Is Guanoing Posts Indiscriminately More Ethical than Banning?

This is essentially the heart of the complaints by Sal, and Lizzie and co.

I say no, it is not.  We have a situation here where Lizzie and Patrick can chose to remove any post they don’t like, for any reasons they create, without explaining why, and relegate it to a garbage dump section.  And then they claim, that because technically someone could go into the dump and read the banished posts, that this is somehow ethical moderation.

This is absurd of course, because the post is then taken completely out of context, and it does not show what the post was in reply to.  It really is just a smokescreen technique for the site to fight their war on ideas, without admitting they are practicing censorship.

They know full well it is unlikely to ever be read in guano, so what is the point of putting it there?  It is simply so Lizzie can pretend she doesn’t censor, which is really a subtle lie.  Barry admits that he is forced to ban some posters.

But there is one even bigger difference.  Barry’s site is a content site!  He has news, real news!  His site is not predicated on comments, it is about providing information.  It necessitates a certain amount of moderation, in order to maintain the stories as the heart of the content, not the invective spews of people like Richard or Patrick.

So whilst Sal and Lizzie complain about the moderation of Barry, let’s not be deceived by what they routinely practice here at TSZ.   A long while back, I reposted the exact words of another posted who was espousing nonsense ideas.  I reposted his lines to me, and my post was immediately put into guano by Alan, while the materialist was allowed to same the exact same thing.  And just yesterday, when Sal was asking why Barry banned him, I said maybe Barry had more than just one reason for feeling Sal was a kook (clearly an on topic point and clearly within the rules).  It was guanoed by Lizzie with no reply as to why.

Hypocrites.  I personally feel this is worse than standards.  This site was started as a hypocritical statement to Barry’s controlling of garbage at UD. Thus Barry’s methods are more ethical in my view.

 

288 thoughts on “Is Guanoing Posts Indiscriminately More Ethical than Banning?

  1. fifthmonarchyman,

    That God exists is not an assertion about reality it is the condition on which reality rests.

    No, you are claiming that a god actually exists. You have provided no evidence to support that.

    That you all can’t even grasp what is being said here is exactly the reason there needs to be a Christian admin.

    Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you.

  2. Patrick: No, I do not. I do not hold presuppositions in your sense because I am willing and able to question my positions, including the basis on which I hold them.

    Ok lets question the razor.

    What evidence would you need to abandon this presupposition?
    What evidence do you have to support your continued acceptance of this presupposition?

    thanks in advance

    Patrick: What I consider irrational is holding beliefs without evidence.

    Your belief is that holding beliefs with out evidence is irrational
    My belief is that denying God’s existence is irrational

    these are presuppositions.
    Is yours open to question? Prove it…….. present some evidence

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman:
    That you all can’t even grasp what is being said here is exactly the reason there needs to be a Christian admin.

    peace

    Would a devout Hindu admin work for you? There are six primary Hindu gods (in some sects of Hinduism, anyway). If that person were to claim that one or more of his gods underlies all true assertions, and YOUR lack of belief in those self-evident, presupposed gods rendered you incompetent to understand anything of value, would YOU agree, because you would intuitively grasp his meaning?

  4. Patrick: No, you are claiming that a god actually exists.

    That is not my claim.

    We all know that God exists it’s not a proposition that is up for debate.
    If God did not exist then existence itself has no meaning.

    peace

  5. Flint: Would a devout Hindu admin work for you?

    the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.

    Hindus would have different presuppositions than mine because their god is different than mine just as your presuppositions are different as well.

    I would love to know how a Hindu’s presuppositions can account for reality. It would be an interesting conversation.

    peace

  6. fifthmonarchyman,

    Ok lets question the razor.

    What evidence would you need to abandon this presupposition?
    What evidence do you have to support your continued acceptance of this presupposition?

    It’s not a presupposition, it’s a pithy restatement of the importance of meeting the burden of proof when one makes a positive claim.

    If you can provide a rational argument leading to a conclusion that the person making a positive claim should not bear the burden of proof, I would no longer use Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline.

  7. fifthmonarchyman,

    No, you are claiming that a god actually exists.

    That is not my claim.

    It is a claim you have made repeatedly. Refusing to call it a claim doesn’t magically make it something else.

