The Moral Argument Against God


Withteeth and I were not expecting the response that we got to the last post I wrote, so I thought I’d write a similar post using the Moral Argument Against God found here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/moral.html.

morality
Here is the argument:
Premise 1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
Premise 2: It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.
Premise 3: It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.
Premise 4: It is morally wrong to practise human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.
Premise 5: It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.
Conclusion: God violates of our moral principles.
The author of the page given above did their own discussion of this argument, so you can click the link if you would like to read theirs. I will write my own discussion of the argument here. This argument is meant to show that God, namely the God of the Bible, is not a moral agent. It is not meant to disprove God.
The first premise states that it is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing. I don’t think this is something many people would disagree with. I think that it can be assumed to be true. However, what is “serious wrongdoing?” Given what I was told when I was doing my review of the Bible, it seems as though believers either assume that the people the Israelites slaughtered couldn’t be innocent, or that it was all the Israelites’ fault that the slaughter happened and not God’s. I find the second line of reasoning dishonest because the Bible credits God with ordering the Israelites to commit the slaughters. As such, you either have to ignore what the Bible says, or accept that the Bible has problems. The second option is more commonly accepted than the first, but I’ve seen the first occur too. However, the argument that those the Israelites murdered couldn’t be innocent is a problem for this premise. The Bible doesn’t actually say what the people did to deserve slaughter, it just said that they did bad things. Really, it could be anything. And it’s hard to imagine a two year old doing anything so bad that they deserve to be slaughtered. But it is possible to define “serious wrongdoing” in a way that excuses the slaughter committed by the Israelites: “serious wrongdoing” is committing any act that God deems wrong. By this definition, a two year old can commit serious wrongdoing simply by being born into a group that won’t teach them to worship the God of the Bible.
Premise two states that it is morally wrong to provide sex-slaves for men. Again, I doubt many people would disagree with this, so I think this premise would be said t be true. In the Bible, God tells Moses to kill all the men and boys, but allow the female virgins to live so that they could be used as sex-slaves (Numbers 31). This one is a bit harder to get out of, because God very clearly orders Moses to keep the girls alive to be raped. I’ve seen this passage excused as being “taken out of context,” however, the meaning in this passage is very clear. If the Bible is the word of God, or even it merely portrays events accurately, then God ordered girls to be captured for the purposes of being used as sex-slaves. One would have to say that the Bible is wrong in order to get around this premise.
Premise three states that it is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family. Another true premise. I can’t imagine that very many people would assume that this is moral either. But in Jeremiah 19:9 God says “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.” Once again, ignoring God’s word or dismissing the Bible as wrong is the only real way around this. I’ve heard people say that God is merely warning people of the consequences of their actions, but, if this is what God meant, one must wonder why God said “I will make.” If God is not making them eat people, why is he saying he is? Why not just say “You will”? This is not a misinterpretation, and saying it is is merely an excuse to avoid dealing with the problem.
The fourth premise states that it is morally wrong to practice human sacrificing. Again, I doubt very many people would disagree with this. However, it ignores the fact that, in certain cultures, people chose to be sacrificed. I think it can be said that sacrificing someone against their will is wrong, but I’m not sure it is so cut and dry in the case of those who chose to be sacrificed. But this isn’t really an issue with the God of the Bible, since God seems to just demand that specific people be sacrificed to him.
Premise five states that it is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs. Since this is in obvious reference to hell, which is accepted as just by many people, I’m not sure how many people would actually accept this premise. I believe it is true. I don’t think it is ever okay to torture someone, and I don’t think physical torment should ever be used as a punishment. But it is often justified either because “it’s God’s will,” which, for some reason, means “don’t question it,” or because humans are fallen, which, for some reason, means the actions of someone who lived at least 4000 years ago makes me deserving of eternal punishment regardless of what I do. Of course, there are a lot of people who will say “but God doesn’t send us there any more” or “hell wasn’t built for us,” but that still means that God did in fact build a place for the intended purpose of torturing a living, sentient being for eternity.
The conclusion is that God violates our moral principles. He does things that we determine to be immoral. What’s more, he does things that he has told us are immoral (ie. Killing). This is often excused with “everything God does is moral” or “God’s actions cannot be understood but humans.” But this is another cop-out. If humans can’t understand God’s actions, then how do we know the things he tells us to do are moral? How do we know God isn’t just testing us and we actually aren’t supposed to do what we are told to do? How is it even useful to say “we can’t understand”? “Everything God does is moral” is even more problematic. If everything God does is moral, then it is moral to commit murder and genocide because God did it. So, if genocide and murder are now moral, why shouldn’t humans do it? As such, I can only conclude that this is a valid argument.

