Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A discussion of Malthiesm vs. Malism-From "Some Questions" at the old site.
6 years ago  ::  Nov 24, 2007 - 8:00PM #1
ftlman123
Posts: 16
Here are the last few post and a new post from me.

ftlman123
9/29/2007 5:56 PM  119 out of 122   

David and Mike, I have some responses to some of your comments. I have to put them on the computer and I don't have time today.   



mohanchous
10/13/2007 6:17 AM  120 out of 122   

ftlman: [quoting whichone] "It is very clear that I am talking about my impression . . ."

So you pull a sentence fragment out of context in order to contradict the complete sentence. Why don't you just pull random words out of whichone's posts, reorder them into what you wish she said, and attribute them to her?

"I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill."

Ok, but how could this sentence possibly apply to you? You are an anti-maltheist, but certainly not one of those illogical, incomprehensible, contradictory anti-malthiests. Are you?

If you had completely quoted the first sentence, whichone explicitly said that this sentence was not directed at you.

"I meant you are an anti-maltheist . . ."

". . . because you are an anti-maltheist."

What is your issue with these statements? Are you actually pro-maltheist, and we just missed it?

I have an impression about your ability to carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way.

It was like pulling teeth to get you to tentatively agree to the simple English statement "God is the unique supernatural being that affects human affairs and inspired the Bible". I had to spend 50 posts schooling you in the common English meanings of words like "theist", "supernatural", "affect" and "inspire". I was afraid I was going to have to explain "the", "and" and "that" to you. Is that how you carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way? Because it sure seems like the sort of customary and unproductive discussion that might be carried on a dense, irritating, insulting, dilatory troll, which you clearly are not.

I will keep that impression to my self.

How noble of you. A better way to keep derogatory impressions to yourself is not to mention them in the first place. We maltheists call it civility.

I guess you can keep on trying to justify [my skewed interpretation of] your comments if you want.

Just for the sake of accuracy.

mohanchous
10/13/2007 2:20 PM  121 out of 122   

And now, whichone, I hope you understand that the only answer you are ever going to get to your simple question as to why some people feel compelled to attack maltheism boils down to: "maltheism is reprehensible and dangerous because our fictitious supreme being says it is for reasons neither he nor we feel obligated to explain, and we uncritically accept anything our supreme being says, not matter how ludicrous or morally repugnant it may be".   



whichone
10/14/2007 4:31 AM  122 out of 122   

mohancous,

Since no anti-maltheist cares to give an answer on my other thread then I guess your post is the closest I will ever get to an answer. It seems like the question: "Why prove Maltheism wrong?" would be an easy question for an anti-maltheist to answer.


ftlman123
9/28/2007 7:18 PM  114 out of 122   

"You are exactly the type of person that I would like to have answer that question."

"There were a few that were simply insane or stupid. Those few.....there was simply no other explanation. They invented their own sentence structures....their own theologies completely outside the norm. In fact sometimes it appeared to be a theology of one. I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill. They might not actually be able to string logical arguments together."

You have said I was illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory in other posts. I could show those and this post to beliefnet and make a case that you were referring to me in the post the second quote comes from. You are not supposed to make comments about the mental capacity of other beliefnet members, and because you do, I would like to avoid you unless absolutely necessary, sorry.


ftlman123
9/29/2007 5:49 PM  118 out of 122   

"It is very clear that I am talking about my impression . . ."

"I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill."

"I meant you are an anti-maltheist . . ."

". . . because you are an anti-maltheist."

I have an impression about your ability to carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way. I will keep that impression to my self. I guess you can keep on trying to justify your comments if you want.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 24, 2007 - 8:03PM #2
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"malism is reprehensible because our supreme being caused us in the United States to proclaim and process into a law of our land the freedom to worship and believe as we choose without someone else having a right or ability to force us not to. We critically accept this and other rights our supreme being caused our forfathers to proclaim or yearn for, no matter in how ludicrous or repugnant a fashion malism exercises it ability to rail against them and the supposed fantasy supreme being".

