Ex-atheist.com

[mr friendly guy]

9. For Heaven’s sake, God separates those who have agreed, through their free will, to turn over their free will to Him, from those who have not.
10. Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin through surrender of his free-will agency (you see, because the suffering from hell isn't from the nature of the place, but rather its from the nature of the sin).

This little bit does little to explain the idea that God still made us with all our urges and quirks, and yet still see's fit to punish us for those urges and quirks.

It also seems a bit of circular reasoning to me; he have us free will for the sole purpose of giving it back to him? What a bunch on nonsense just so they can slide the words 'free will' in there and try to keep the concept on their side.

*barf*

She tries to get around this by saying that Hell is created from a soul's sin rather than a place God creates to dump sinful souls. This way she thinks God gets exempted for causing the suffering. However like most apologetics, they create as many problems as they attempt to solve, namely
1) if these guys want to sin, why are they suffering from it, shouldn't they be enjoying "Hell", given that Hell is created from what they enjoy

2) Assuming sin is like a "self inflicted" disease which similar to anorexia nervosa, why the hell can't God end the suffering by "killing" the soul

Her other bullshit is that a "defective" human ie one which sins is actually a non defective one since God wanted them to have free will. Never mind that a perfect being can't create a human with free choice who will choose correctly (like Christians). Never mind that an omnipresent God should be able to figure out which humans will end up sinning (even assuming he can't create a non-sinning human every time), and hence know not to create these sinning humans in the first place. Well I guess he stuffed up with Adam.

[K. A. Pital]

Hell is created from a soul's sin

Well, then she's wrong: God made Hell, and put people in it. The Bible is right and very clear on that. All hail Falwell!

why the hell can't God end the suffering by "killing" the soul

Because God is a sadistic nut who likes to watch people tormented? I believe much of the Bible proves it, so... essentially, here's the answer - he's malevolent.

[Knife]

She tries to get around this by saying that Hell is created from a soul's sin rather than a place God creates to dump sinful souls. This way she thinks God gets exempted for causing the suffering. However like most apologetics, they create as many problems as they attempt to solve, namely
1) if these guys want to sin, why are they suffering from it, shouldn't they be enjoying "Hell", given that Hell is created from what they enjoy

2) Assuming sin is like a "self inflicted" disease which similar to anorexia nervosa, why the hell can't God end the suffering by "killing" the soul

Her other bullshit is that a "defective" human ie one which sins is actually a non defective one since God wanted them to have free will. Never mind that a perfect being can't create a human with free choice who will choose correctly (like Christians). Never mind that an omnipresent God should be able to figure out which humans will end up sinning (even assuming he can't create a non-sinning human every time), and hence know not to create these sinning humans in the first place. Well I guess he stuffed up with Adam.

Even simpler than that; even if we give her that God didn't create Hell (though I'm not but just saying) He DID create both the soul and the rule set put in place to judge the soul.

[Shrykull]

Anyone want to email your stuff to her? I'd like to see someone debate her, prefferably mr friendly guy.

Although, I wonder if she's posting all the correspondance on her hate mail page, as it always ends with her having the last word, apparently not with the last email exchanged

[Dread Not]

I particularly like her bit about Moses in Numbers 31, where she argues against secular humanism because it apparently involves moral relativism. It is beyond me how somebody can get a science degree doing such shitty research. Although from that one can naturally conclude that she's bullshitting about the degree as well. But she should really try to do a better job at hiding it.

[Zero]

Anyone want to email your stuff to her? I'd like to see someone debate her, prefferably mr friendly guy.

Although, I wonder if she's posting all the correspondance on her hate mail page, as it always ends with her having the last word, apparently not with the last email exchanged

I tried to start a debate with her. I brought up refutations of her initial arguments concerning game-designer morality, and refutations of several of her refutations that were listed from other e-mails. She just said that I had nothing new, and didn't actually contest any of the points.

[mr friendly guy]

Anyone want to email your stuff to her? I'd like to see someone debate her, prefferably mr friendly guy.

Although, I wonder if she's posting all the correspondance on her hate mail page, as it always ends with her having the last word, apparently not with the last email exchanged

I tried to start a debate with her. I brought up refutations of her initial arguments concerning game-designer morality, and refutations of several of her refutations that were listed from other e-mails. She just said that I had nothing new, and didn't actually contest any of the points.

Translation - she has been defeated before but just refuses to concede it. Given that she has posted on an atheist forum mocking her (she even links to it), I suspect she might not be too adverse to debate here if we show her this thread.

Not that I am advocating inviting a troll over unless a senator feels its worth the board's while to debate her. But if she gets ticked off that she can't get the last word for once she might decide to join up anyway.

[Shrykull]

Anyone want to email your stuff to her? I'd like to see someone debate her, prefferably mr friendly guy.

Although, I wonder if she's posting all the correspondance on her hate mail page, as it always ends with her having the last word, apparently not with the last email exchanged

I tried to start a debate with her. I brought up refutations of her initial arguments concerning game-designer morality, and refutations of several of her refutations that were listed from other e-mails. She just said that I had nothing new, and didn't actually contest any of the points.

Would you mind posting that exchange here? Or at least the e-mail with her saying "I've seen it all before."

[Zero]

Hi, Greg. Thank you for writing.

We all have our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. However, opinion merely begats opinion.

The Game Designer Argument has been hashed and rehashed. You present nothing new and your disagreement does not constitute a refutation, therefore, I feel no need to clarify or respond.

Please don't take this as a blow off. As you see, I DO post criticisms (with the permission and knowledge of the writers) when I think that they offer something new.

Very obviously a blowoff.

In my e-mail, I contested the notion that God's morality, God's assigned purpose, was somehow objective simply because he was God (something which she never justified, just stated), and also explained why the boardgame analogy was flawed, in that the rules of a game are meant to be those you HAVE to follow like physical laws in the real world instead of suggestions for how to 'win' the game. I also explained why it's fine to me if morality is something that's subjective; so are a lot of things that people fight and die for.

And she did just kinda blow it off. I made a second e-mail reguarding anything she thought was a refutation of what I'd said, and I asked her to specifically point out where my objections had been raised before, and she has yet to respond. This was two days ago.

So yeah, I get the feeling that she's generally an evasive debater. Perhaps this would work differently on a forum, but she seems to be the type to dismiss your attacks on her position and claim it's been addressed already while going on the offensive.

[Darth Wong]

She should try to use just a bit more colour and exclamation points, so her site will look even more like Timecube.

PS. Does she ever actually say exactly what this science degree is, where she got it, etc?

[Shrykull]

She should try to use just a bit more colour and exclamation points, so her site will look even more like Timecube.

PS. Does she ever actually say exactly what this science degree is, where she got it, etc?

Hmm, I guess you're thinking diploma mill in this case? I don't think she does, just says in her explanation of how she stopped being an atheist, that she got her "coveted science degree" or something like that.