Advertisements

31 responses to “The Moral Argument Against God

  • The Moral Argument For God | Christians Anonymous

    […] recently read a post by a fellow blogger on the moral argument against God. I responded to it here. I personally do not find the argument very persuasive, for a number of reasons. I’ve decided […]

    Like

  • The Moral Argument For God | The Christian Philosopher

    […] recently read a post by a fellow blogger on the moral argument against God.  I responded to it here.  I personally do not find the argument very persuasive, for a number of reasons.  I’ve […]

    Like

  • nuclearkumquat

    These passages in biblical scripture can all be very concerning if taken out of context, as I believe you have done, but when read in alignment with the author’s intent they are not so troubling. First, let me clarify what I mean by “context”, because i believe this is too often misunderstood. I am, of course, referring to the context of the passage and entirety of the book itself (from wherever a verse is coming from), but it is also important to consider historical context, as well as the theological worldview of the author of each book. It can be very hard to do all of this, considering that each book is typically written in a different time by different authors.
    Now I’ll address your moral objections. First you accuse God of murder, but this is fundamentally wrong. God is the creator of man, and thus not to be held to the same authority as man. No man has authority over another man, but God has authority over all men. If He so chooses, as our Creator, God has no obligation to allow us to live (especially since, biblically, we do not live in accordance to His law). God is a loving and merciful God, however, so it would not be in accordance to His divine nature to kill arbitrarily. Too often, though, people forget that God is also a just God and a Wrathful God. No one of the Lord’s many attributes outweigh any other, and each action He takes is in accordance with all of His divine nature. This was the same understanding that the author of the Pentateuch (traditionally ascribed to Moses) had of God. So why did He kill so many? The audience that this passage was written to would have understood all of the above about God, and so it would be unnecessary for the author to elaborate on what the People of Gommorah, Sodom, or any other city had done. The people reading would have known that the people they’d been ordered to kill must have committed a great atrocity for God to make such an order. Furthermore, only God would have such authority to make a command like this. As for the children, there is some debate among Christians as to whether or not children receive salvation up to a certain age. Some may argue that the infants were sinful (as prescribed by human nature) but I am not in this camp of Christians. We cannot possibly hope to understand the mind of God. Whether you believe in Him or not, if He does exist then His mind is far beyond ours. I can, however, make a guess as to why He would order the children to be killed along with the others: If the children are guaranteed salvation (up to a certain age), then it would be better to kill the children now and ensure that they know the glory of God rather than let them live so that they may continue in their parents’ sin. God, after all, looks toward infinity, while the human mind is only finite. Whatever the reason, Christians are assured that God is good as well as all-knowing, and so His reason for doing these things was not malevolent.
    Next, you ask why God would tell people they could have sex-slaves. This is a gross misunderstanding of the context within the scripture as well as the historical context. In the time of writing, it was important that a family have as many children as possible so as to support the tribe and the Jewish people. The Israelites were nomads, and the more people they had the better chance for survival they had. God understood this, and so He knew (I can only assume this is His reason) that more wives would benefit the Jews. Nowhere in the verse is the term “sex slave” used. The women were to be taken as brides and incorporated into the tribe, or, they were to be taken as servants to help the tribe. Though there are many mentionings of Old Testament Jews taking advantage of their handmaidens, nowhere is this condoned by God.
    Now on to cannibalism. The scripture you’ve pointed to (Jeremiah) is a prophetical work that is generally dated between 630-580 B.C. and this particular verse tells of the destruction of the Jewish temple by Rome in 70 A.D. Believe it or not, Jeremiah was able to accurately predict the details of the temple’s destruction several hundred years before it occurred. In 70 A.D. the Romans created a blockade around Jerusalem in response to the uprising of Jewish zealots. They starved the Jews to death, to the point where the Jewish people resorted to eating one another, and then Rome marched in and took the city, destroying everything in sight. It is important to understand that the Bible is composed by several different authors from various time periods, and that each author has a unique writing style. Many biblical authors greatly enjoy incorporating anthropromorphisms and anthropropathisms, as well as various other literary devices to get their messages across. So when the prophet Jeremiah writes “And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters”, it is only meant that God will allow certain events to occur due to the Jews’ lack of faith and their turning against God (by not accepting the Messiah, Jesus). It in no way implies that God forced the Jews to partake in cannibalism, nor does He condone it. It is a prophetic verse meant to depict future events, nothing else.