Believe there is no God if you want. Don't say you are a theist when in reality you think there is some alien creature of energy or what ever that had nothing to do with the origin and control of the natural laws of our universe. If you want to be a true "Malthiest" you are going to have to come to terms with not being in control and just believe that God is evil.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 24, 2007 - 8:00PM #3
ftlman123
Posts: 16
Here are the last few post and a new post from me.

ftlman123
9/29/2007 5:56 PM  119 out of 122   

David and Mike, I have some responses to some of your comments. I have to put them on the computer and I don't have time today.   



mohanchous
10/13/2007 6:17 AM  120 out of 122   

ftlman: [quoting whichone] "It is very clear that I am talking about my impression . . ."

So you pull a sentence fragment out of context in order to contradict the complete sentence. Why don't you just pull random words out of whichone's posts, reorder them into what you wish she said, and attribute them to her?

"I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill."

Ok, but how could this sentence possibly apply to you? You are an anti-maltheist, but certainly not one of those illogical, incomprehensible, contradictory anti-malthiests. Are you?

If you had completely quoted the first sentence, whichone explicitly said that this sentence was not directed at you.

"I meant you are an anti-maltheist . . ."

". . . because you are an anti-maltheist."

What is your issue with these statements? Are you actually pro-maltheist, and we just missed it?

I have an impression about your ability to carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way.

It was like pulling teeth to get you to tentatively agree to the simple English statement "God is the unique supernatural being that affects human affairs and inspired the Bible". I had to spend 50 posts schooling you in the common English meanings of words like "theist", "supernatural", "affect" and "inspire". I was afraid I was going to have to explain "the", "and" and "that" to you. Is that how you carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way? Because it sure seems like the sort of customary and unproductive discussion that might be carried on a dense, irritating, insulting, dilatory troll, which you clearly are not.

I will keep that impression to my self.

How noble of you. A better way to keep derogatory impressions to yourself is not to mention them in the first place. We maltheists call it civility.

I guess you can keep on trying to justify [my skewed interpretation of] your comments if you want.

Just for the sake of accuracy.

mohanchous
10/13/2007 2:20 PM  121 out of 122   

And now, whichone, I hope you understand that the only answer you are ever going to get to your simple question as to why some people feel compelled to attack maltheism boils down to: "maltheism is reprehensible and dangerous because our fictitious supreme being says it is for reasons neither he nor we feel obligated to explain, and we uncritically accept anything our supreme being says, not matter how ludicrous or morally repugnant it may be".   



whichone
10/14/2007 4:31 AM  122 out of 122   

mohancous,

Since no anti-maltheist cares to give an answer on my other thread then I guess your post is the closest I will ever get to an answer. It seems like the question: "Why prove Maltheism wrong?" would be an easy question for an anti-maltheist to answer.


ftlman123
9/28/2007 7:18 PM  114 out of 122   

"You are exactly the type of person that I would like to have answer that question."

"There were a few that were simply insane or stupid. Those few.....there was simply no other explanation. They invented their own sentence structures....their own theologies completely outside the norm. In fact sometimes it appeared to be a theology of one. I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill. They might not actually be able to string logical arguments together."

You have said I was illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory in other posts. I could show those and this post to beliefnet and make a case that you were referring to me in the post the second quote comes from. You are not supposed to make comments about the mental capacity of other beliefnet members, and because you do, I would like to avoid you unless absolutely necessary, sorry.


ftlman123
9/29/2007 5:49 PM  118 out of 122   

"It is very clear that I am talking about my impression . . ."

"I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill."

"I meant you are an anti-maltheist . . ."

". . . because you are an anti-maltheist."

I have an impression about your ability to carry on a discussion in a customary and productive way. I will keep that impression to my self. I guess you can keep on trying to justify your comments if you want.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 24, 2007 - 8:03PM #4
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"malism is reprehensible because our supreme being caused us in the United States to proclaim and process into a law of our land the freedom to worship and believe as we choose without someone else having a right or ability to force us not to. We critically accept this and other rights our supreme being caused our forfathers to proclaim or yearn for, no matter in how ludicrous or repugnant a fashion malism exercises it ability to rail against them and the supposed fantasy supreme being".