    We all know that God exists it’s not a proposition that is up for debate.

    I don’t. By the rules of this site you must park your priors at the door and assume I am posting in good faith when I say that. In fact, you don’t have to assume — I assure you that I lack belief in any god or gods.

    Are you able to hold a discussion without asserting claims about what I think?

    If God did not exist then existence itself has no meaning.

    You’ve made this claim multiple times without supporting it. Until you provide a solid argument demonstrating this, it is just a baseless assertion.

  8. fifthmonarchyman:
    We all know that God exists it’s not a proposition that is up for debate

    This is where we always end up. Lacking any conceivable justification for empty claims, the True Believer is left denying that reason is reasonable. From here, the only path open is into the realm of psychopathology.

  9. Patrick: It’s not a presupposition, it’s a pithy restatement of the importance of meeting the burden of proof when one makes a positive claim.

    You can word it however you like it’s still an unsupported presupposition on your part.

    Patrick: If you can provide a rational argument leading to a conclusion that the person making a positive claim should not bear the burden of proof, I would no longer use Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline.

    If you can provide a rational argument for how you can know stuff sans revelation or how reality can exist without the ground for reality. or how reason can spring into existence ex nihilo I would no longer hold the existence of God as a presupposition,

    The fact is you can’t or you would have done so long ago.
    That is why you want to shift the burden of proof to me when it’s you who are making the claim.

    The fact that you are trying to shift the burden right now when I was the one who asked you for evidence. Is a clear demonstration of your bias.

    It’s OK we all have it

    peace

  10. Flint: This is where we always end up. Lacking any conceivable justification for empty claims, the True Believer is left denying that reason is reasonable.

    I would agree but the “true believer” in this case is named Patrick (and Flint?)

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman,

    It’s not a presupposition, it’s a pithy restatement of the importance of meeting the burden of proof when one makes a positive claim.

    You can word it however you like it’s still an unsupported presupposition on your part.

    No, it really isn’t. Unlike your god claims, it’s not an assertion about reality that requires evidence. It’s simply a mechanism that has proven useful for constructive, rational discussion.

    Patrick: If you can provide a rational argument leading to a conclusion that the person making a positive claim should not bear the burden of proof, I would no longer use Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline.

    If you can provide a rational argument for how you can know stuff sans revelation or how reality can exist without the ground for reality. or how reason can spring into existence ex nihilo I would no longer hold the existence of God as a presupposition,

    This is a non-sequitur. You asked “What evidence would you need to abandon this presupposition?” I’ve explained that it’s not a presupposition and I provided an example of what would convince me to no longer use it as a guideline. Do you have such a convincing argument?

  12. fifthmonarchyman,

    The fact that you are trying to shift the burden right now when I was the one who asked you for evidence. Is a clear demonstration of your bias.

    You asked me what it would take to convince me to abandon Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline. I answered.

    You have not met your burden of proof to provide evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods.

  13. Patrick: . It’s simply a mechanism that has proven useful for constructive, rational discussion.

    Are you saying that “useful” is synonymous with valid? Can you provide evidence for this supposed equivalency? if not why should I accept your claim?

    Patrick: Do you have such a convincing argument?

    Why is the burden of proof on others to disprove your presuppositions? Why don’t you provide your own evidence for their validity?
    You demand I provide evidence why don’t you hold yourself to the same standard?

    I keep asking and so far nothing except but crickets

    Patrick: You asked me what it would take to convince me to abandon Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline. I answered.

    You have not met your burden of proof to provide evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods.

    I have exactly the same requirements to convince me to abandon my presuppositions as you do. Why do you continue to try and shift the burden of proof to me?

    Why not hold yourself to the same standard you demand of those you disagree with?

    peace

  14. Notice how I make a simple request that Patrick apply the same standard to himself that he does to others and the thread is effectively derailed with him making demands of me

    That is what I mean by bias

    peace

  15. Kind of comical that one side here regards reality as supported by ample evidence, and the other side is reduced to claiming that gods are just as “real” on the basis of NO evidence. Clearly, we have a profound difference in our notions of evidence. For one side, it’s a matter of observation and for the other, it’s a matter of doctrine. And both sides are equally convinced that THEIR notion of evidence is the only one that matters.