    Your fourth issue is with human sacrifice. Notice that there is only ever one instance of human sacrifice in the Bible that is condoned by God: the crucifixion of Jesus. God does command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but he cuts Abraham short. This was only meant to be a test of faith, and it is made clear that God had no intention of allowing Abraham to sacrifice his son (this test of faith was also a way of pointing to Jesus’s sacrifice). So why could Jesus be sacrificed? This is a very complex answer, deeply rooted in Christian theology, and I doubt I’ll be able to answer it fully here, though I’ll do my best to give you the short answer. God lays out a very specific set of rules for sacrifice in Leviticus. The Jewish people sacrificed animals, but the blood of these animals was not sufficient to wipe away sin, but instead was only a pointer towards Christ and a constant reminder to the Jewish people of God’s grace. The penalty for sin, according to God’s law, is death. The Jewish people could only trust that God would make their sin right, and the sacrificing of animals reminded them of all of this. According to the law, a sacrifice must be unblemished and essentially perfect. All of mankind, according to the Bible, is tainted by sin, and so no man would be a sufficient sacrifice. So there would be no point in sacrificing any human, as it would accomplish nothing. But an animal could not take the place of mankind for their transgressions, and because God is Just He cannot let our transgressions go unpunished (imagine a judge who let a group of murderers and rapists go just because they said sorry. That wouldn’t really demonstrate justice, would it?). So only a man could wash away our debt (sin), but that man would have to be perfect, which no normal man is. To solve this conundrum, God offered himself as a sacrifice by coming down as man. That is why human sacrifice is forbidden in the Bible, but Jesus is still allowed to be sacrificed. I hope I’ve explained this point well enough, but If you have further questions I’d be happy to answer them.
    Lastly, you talked about Hell. Hell is not a place people are condemned to by God, but a place that we choose to go to by denying God. That is our decision, so any punishment suffered is our own fault, and not God’s. Furthermore, any person who ends up in Hell is there because they are utterly opposed to God. The only two options in the afterlife are separation from God (Hell) or union with God (Heaven/Paradise/ New Creation). Union with God is, obviously, undesirable to any person in Hell, and so it is by their own will that they suffer. This is a deeply complex part of theology, and not something to be glanced over. I could write a book (and indeed, many have) about the theology of Hell and still not be able to fully explain this concept. I do hope, however, that this will suffice as a response to your post.
    Now, I’d like to conclude with a response to your conclusion, and then pose a question to you. You ask why you are held responsible for the actions of Adam. When Adam denied God, he changed the very nature of man. From that moment, we were broken. All of Adam’s offspring inherited his sin. By this, I do not mean that you are held responsible for your parents particular sin, but only that you inherit their sinful nature. So, in secular terms, I’m speaking of genetics. Science shows overwhelming evidence that certain erratic behaviors can be traced back to parents. If a parent has a problem with violence, lust, etc. then it is very likely that the child will too. So we are sinful by nature, and we turn against God by nature. So you aren’t necessarily held responsible for Adam’s particular sins, but you have inherited his sinful nature, and without God’s help, we are doomed to be slaves to this nature. Christians believe, however, that once we accept the atoning sacrifice of Christ our sins are forgiven and we can begin, little by little, repairing our broken nature by walking with God.
    You also asked, ” If humans can’t understand God’s actions, then how do we know the things he tells us to do are moral?”. Genesis tells us that God created us in His image, and so, to some extent, we can understand some things about God. For example, humans inherently have certain ideas about the notions of justice and morality. What God commands is in line with our nature because our nature is in line with God. And, as I’ve pointed out above, God does not break His own commands, even if He technically has the authority to. He leads by example, and so we can be assured that what He says is good is actually good.
    Now here’s my question to you: If there is no God, from where does morality come? You may be tempted to opt for moral relativism, but keep in mind that, though many cultures have different codes of conduct, there are certain laws that remain universal. It may be ok to kill in certain situations in a culture, but every culture understands that there is a line to be drawn where killing becomes immoral. It may be ok to have multiple wives in some cultures, but every person feels wronged when their SO commits adultery. Every person feels they’ve been done wrong when someone else steals or lies to them. We all have notions of morality. Evolution also doesn’t seem to be a strong candidate, as it would be highly improbable to establish such a universal code. But you’ll find that , though they may be implemented differently, the underlying codes of morality are universal among humans.