Believe there is no God if you want. Don't say you are a theist when in reality you think there is some alien creature of energy or what ever that had nothing to do with the origin and control of the natural laws of our universe. If you want to be a true "Malthiest" you are going to have to come to terms with not being in control and just believe that God is evil.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 25, 2007 - 2:10AM #5
mohanchous
Posts: 231
ftlman, how, uh, good to see you back after you said several times you were not coming back. For the uninitiated, ftlman has engaged our group, the maltheists, in lengthy debate in the old forums, claiming maltheism is reprehensible. Maltheists such as myself, claim that the God most monotheists worship is evil, while ftlman takes the tradition monotheist view of a benevolent supreme being. In those lengthy debates, ftlman was unable to establish any of the points on which  he disagreed with us. He finally gave up and left, which in debate is concession. Now ftlman returns to resurrect old arguments out of context as if they were something new that we have not already destroyed with sound reason. He conveniently neglects to resurrect our replies. So I guess it's another round.

[QUOTE=ftlman123;91939]"malism is reprehensible...[QUOTE]

ftlman slandersously calls our beliefs reprehensible with no evidence whatsover.

[/QUOTE]...because our supreme being caused us in the United States to proclaim and process into a law of our land the freedom to worship and believe as we choose...[QUOTE]

In previous debate, ftlman has never answered our challenges to the existence of a benevolent supreme being, specifically, the problem of evil. Until he does, he cannot presume the existence or speak of the actions of a benevolent supreme being. We fought for and secured our own freedoms in the United States, God gave us nothing.

[QUOTE]...without someone else having a right or ability to force us not to.[/QUOTE]

To inform you that worshiping a God that is cruel and deceitful is unwise in no way threatens your right to do so. We have never advocated force to advance our beliefs. Do not demonize us.

[QUOTE]We critically accept this and other rights our supreme being caused our forefathers to proclaim or yearn for, no matter in how ludicrous or repugnant a fashion malism exercises it ability to rail against them and the supposed fantasy supreme being".[/QUOTE]

Complete lack of evidence notwithstanding, the very concept of a benevolent supreme being ruling a world of evil has serious logical and moral problems. Your God cannot in be the benevolent supreme being you believe it is, since such a being cannot exist. Therefore, your God is a fantasy. You have never convincingly responded to this charge. Indeed, 2000+ years of theodicy have not rendered a convincing response.

[QUOTE]Believe there is no God if you want.[/QUOTE]

We want.

[QUOTE]Don't say you are a theist when in reality you think there is some alien creature of energy or what ever that had nothing to do with the origin and control of the natural laws of our universe.[/QUOTE]

A theist is someone that believes in God. We believe in God. We believe God is something other than a benevolent supreme being because (a) the very idea that a benevolent supreme being would create this mess of a world refutes the very concept of a benevolent supreme being, and (b) the religious and historical evidence points to God being cruel and deceitful.

[QUOTE]If you want to be a true "Malthiest" you are going to have to come to terms with not being in control and just believe that God is evil.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, we don't know who created the universe, and guess what, NEITHER DO YOU, and furthermore, NEITHER DOES ANYBODY. The difference is, we don't make up stories about it. We don't try to identify the Creator with some fantasy benevolent supreme being. We just look for God around us and find a cruel, evil, hateful being.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 3:22AM #6
whichone
Posts: 1,084
The first post to this thread has no meaning.  ftlman is pulling random quotes from my posts on an old thread on the old beliefnet site.  All the posts he has copied here are completely out of context.  They have a very different meaning in context.

I thought ftlman would be a good person to answer my "Why prove maltheism wrong?" questions on another thread because he is against maltheism and feels a need to prove it wrong.  He would be a good person to answer the question "Why prove maltheism wrong?"  because he has a reason for proving maltheism wrong.  That is it.  Nothing mysterious or insulting there.

