into an afterlife or condemn us to some sort of punishment (for eternity? Limbo?)
The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (who is also Jesus, who is also the Holy Spirit?)
There are no other gods (and Angels and saints, for some reason, aren't divine beings like demigods because this is Different^TM;
Jesus isn't an avatar of God because reasons.

O.

[Enki]

.....
Fourthly we come to your continual confusion of reductio ad absurdum and Horses laugh fallacy.
The Leprechaun schtick works like this, and the handwave is exemplified on the Fantastic Beast thread where Enki states why he is aleprechaunist. His argument is based on methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism and concludes that the offered empirical and naturalistic elements have not yielded evidence. Two things here. I agree with him. That is why we are aleprechaunist and one of the pieces that fall out of that is that leprechauns seem ridiculous.
.....

Vlad,

If you look back at that thread, you will find that I gave reasons why I don't believe leprechauns exist. That's what you asked for and that's what you got. That isn't 'handwaving'. I gave what I consider to be perfectly good reasons why I do not believe in leprechauns.
 
You didn't ask me for the reasons why I don't believe god{s} exist, but if you had I would give exactly the same type of reasons. How that helps your argument I am at a loss to explain as I agree with Blue that

it’s your job to suggest a different method to sift your claims from white noise or guessing, and then to investigate them.

Personally I find all sorts of things said about leprechauns to be fanciful and ridiculous just as I find all sorts of things said about a variety of gods, including the Christian one, to be fanciful and ridiculous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you look back at that thread, you will find that I gave reasons why I don't believe leprechauns exist. That's what you asked for and that's what you got. That isn't 'handwaving'. I gave what I consider to be perfectly good reasons why I do not believe in leprechauns.
 
You didn't ask me for the reasons why I don't believe god{s} exist, but if you had I would give exactly the same type of reasons. How that helps your argument I am at a loss to explain as I agree with Blue that
 

Personally I find all sorts of things said about leprechauns to be fanciful and ridiculous just as I find all sorts of things said about a variety of gods, including the Christian one, to be fanciful and ridiculous.

I do not accuse you of handwaving. That accusation is levelled at Bluehillside.
You gave reasons for being an aleprechaunist which in my view were based on methodological empiricism. I have also said I agree with you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I do not accuse you of handwaving. That accusation is levelled at Bluehillside.

An accusation that’s easily been falsified.

You gave reasons for being an aleprechaunist which in my view were based on methodological empiricism. I have also said I agree with you.

No, they were based on the failure of leprechaunists to make a logically robust case to justify their beliefs. Same goes for theists and their claims about gods. Yet again – if your problem with reason itself is that it’s naturalistic, then it’s your job to find another way to investigate and verify your claims.   

Should I hold the door open for you as you make your escape yet again?