    Like

  • J. Matthan Brown

    This is a very interesting argument, thanks for sharing it. I just wanted to point out that, apart from your commentary, it is actually not valid; that is, the conclusion does not follow from the first five premises.

    Premises 1-5 stipulate certain moral principles but none of them mention God; then, suddenly, God shows up in the conclusion.

    To make it valid you would need to add another premise stating that God in fact does or encourages others to do all of the morally wrong things listed in 1-5. To make the argument a little more simple, I would run it like this:

    P1: A, B, C, D, and E are morally wrong.
    P2: God commands others to do A, B, C, D, and E.
    P3: Therefore, God commands other’s to do that which is morally wrong.

    In your commentary you actually add the missing premise by making the case that God violates each of the five moral principle that are stipulated. So, your version is far better than the original.

    If you were interested in making this argument stronger (or even adopting it yourself) you would have to do a lot more work supporting the premise that God in fact encourages other’s to violate all of these principles or that God directly violates them Himself. First, you’d have to learn a lot more about the Ancient Near Eastern cultural context of the Old Testament and do a far more careful exegesis of the passages you cite as evidence.

    One cool blog I found that discusses these issues is written by a Ph.D candidate at University of Chicago. Here’s a link:

    http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/

    I hope some of this might be helpful–sorry for posting such a long comment. Take care!

    Liked by 1 person

  • entropy

    Reblogged this on Mijn Verhaal and commented:
    He has a point(s).

    Like

  • steveesq

    Also like Logicinlife, I too was once where you are and for many years. Your proposed argument and the whole backdrop requires serious, deep and long thinking. We are just saying where you will end up if you are honest with yourself in logically examining a problem. You don’t have to go that far; many people don’t because it is too hard. If you’re in college, take a Logic class, and if you’re not, take a Logic class.

    You can move around that closed door and avoid ever opening it. For several years after I looked long at a tiny flower, and was stunned by its beautiful perfection, and had to admit to myself that this was no accident, had to admit that there is a Creator, I still kept my old beliefs and refused to open the door. But it gnawed at me because I knew I was not being honest about seeking the truth. How could I believe I was wise, smart and enlightened if I avoided the place that confronted my beliefs? Still, I did, and for a few more years. Finally, I opened and went through the door and Truth came and found me. This is God and how He works. You too have that same opportunity but you have to seek. I am not preaching and I have no interest in making you submit violently to my understanding about God. You seem to me that you want the Truth and I am telling you the way to it. These are facts, not just words.

    Like

    • hessianwithteeth

      This comment is rather amusing for two reasons. First you make the honest mistake of telling us to go take some logic courses. When both of the people who write on this blog have taken logic courses. However. What makes the joke. Is that you proceed in the next praragraph to make an argument from ignorance fallacy about the complexity of a flower. Worse yet you make it to someone who is both a botanist, and a philosopher. Who is well versed in why the argument for complexity does not work as an argument for any deity, let alone a particular deity. (You don’t need god to get extreme complexity)

      Liked by 2 people

      • clubschadenfreude

        it’s very hard not to think that steve and logicinlife aren’t the same person. Alas, that’s likely just me hoping that such nastiness is just one person and not two.

        Like

        • hessianwithteeth

          Sadly I had this very same thought, but no by my measure they seem to be two different people who would get along very well. I had a little outburst at something Steve said when he made fun of the fact I typed a broken sentence as though it made my argument invalid (I’m a bit touchy about my dysgraphia I’ll just have to get over it).

          However ,they are no longer welcome here since they like to claim authority, and then refuse to actually discuss the issues at hand. While then having the audacity to claim we don’t know what we are talking about in regard to logic before making logical fallacies and refusing to justify their assertions.

          Though I agree I wish they where one person as well.

          Like

    • hessianwithteeth

      (If anyone is looking for the rest of the comment from this tread they where deleted due to them being relatively vile and unhelpful. Having devolved to ad hominium attacks.)

      Like

  • paidiske

    I accept that the Bible has problems. Shrug. This is not a remarkable thought to me.

    Does it mean we get to throw it out or ignore it? For the church, the answer has to be “no.” We have to wrestle with those problems. But that starts with acknowledging that they are there.