    We have here an insight into why scientific disputes always dovetail into agreement as theory and techniques advance, while religious disputes can only result in endless schisms without any possible mechanism for resolution. When observation is the arbiter, agreement is the eventual result. When hollow claims impossible in principle to resolve are the arbiter, we get tens of thousands of sects, each declaiming Truth (their version) at one another, none seeing any sense in listening.

    The evidence for reality is “out there”, ready to be investigated. The evidence for gods is “in there”, supportable only by repeated deaf insistence. The only people here incapable of accepting gods are those whose imaginary gods already use up all the space otherwise open to observation and test.

  16. fifthmonarchyman:
    Notice how I make a simple request that Patrick apply the same standard to himself that he does to others and the thread is effectively derailed with him making demands of me

    That is what I mean by bias

    peace

    You were asked for evidence. Rather than provide any, you started blathering about how the request for evidence was itself a “presupposition”. Which makes it clear you HAVE no evidence, and no ability to admit it. Blaming others for your failures may satisfy you, but you look foolish.

  17. Flint: Kind of comical that one side here regards reality as supported by ample evidence

    Please provide evidence for Hitchen’s Razor or withdraw it then? It’s pretty simple. What you can’t do is continue to claim that your beliefs are supported by evidence yet refuse to provide it when asked

    Flint: Clearly, we have a profound difference in our notions of evidence. For one side, it’s a matter of observation and for the other, it’s a matter of doctrine.

    What observations do you have in support of Hitchen’s Razor?

    Flint: The only people here incapable of accepting gods are those whose imaginary gods already use up all the space otherwise open to observation and test.

    Why must you always go on about gods? Why not simply provide evidence for your claims and leave it at that why must you always try and shift the burden of proof.

    If you have evidence present it. It’s pretty simple.

    No need for long monologues about how the other side is a bunch of poopy heads. Apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of the other guy.

    peace

  18. Richardthughes: Do you know what evidence is? Define it.

    you tell me

    I have no idea what evidence is in your worldview.

    In mine evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a proposition corresponds to what God believes .

    If your definition of evidence rests on something that is not universal and objective and unchanging you will need to provide evidence of it’s validity as well.

    Peace

  19. Richardthughes: No worries, we’re done. Moreover, I think you will find nothing here – you’ll have more joy in religious venues.

    I completely understand it’s exactly as I expected from your side.
    You have nothing so you abandon the discussion.
    Without ever providing a single piece of evidence requested of you.

    I would wager that the admins will never call you on it either

    peace

  20. fifthmonarchyman,

    I’m being as kind as I can. There is no ‘evidence’ that, by definition, will line up against your religious beliefs. I have no way of reaching you.

  21. fifthmonarchyman,

    Good post.

    The materialist wants to say you need extraordinary evidence to support the claim that life was created, but they fail to acknowledge that you need extraordinary evidence to support the notion that intelligence and consciousness can arise from nothing.

    Its Patrick whose claim is baseless.

  22. Richardthughes: I have no way of reaching you.

    I’m not asking for you to “reach me” I’m asking you to apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of others.

    Simply provide some evidence for your claims. It should not be difficult,

    Richardthughes: There is no ‘evidence’ that, by definition, will line up against your religious beliefs

    Just as there is no evidence that will line up against your presuppositions. Yet you see nothing wrong with holding them.

    While we are on the subject why do you think it is a worthwhile goal here to find something that will “line up against” the beliefs of others?

    Perhaps a better use of your time would be to look for places your own beliefs don’t align with reality for once.

    Just a thought

    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman: In mine evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a proposition corresponds to what God believes .

    If your definition of evidence rests on something that is not universal and objective and unchanging you will need to provide evidence of it’s validity as well.

    Just curious, what objective facts indicate what God believes rather than what you believe what God believes?

    Even if you believe the basis of the evidence rests on is universal and objective you need to provide evidence that in fact it does, like you say everyone should be held to the same standard.

  24. newton: Just curious, what objective facts indicate what God believes rather than what you believe what God believes?

    Truth is what God believes and who he is so all objective facts indicate what God believes as apposed to those that are not objective.

    newton: Even if you believe the basis of the evidence rests on is universal and objective you need to provide evidence that in fact it does,

    The evidence is your utter inability to ground knowledge in anything other than God.
    If you disagree tell me how you know.