I wrote about something completely unrelated to ftlmn.  I like watching documentaries.  I watched two documentaries about people that I judged would be anti-maltheists.  One was about discrimination that gays faced.  It had reasonable evangelicals that believed homosexuality was a sin and lunatics like Fred Phelps that seemed to speak incoherently, create their own sentence structures and have their own "one" man theologies.  I also watched a documentary about terrorism.  There were imans who had reasonable clear criticism of the West and then there were lunatic Imans again who spoke sometimes incoherently, with weird sentence structures, and their own "one" man theologies.  Their weirdness reminded me of my little brother screaming at me on the telephone in response to my anger with a criminal, "Anger is a sin."  This was all in my mind one day when I decided to post on beliefnet.  I was thinking of posting a thread about it, but first I wanted to check the maltheism forum and the other beliefs debate forum.  I can't quite remember and I am too lazy to go back to the old beliefnet site and reread the thread in other beliefs debate forum to make sure or remind myself of the detail.  I was responding to a post that suggested that anti-maltheists were purposely confusing and felt they were this way to just be annoying.  Thinking of the speakers in the documentaries and my little brothers weird logic and speaking, I said it is very possible that they are not meaning to be confusing they might actually be stupid or insane.  Fred Phelps, I think is stupid.  I believe my little brother is insane.  I was not thinking of ftlmn at all.  I do not think fltman is stupid or insane.  I never did and I was never thinking of him.  There are very intelligent articulate people who are anti-maltheist.  I do not equate anti-maltheist with insane or stupid.   I don't know how to be more clear about that.  There are perfectly good and reasonable arguments for being anti-maltheist.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 3:49AM #7
whichone
Posts: 1,084
I do not equate confusing and incomprehensible with stupid or insane.  That may be where the miscommunication happened between me and ftlmn.  I have in the past tried to help him get his ideas accross by suggesting ways he could write things more clearly.  I have agreed at times that what he wrote was confusing and incomprehensible.   I have always assumed that he just wasn't a good writer.  We all have different skill levels for different things.  I can't spell to save my life.  I have no sense of direction.  I can't read a map at all.  I was so bad at mapping the delivery schedule for a new job after six weeks, they gave me an opportunity to resign or be fired.  It seemed better to my ego to resign.  I can see how someone may make a connection that I did not intend.  I never ever ever meant to insult ftlmn.  I did not make the connect that he did. 

Is the link to the old beliefnet gone?  I wanted to link to the original thread, but I can't figure out how to get back to the old site.  I thought that was supposed to remain archived and available to us.  Ftlman how were you able to copy and post the stuff from the old site?  How do you get to the old site?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 4:16AM #8
whichone
Posts: 1,084
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]109 out of 122[/FONT]
whichone
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
I tried to ask anti-maltheists why it was so important to discredit maltheism, but they never responded to the thread. I do not know why anyone would waste time trying to change the name that we have chosen to express our beliefs maltheism. Big deal.....I say God is bad. That effects me not people who believe God is good. I do not care if anyone else believes God is bad. I defend only my right to say what I believe. I am not going to deny someone there right to say what they believe, but I can decide that I will not listen to their preaching.

I like documentaries a lot. I watched a few tonight about religious figures who would definitely disagree with Maltheists. Some people gave clear and reasonable explanations for their beliefs. Some were clearly not used to public speaking and may have garbled their messge out of nervousness or a lack of experience. There were a few that were simply insane or stupid. Those few.....there was simply no other explanation. They invented their own sentence structures....their own theologies completely outside the norm. In fact sometimes it appeared to be a theology of one. I think an anti-maltheist who appears to be illogical, incomprehensible, and contradictory may not be trying to be deceptive or even taunting maltheists. That anti-maltheist might actually be mentally ill. They might not actually be able to string logical arguments together. My nephew is has bipolar disorder. He was acting out with his parents. He loves my husband and becomes calmer around him. He had swung into a heavy mania. Mania is a very weird condition. He and I like to discuss the bible and religion together. When he is in the state between Mania and depression, the conversation is good and interesting. When he is in mania, it is really strange and incomprehensible. Contradictory, illogical, and incomprehensible.....weird sentence structure. In Mania he has to be right at all costs. He will use any weirdness to be RIGHT. Until I witness mania first hand, I had no idea what it really meant.
[/FONT]
-----------
After the cavewoman wandered blindly through the site, she finally found the archive.  I will now try to link back to the entire original thread, so anyone may judge for themselves the entire exchange.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 4:33AM #9
whichone
Posts: 1,084
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message … nID=522146

Yeah Yeah Yeah,
I found my way back to the archive.  The button back is very hard to find.  I went crazy for a few minutes trying to find my way back.  I have book marked it for the future.  There should be an easy button back.  There may be but I could not find it.  My brain feels strained.  Any way for anyone interested, you can read the complete context by clicking on the link above.  I hope I did it successfully.  The miscommunication seems to start with my post# 109 if you don't care to read all 122 posts to the thread.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 4:35AM #10
whichone
Posts: 1,084
It works!  It works!  I figured out how to do something new.  Yeah! old dogs can learn new tricks.  I am thinking of changing my username to cavewoman.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook