Matthew Le God

I am more than happy to change my view based on evidence. I don't hold views based on no evidence. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Don't you? Faith is not a reliable path to truth as it is possible to hold a view on anything, even opposing contradictory views and say you hold them on faith. Thus it is not reliable path to truth. There is a significant difference between saying I don't believe your god has met his burden of proof and saying your god does not exist. The former does not mean you believe the latter.

Why would anyone hold a view they did not believe to be correct? 🤔

Nonsense. He suggested it was possible for someone to take an opposing view, it is not unreasonable for him to be able to express what he thinks that view might be even if he doesn't agree with it. Bizarre you think people can't imagine other perspectives as it is what humans learn as toddlers.

He is a bit of a thug then. Not very Church of England with quaint church summer fates and strawberry jam is it!? 😁

No it isn't. As I've already explained, he was suggesting although he may not hold the view he could imagine someone could take an opposing view to it, I couldn't see how it could be justified so I asked him to explain it.

That isn't a 100% kind and loving god then.

My 'moronic' claim was not about anything other than the two statements of '100% kind and loving' and 'endorsing/enabling slavery' being in conflict with each other. It was not about any other aspects of religion apart from that. You keep overlooking this.

Clearly you never make mistakes when typing...

I didn't say you took that viewpoint. But by not thinking such a viewpoint is moronic, it at least suggests you think someone could take up a position against it even if you wouldn't agree with them either.

I wasn't the one who thought it possible to see no conflict between 100% kind and loving and endorsing/enabling slavery.

I have and I can't. I see no way you can justify endorsing and enabling slavery with being 100% kind and loving. You appeared to think there was a way. So can you do it?

I'm intruiged as to what excuse wriggling they could use. Put yourself in their position and how would you justify thinking a slavery endorsing god remains 100% kind and loving.

I refer you to my post above this one. You have taken my moron comment out of context, as it was used for one specific example.

This discussion today about my use of 'moronic' was solely about believing two views were compatible. Not wider points on religion. The conflicting statements.. 1) 100% kind and loving 2) Slave endoring and enabling How can someone justify owning another human and think it would reduce the 100% kind and loving description to something below 100%?

In all these years you haven't got close to laying a hit on me and you forget/distort/twist/lie about and re-run all you misses like a delusional Darth Vader! 😉

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is not arrogant. It is what being rational is. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Faith is not a reliable path to truth. You can believe contradictory positions on faith.

Why can you not recognise kind and loving is incompatible with owning another human and them not being free? The excuse making required to dispute it would be quite something! There is a clear conflict between the two statements.

No he doesn't. He can't form rebuttals so resorts to primary school playground petty personal insults.

🙄 You aren't following the context of that post and what it was replying to at all.

How can any sane person not see 100% kind and loving is not compatible with endorsing slavery? Do you think owning another person is kind and loving?

I should have used Stalin, Pol Pot or some other nightmarish dictator who demands constant worship and fear to compare God with! 😉

Not when it is clear cut. - 100% kind and loving - Slave endorsing in Exodus 21 There is no wiggle room for excuses if you think there is no conflict or contradiction between the two. It is clearly moronic to think endorsing slavery doesn't make a difference to being 100% kind and loving.

So what? The burden of proof is on a person making a claim. I was not making a claim... he was.

If they believe a 100% kind and loving god is compatible and not a contraction with the slavery endorsing God of Exodus 21... then yes they morons.

The switch was used to point out that it is not arrogant. Not sure how you struggle grasp that. 100% kind and loving and endorsing slavery is incompatible. It is incompatible for God like it is incompatible for Hitler or anyone else. So to make excuses to think they are compatible ideas is moronic. To point that out is not arrogant.