    Like

    • clubschadenfreude

      For the church, it does have to be “no” or you would have no religion and no job. However, to those who wishes to consider the problem that Christians have with a bible that “has problems” and claims to be from a perfect being, the answer is yes, we should throw it out. If your god is perfect and wants people to worship it, assuming it doesn’t just pick and choose who will believe in it, why does it allow such a problematic bible stand between it and humanity?

      Like

      • paidiske

        There was a church for centuries before there was a “Bible.”

        However, I would say that the Bible is only one of a number of resources for the life of faith. Alongside Scripture stand tradition, reason, personal experience, liturgy and sacraments, and so on. I don’t see the problems of the Bible as standing between God and humanity but as inviting deeper engagement.

        Like

        • clubschadenfreude

          There certainly was a church before the bible. There were many of them, all with different claims of truth.

          We know that Christians have killed each other and non-Christians thanks to the contradictions in the bible and opinions on what this god “really” wants and “really” means. Is this “deeper engagement”?

          Like

  • zareenn3

    I was raised to believe in Islam. Islam and Christianity, are different but with similarities. We do believe in Prophet Moses too.

    It’s the same with Quran.There are so many things that are either translated out of context or are just so wrong. It really makes you think if it’s the word of God, or one of his prophets. It really makes u think. Most people ignore it because the teachings and their religion is instilled into them to such a degree that it’s so scary to think otherwise. To think what you believe in is a complete lie. Which is why such ideas or verses that cause controversies are just left.

    Honestly, sometimes I’m so lost I don’t know what I believe in.

    Like

  • logicinlife

    Your interpretation of my post as insults, is that of your own fault. I apologize that you feel that way, but your assumptions don’t make your claim true.

    “I don’t have to accept an assertion offered with no evidence.” You may try to avoid presenting arguments with assertions that you cannot backup… As for not defending the arguments being placed on your blog, you do attempt to defend them, without the major components they are lacking, Can you see the contradictions?

    I have little interest in re-visiting your position, understanding your position is old news, I used to be you. For centuries the arguments have been the same and the tactics have little changed as well. I used to play the same games in your position. I don’t feel inclined to reply to the other post as well simply because “Hessian” merely tacks on more questions and pretends as if they should have been answered without being asked.

    Your message was infused with snark, but that was not my interpretation, snark would imply (to me) that there was something worth reading in the reply. It is simply logical fallacy to present an argument and cop out of the components needed for an actual discussion by saying you are merely mirroring the argument. How silly.

    Like

  • Foghorn The IKonoclast

    I think Christians know Muslim extremism by their own and I am not talking about the crusades but every day conjectures. With our logs we think we are foresting truth out of stills.

    Like

  • Paine in the Butt

    Just as I was posting my latest writing: http://wisconsinhumanist.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/morals-get-your-red-hot-morals-here/
    Your post showed up in my reader. Coincidence? No! My piece is about getting moral precepts from empirical evidence, so it dovetails with yours.

    Liked by 1 person

  • steveesq

    As in your previous post, you haven’t said how you determine what is good or evil, or morally wrong as rephrased here. You cannot just make the assumption and also the assumption that everyone agrees on what is morally wrong. You have to be honest here and admit that what is good and what is evil comes from somewhere. Either it is based upon some moral code which is imposed from outside of you by someone or you set the moral code. In the end, you will discover that it comes from what God has written in our hearts, in the conscience, or from yourself, whereby then you are a god at least for you. Moral codes do not spring from nothing, spontaneously from the ether to be absorbed and accepted by most of mankind because we take a deep breath. The argument presented can only be attempted if everyone agrees on the same moral code, otherwise it’s meaningless and doesn’t prove anything other than a moral code is first needed and has to come from somewhere, and it cannot be 300 million different moral codes that differ. Which brings us back to the Ten Commandments given by the God the argument seeks to make immoral, or yourself. If you accept the Ten Commandments, then you have to accept that they come from God, and then that God cannot be immoral since He is all good and perfect. If He chooses that some of His creatures will die or will live, He has that right, since He created them. Who are we to judge Him? Now you’re into the Book of Job, where God asks that of Job, asking were you there when I created the universe, the sun, the moon and the stars and set their orbits, or the oceans, etc. And then you’re off and running from there. The search for the Truth first requires humility, eventually recognizing that there is a God and it is not me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • hessianwithteeth

      You do know these aren’t my arguments, right? I actually discussed the problem of it being unclear when I discussed the first premise. Since I’m discussing an argument and not making an argument of my own, it is not my job to determine what is good and evil by the argument’s standard.

      Like

      • logicinlife

        “Since I’m discussing an argument and not making an argument of my own, it is not my job to determine what is good and evil by the argument’s standard.”

        Well that is a lousy cop-out. It seems unwise to use arguments that you cannot back up. So you simply accept other’s incomplete arguments without thinking about them? As the post above said, you merely pretend as if moral law just came out of thin air. “God violates of our moral principles.” That is a joke of a statement. The man writes it as if we need to correct God and show Him who is boss, which is absolutely silly. God violates our moral principles only by being the original founder of moral law, which leads to us composing worthless objections because we want to be our own Gods. If your page is “all about ideas” you might come up with some of your own, including an argument that actually addresses the flaws of your posts.

        Liked by 1 person

        • hessianwithteeth

          Hessian is responding to a different post of yours, but I felt I can add my own points here.

          Stop, and think. We are not “using” the argument, we are not defending the argument, we are discussing the argument. This is still a valid use of our time. You might disagree, but you don’t have to be here.

          And we do talk about our own ideas, maybe if you bother to read more then a post or two you might understand that. But since not you reach for the insults right away I doubt you have any interest in actually understand our position.

          You have your Christan world view and that’s fine, but saying things like “God violates our moral principles only by being the original founder of moral law, which leads to us composing worthless objections because we want to be our own Gods.”
          Doesn’t make them true. That is what is called an assertion. I don’t have to accept an assertion offered with no evidence.

          *This message was infused with snark feel free to interpret it as such*

          Liked by 1 person

      • logicinlife

        Your interpretation of my post as insults, is that of your own fault. I apologize that you feel that way, but your assumptions don’t make your claim true.
        “I don’t have to accept an assertion offered with no evidence.” You may try to avoid presenting arguments with assertions that you cannot backup… As for not defending the arguments being placed on your blog, you do attempt to defend them, without the major components they are lacking, Can you see the contradictions?
        I have little interest in re-visiting your position, understanding your position is old news, I used to be you. For centuries the arguments have been the same and the tactics have little changed as well. I used to play the same games in your position. I don’t feel inclined to reply to the other post as well simply because “Hessian” merely tacks on more questions and pretends as if they should have been answered without being asked.
        Your message was infused with snark, but that was not my interpretation, snark would imply (to me) that there was something worth reading in the reply. It is simply logical fallacy to present an argument and cop out of the components needed for an actual discussion by saying you are merely mirroring the argument. How silly.

        Liked by 1 person

        • hessianwithteeth

          Wow you really don’t get it. and you seem quite intent on not critically reading our post so go away. You talk as though we are not critically analyzing the argument and that we don’t in fact have problems with it. You claim we are playing game,but your the one insisting we have done thing and knowing which we haven’t and don’t.

          Really your just being irritating for some unknown reason, You want us to agree with you or change out opinion, but you refuse to actual address us and what e are doing, but insist we ought to do it some other way because of some “contradictions.”

          This is your last warning keep this unproductive dialogue up and I’m just going to remove your privileged of posting from our blog. We have a policy and I will use it.

          If you want to explain in detail why we can’t discuss a argument, on our own blog and not drive all way down into it’s nitty gritty details. If you want to explain why that leads to contradictions that’s fine by me, but if you are so uninterested in carrying an honest conversation. Then why are you still here?

          Like

          • logicinlife

            If you don’t want criticism regarding your folly, lest you should be in the “blogging” business. Your effort is admirable but nightly unprofitable

            Like

          • hessianwithteeth

            Lol your cute. I want constructive criticism I don’t want to be told I’m wrong because *list of a dozen baseless assertions*

            You love to go on about how smart and intellectual you are (unlike us apparently) except your are dishonest and rude at every turn. Claiming to know what we think, trying to move the goal posts of the argument at hand. Demanding the conversation fit your narrow confines of an acceptable discussion.

            You claim we won’t respond to criticism, yet your response to criticism is to insult and belittle. Your arguments are baseless and your hypocrisy is vast.

            This shall be the last of your comments that see the light of day on this blog. Reading your words have been a waste of my time, and now will only serve as an object lesson of how not to argue for others.

            Like

Tell us what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: