It really is. It's a strawman fallacy.Not as terrible as you think.
I will explain more... Anon.
Diana physically exists. Whether or not I believe in Diana is irrelevant to that fact. Kaykay nailed the rest of it: It's not like Diana is omnipotent & omniscient.I no longer believe in Diana.
Wanting to live is greed.
Gotcha.
This argument is wrong on so many levels. If instincts to survive boil down to sin (because infants don't have the conciousness to make informed decisions, therefore the argument of choosing to sin is irrelevant) then everything does. Almost any mother will feed their child willingly as an act of love. Often this what you see as a minor inconvenience to the mother, is enjoyed as a blissful moment. Maybe not so much when the teeth start to set in, but hell. If wanting to live is a sin even if the means to are provided willingly, then why does the entire world not fucking burn yet? Almost everything you do in order to survive will inconvenience some kind of party in some way or another. While you're typing this (or reading) think of all the productive things to society you could actually do. Are you going to feel like you should make a confession about reading a reply instead of helping the homeless or collecting money for charity later? I don't think so.
I don't really want to get involved with the debate as a whole, because I know I am not nearly patient enough for that, but this had to be addressed as it is absolutely ludicrous. Please tell me I misinterpreted your post. Please. Because as it stands, I cannot see this idea of yours as anything other than harmful and wrong, as it denotes everything we ever do as harmful and wrong.
No idea what you mean here.It's a shame me and God have so few options in the eyes of others.
He's trolling. He keeps comparing himself to a god when it's already been pointed out to him that he is neither omnipotent or omniscient and thus comparing him to a god is completely non-sequitur from the start. It won't stop him, though, this is kind of his thing.No idea what you mean here.
Essentially his argument boils down to "Do we truly understand this party?" Or "Do we have the intelligence to make an educated guess about their ideas and methods?" The comparison of himself to a god isn't so much based on omnipotence or omniscience on his part, but a lack of knowledge on yours. You don't know him. You don't know god. How can you judge?No idea what you mean here.
Yeah, except I don't buy the mysterious ways argument for the christian god. We have a supposedly complete accounting of his actions in the bible, in which he acts like a deranged serial killer. Murder is one of Yahweh's favourite methods of getting shit done.Essentially his argument boils down to "Do we truly understand this party?" Or "Do we have the intelligence to make an educated guess about their ideas and methods?" The comparison of himself to a god isn't so much based on omnipotence or omniscience on his part, but a lack of knowledge on yours. You don't know him. You don't know god. How can you judge?
Well, have fun with that trap. It's the mysterious ways argument all over again.
Don't kill the messenger brah.I do find it irritating, though. "Why does god feel the need to create rapists and murderers?" "He works in mysterious ways." That doesn't answer the question, it just deflects responsibility to a person we can't even be sure is real. Ah well.
I ain't, my brother from a different mother.Don't kill the messenger brah.