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman,

    It’s simply a mechanism that has proven useful for constructive, rational discussion.

    Are you saying that “useful” is synonymous with valid?

    No, I’m simply saying that mechanisms like “the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof” have been empirically demonstrated to be useful.

    You asked me what it would take to convince me to abandon Hitchens’ Razor as a guideline. I answered.

    You have not met your burden of proof to provide evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods.

    I have exactly the same requirements to convince me to abandon my presuppositions as you do. Why do you continue to try and shift the burden of proof to me?

    Others have already noted that this is a false equivalence. Hitchens’ Razor is a guideline for having constructive, rational discussions (one of the goals of this site, by the way). It is not a claim about something existing in reality. Those kinds of claims, like yours about a god, do require evidence to support them.

    Why not hold yourself to the same standard you demand of those you disagree with?

    When I make claims about entities that supposedly exist in reality, I will be happy to provide evidence to support those claims or to retract them.

  26. fifthmonarchyman,

    Notice how I make a simple request that Patrick apply the same standard to himself that he does to others and the thread is effectively derailed with him making demands of me

    That is not what is happening here, as any objective reader can see. You have made the claim that a god exists, but you have never provided any evidence to support that claim.

    You have claimed that “If God did not exist then existence itself has no meaning.” You have never provided any argument or evidence to support that claim.

    I also notice that you haven’t replied to my counter to your claim that “We all know that God exists”.

    You are focused on your category error in asking for evidence for a common guideline for constructive, rational discussion. Rather than spending more time on that fallacy, you could be supporting your claims.

    That is what I mean by bias

    As others have noted, neutrality looks like bias to those used to privilege.

  27. fifthmonarchyman,

    Richardthughes: No worries, we’re done. Moreover, I think you will find nothing here – you’ll have more joy in religious venues.

    I completely understand it’s exactly as I expected from your side.
    You have nothing so you abandon the discussion.
    Without ever providing a single piece of evidence requested of you.

    The only person making claims about entities existing in reality is you. You have the burden of proof but you have never once provided any evidence for your claims.

    If and when you decide to support your claims, I suspect that Richard and others will be happy to re-engage in discussion with you. Until you do so, there’s little to be gained from listening to your repeated baseless assertions.

    I would wager that the admins will never call you on it either

    There is no rule against not supporting your claims here, although such behavior is in opposition to the goals of the site. You should be happy about that — your comments would be the first in Guano otherwise.

  28. FMM:

    Truth is what God believes and who he is so all objective facts indicate what God believes as apposed to those that are not objective.

    Let’s return to our milk in the fridge.

    Recall that it is my pressuposition that observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward provide a sound basis for provisional knowledge – which is the same order of knowledge as that required to place Curiosity on Mars.

    Now to the milk. I’m uncertain whether there is milk in the fridge. Consistent with my presuppositions, one way to reduce my uncertainty is to observe the contents of the fridge. An entailment of “there is milk in the fridge” is that if I open the fridge and look, I’ll see milk in the fridge.

    I open the fridge. I do not see milk in the fridge. I have reduced my uncertainty regarding milk in my fridge by a subset of the means I described above. Given my presuppositions, I have acquired provisional knowledge (provisional knowledge in which I have a high degree of confidence, in this instance) regarding whether there is milk in my fridge.

    You say,

    Truth is what God believes and who he is so all objective facts indicate what God believes

    How does this proposition contribute to your investigation, or to the conclusions of your investigation, when you are uncertain of whether there is milk in your fridge?

  29. fifthmonarchyman: [to Richard T Hughes] I completely understand it’s exactly as I expected from your side.

    I don’t think there is an “our side” here. I think there is a wide range of political view, economic and fiscal views, ideas on sociology. Heck, there isn’t universal agreement on science. Sure, I get the impression a good number of commenters here self-describe as atheists – but that is just a doubt in or lack of belief in gods. In my case, I never really took to the idea of the Anglican God I was introduced to as a child. I think, unless one finds that cultural connection early on, or one has an emotional need for theistic ideas, it is very difficult to get any further with a theist than agreeing to agree to disagree (and live and let live – I may have already said that).

    You have nothing so you abandon the discussion.

