SirAnonymous

I'm not suggesting I YOLO anything.

It's funny to say that hammering someone is scummy when the primary tool of town to oust scum is [drum roll] hammering them.

The lack of the theme split should mean we should care even less about the justification.

In fact, I'll hammer the first person to get to L-1 (that isnt me)

Why exactly? I thought his defense of himself was pretty townie. Skittlez didn't even try to defend himself as scum in stormlight, but when I was on him for bandwagoning in naruto, it was like 99% of his posts were just to defend himself as town. Defensiveness for him is kind of a town tell.

Fuck it.

Intelligence is town. I am his lover. 

You're the last to arrive, so to encourage activity...

VTL Lunatic.

What if Trump manages to bring the election outcome before the court (a la 2000)?  

You are a pathetic coward. 

For anyone still reading this far: BOOKMARK THIS POST. Several people talked about how such and such combination is unbalanced. Personally, I have been quite clear and vocal on this matter: YOU CANNOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT BALANCE WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE ROLES. Looking at two roles and saying they can't be in the game together because that would be OP is bogus because you don't know what other roles exist that could balance it out. You simply don't know until you know what the Mafia can do and you can't know that until you kill them all.

And so you make the argument circular . 

And on the other you say the command to kill your child for this behaviour is not wrong.

And then on top of this you  insist that I first prove evil exist although that in  your own scripture the word evil appears in the entire Bible 613 times in 569 verses in 343 chapters in 60 books. The word evildoer appears 2 times and evildoers appears 12 times in the KJV Bible.

The  fact of the matter  is you are just not brave enough to admit that the bible is wrong to have such a horrific and vicious command from god.

But instead choose to throw the onus onto the questioner. 

Don't waste your time telling me I have to prove anything, because  I don't.

Becoming irrational is anathema to logical debate and incivility does not facilitate frank conversation. 

I agree that neither of us has the answer.

So it the bible wrong then? Is what god clearly states and commands wrong too.?

The onus is not on me.

Nonsense. It is the bible I am questioning and the vile commands of your god.

You are reminding me of that dulcet dunce ethag5. He too attempts deny what the bible states

It a bit late in the day to throw that oft used line  -  your taking it/them out of context .  But if you believe it to be the case, then why didn't you simply put those  vile words of your gods commandment into the correct "context" for me in the first place?

I may have had a better understanding of the words. Here you go, put these biblical words into context for me, right now. " Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."

I have every right to say your god is a vile and vicious god who kills for no reason and to question his commands and to scrutinize and question the whole of the scriptures.

My morality is not the issue as much as you want to throw the onus on me.

These are definitional truths. They are true because of how we define two, four, five circle and square. They are based on linguistic conventions more than logic. I don't mind using language prescriptively but you can't just define something into existence you must actually demonstrate that something which fits your definition actually exists.

We can demonstrate that trees grow from acorns. We have multiple documented cases. We have one universe whose origin we can only speculate on. That gives us a documented sample size of zero and that gives us nothing to base our logic on.

Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistent

 why on earth would I grant necessarily powerful or knowledge entity whatever that means? 

Logic is based on the fact that the universe behaves predictably. That the past repeats itself. That is a problem when dealing with an event (if you can call it that) which we cannot observe and does not follow predictable patterns that can be described mathematically. 

In any case logically speaking we cannot suggest anything as a cause before we establish that thing as existing.

Even if I grant the idea of some sort of prime mover unless you can make a case for your particular prime mover over world creating pixies and flying spaghetti monsters and indeed mindless processes governed purely by naturalistic forces as your timeless spaceless eternal cause then your argument doesn't support your conclusion. 

But then you accept that evil exists , the bible makes it clear that evil exists but you want me to prove that evil exists to discuss evil.

Most Legendary Beat Ever

Why is my question about the command from god to you to kill your children if they curse or dishonour you, silly?

You may not know what you would do, but you know what your god commands you to do,  yet you seem to have no issue with this vile command in the slightest. 

Well this is what you have said above _  " To put it simply, you keep trying to prove that God is evil, but you don't have any way of proving that evil even exists.". : #133

So shall we ignore the bible and its 569 verses that all  speak of evil existing and dismiss it as nonsense and to be un-provable " that it even exists" ?

Asking questions of your own in response to my questions is not answering my question.  You theist seem to think by doing this that you have addressed the issue raised. 

It matters not what I believe is objective or subjective.

Although, I have addressed your question above at post # #134

SEE HERE>>>>>>>Apart from gods own hypocrisy of thou shall not kill then immediately orders Moses to murder thousands of his own people? 

A sound argument with unverified premises is as liable to arrive at untruth as truth.

Mine is that Minecraft will get a Cave update.

And I reject your hypothesis as untestable. Now what?

Your definition has become circular. Existence means a thing that is real and a real thing exists. May I suggest that the only useful definition is observable and independently verifiable.

 That definition may not cover all "undiscovered truths" whatever they may be but it eliminates absurd arguments such as loch ness bigfoot flying spaghetti flat earth voltron theory. If we allow unverified "truths" to enter the discussion where will it end?

I wish that China can stop torturing Uyghur Muslims(No, that is an actual wish, but you can corrupt it to any extents)

That it seems nonsensical to you does not mean it is not a possibility.

The tautologically nothing as you describe it cannot be somethings cause. This is not the same as saying something could come about without a cause.

This is not especially helpful. What does it mean to be or to be real? How do we verify that things are real? That they are? What qualities does a thing have that make it real?

 I think I've pointed out that while I am not advocating for this position even if it seems like a nonsensical statement to say that time has always existed to us does not preclude it being the actual case. 

Same as above. That this would seem counter intuitive is true but our best evidence that nothing occurs without a cause is that we have not confirmed positively any things that don't. Now we have observed virtual particles that appear to be causeless but if I claim that they are in fact without cause I would be committing the same black swan fallacy that you are committing when you say that the universe in fact does have a cause. The best we can say of either is that we are unaware of any demonstrable cause.

We both accept this as a possibility but while other potential possibilities exist we cannot rule that it is a necessary only a sufficient and an explanation being sufficient =/= it being true. On a separate note this thinking does not get us to a creator even if we accept it as necessary it only gets us to a cause.

Again this would seem counter intuitive but that does not make it necessarily untrue. Perhaps causation I'd not necessarily linear, especially if objects enteties and/or causes can exist outside of time (itself as seemingly impossible to me as something happening without a cause or time existing forever).