    How can the discussion about whether some deity exists beyond He exists… no, he doesn’t…does, too! when those of us who don’t see any evidence for deities other than what people over time have collectively imagined are asked to provide evidence for non-existence.

    Without ever providing a single piece of evidence requested of you.

    FMM, I haven’t put much effort into communicating with you as I see little point. I’m not going to convert to Quakerism (which might be my first choice should “revelation” ever reveal itself to me) on the strength of exchanging a few blog comments. I doubt you are going to abandon your version of Theism either. So what is left to discuss?

    I would wager that the admins will never call you on it either

    If you think there is an unaddressed admin issue, you should raise it in the moderation issues thread. I’m an admin because I strongly believe in free exchange of ideas. I don’t see your right to that being affected.

  30. Patrick: I’m simply saying that mechanisms like “the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof” have been empirically demonstrated to be useful.

    1) how do you know this?
    2 what evidence do you have that “useful” equals “valid”?
    Please provide it now or withdraw your claim,

    It’s really pretty simple. You established the challenge for others now abide by it yourself.

    Patrick: The only person making claims about entities existing in reality is you. You have the burden of proof but you have never once provided any evidence for your claims.

    NO I am making no claims here

    You are the one making claims that things like “truth” and “evidence” exist in reality and you have never once provided any evidence for your claims

    Please do so now.

    IOW apply the same standard to yourself as you demand of others

    thanks

  31. Alan Fox: How can the discussion about whether some deity exists beyond He exists… no, he doesn’t…does, too!

    This is not a discussion about whether God exists.

    God’s existence is not a question that is up for debate. We all know God exists.

    The discussion is about the blatant hypocrisy of demanding something from others that you refuse to do yourself

    peace

  32. Reciprocating Bill: How does this proposition contribute to your investigation, or to the conclusions of your investigation, when you are uncertain of whether there is milk in your fridge?

    It is not a proposition. It’s a presupposition.
    God is truth. It’s who he is and what he believes.
    If God did not exist there could be no fridge or milk or knowledge or propositions

    peace

  33. Geeze RB,

    Does he have to spell it out for you? God revealed to fifth that the light goes out when the fridge door is closed. Therefore Christianity is true.

  34. FMM:

    If God did not exist there could be no fridge or milk or knowledge or propositions

    That doesn’t respond to my question. My question, now slightly modified, is, “How does your presupposition contribute to your investigation, or to the conclusions of your investigation, when you are uncertain of whether there is milk in your fridge?”

    What do you differently than I do?

  35. fifthmonarchyman: The discussion is about the blatant hypocrisy of demanding something from others that you refuse to do yourself.

    I’m puzzled if you are referring to me. I’ve demanded nothing from you and I’m not aware of refusing to answer any question you have put to me.

    We all know God exists.

    This is wrong. Even if someone else tells you what they believe or don’t believe, you cannot know what goes on in someone else’s head. I tell you, simply and honestly, that I don’t believe deities exist, they are human creations, figments of the imagination.

    What can we do about that other than agree to disagree and talk about something else? Maybe how proper secularism would guarantee the right to both of us to believe what we believe.

  36. keiths: God revealed to fifth that the light goes out when the fridge door is closed.

    He IS the truth, and the light.

  37. fifthmonarchyman,

    I’m simply saying that mechanisms like “the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof” have been empirically demonstrated to be useful.

    1) how do you know this?

    As I’ve already answered: empirical evidence.

    2 what evidence do you have that “useful” equals “valid”?

    I’ve never made that claim. You’re the one who inserted the word “valid” into this discussion.

    Patrick: The only person making claims about entities existing in reality is you. You have the burden of proof but you have never once provided any evidence for your claims.

    NO I am making no claims here

    You are claiming that a god exists. You also make claims like “If God did not exist then existence itself has no meaning.” You have never provided any argument or evidence to support either of those claims.

    You are the one making claims that things like “truth” and “evidence” exist in reality and you have never once provided any evidence for your claims

    Where have I made any claim like that? I don’t even know what it would mean for “truth” to exist. True statements can be made, certainly, but that doesn’t mean it’s sensible to reify truth.

    Evidence in this context is facts that support your claim. You haven’t provided any.

    Please stop ascribing positions and arguments to me that I have not made. The bottom line is that you have not supported any of your claims. Until you do so there is no reason to consider them.

  38. fifthmonarchyman,

    God’s existence is not a question that is up for debate. We all know God exists.

    Proof by repeated assertion is not compelling. Several people, including me, have explained that this statement of yours is wrong.

    Once again I will point out to you the site rules:

    “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
    – For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
    . . .
    – This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
    – As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.”

    I assure you I am posting in good faith when I say that I have no belief in a god or gods. The other participants here who have made that same point about themselves are also posting in good faith.

    Since you are abiding by the rules, we know you are not accusing any of us of being deliberately misleading, ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, or demented.

    Therefore, I see no reason within the site rules for you not to take our statements at face value. Your claim that “We all know God exists” is refuted.

  39. Patrick: As I’ve already answered: empirical evidence.

    yet you have failed to provide empirical evidence to your claim that empirical evidence is the way to know things

    Do so now or withdraw your claim.
    Apply the same standard to yourself as you demand of others

    Patrick: I’ve never made that claim. You’re the one who inserted the word “valid” into this discussion.

    Fine then so to say your presupposition is “useful” is the equivalent to saying it’s red.

    My response in both cases would be how do you know and why should I care?

    Patrick: You are claiming that a god exists.

    No I am not making that claim. Read that again in case you missed it the thousand other times I’ve said it.

    I’m not claiming that God exists. I don’t need to we all know God exists

    Patrick: You also make claims like “If God did not exist then existence itself has no meaning.”

    These are not claims they are simply part of the definition of God.

    Patrick: True statements can be made

    How can you possibly know this given your worldview?

    Patrick: Please stop ascribing positions and arguments to me that I have not made.

    He says right after he has once again ascribed positions and arguments to me that I have not made.

    You can just smell the hypocrisy.

    peace

  40. Patrick: I assure you I am posting in good faith when I say that I have no belief in a god or gods.

    No, you’re wrong.

    You are suppressing your knowledge of God through your unrighteousness.

    And seeing that God is sovereign over all things it is actually God who is causing you to suppress your knowledge of Him.

    And because everything God does is for His own glory it is in fact a glorious thing that God is making you deny His existence.

    See how glorious it all is?

    Yes, it’s utterly glorious and NOT utterly ridiculous.

  41. Woodbine: Yes, it’s utterly glorious and NOT utterly ridiculous.

    right on cue.

    notice what happens when someone simply asks for standards here to be applied equally.

    peace

  42. Patrick: Since you are abiding by the rules, we know you are not accusing any of us of being deliberately misleading, ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, or demented.

    You forgot about being mistaken or self deception. We all know lots of things we don’t realize that we do.

    check it out
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno's_slave

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman,

    As I’ve already answered: empirical evidence.

    yet you have failed to provide empirical evidence to your claim that empirical evidence is the way to know things

    If you don’t wish to participate in a reality-based discussion, that is of course your prerogative. I’m discussing empirical observations that anyone can confirm for themselves. If you don’t want to play in the reality sandbox, please just make that clear. When you don’t, you give every impression of making claims about the real world.

    You are claiming that a god exists.

    No I am not making that claim. Read that again in case you missed it the thousand other times I’ve said it.

    Refusing to call a claim a claim does not make it any less a claim. You repeatedly talk about a god as something that actually exists. That’s a claim you need to support.

    I’m not claiming that God exists. I don’t need to we all know God exists

    This has been addressed several times now. Your statement has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Continuing to make it is insulting to the commenters who have stated in good faith that they do not have beliefs in a god or gods. According to the rules you have no choice but to accept those explanations at face value.

    So, now that your statement is refuted, what does that mean to your argument, if anything?

  44. Reciprocating Bill: What do you differently than I do?

    I acknowledge the source of knowledge and you arrogantly deny he exists.
    While benefiting from his revelation to you
    peace

  45. Woodbine,

    You are suppressing your knowledge of God through your unrighteousness.

    And seeing that God is sovereign over all things it is actually God who is causing you to suppress your knowledge of Him.

    And because everything God does is for His own glory it is in fact a glorious thing that God is making you deny His existence.

    See how glorious it all is?

    Yes, it’s utterly glorious and NOT utterly ridiculous.

    Thank you. It’s all so much clearer now.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.