That was a revelation by God, at least the voice said it was God, could of been an alien, or a delusion, doesn't matter, or I could of made it up, you have no way to tell.
This is an insult to my intelligence, regardless of your intentions.
That you're still asking me to "prove God" demonstrates you had no such experience at all... and yet you expect me to believe your lies just because I believe there is a god? Idiocy, all the way down.
I don't intend to insult your intelligence in anyway, I would never make a personal attack directly at you as I don't know you. If you felt at anytime I did then I'm sorry, it was intended to come off that way, but I seriously want to hear what ace's you have in your pocket to prove God, Please!.
That is not an apology. You claim ignorance and innocent intentions, and then say you're sorry for my feelings, which you are not responsible for.
The facts are that you made up a stupid lie and you expected me to believe it. Apologize for your actions, not for my feelings, and do so without excuses.
I've asked you several times to make arguments in the name of God, you've rejected it.
Because you don't have the intellectual integrity to handle it.
For example, you lied about getting a divine revelation and it was trivially easy to poke a hole in the claim.
When you think I'm bound by my religion to accept your lies because you added "god" into the sentence... reasoned arguments are pointless.
If you can get why that was stupid, and then apologize for insulting my intelligence with such nonsense, I will provide an argument for the existence of god for you to critique.
he belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power
Which point of my atheism fits into those?
You believe in science as a superhuman ("above, beyond"-human) source of knowledge, which takes the place of God in the absence of evidence for god.
Like I said, I know religion. I'm seeing it in you. You shouldn't assume that hatred of god and disbelief in god means you escape the religious nature of mankind.
You still don't get it, for atheism to be a religion it would have to put a God in place to believe in,
For that to be true, Buddhism has to not be a religion.
And you'll note that even then, Buddhism variants everywhere have adopted various deities for worship.
What it comes down to is that religion is not actually defined by the object of the worship, it's defined by the practice. And faithful atheists like yourself practice an "Atheism" religion which apes monotheistic religions like Christianity... badly.
atheism is the exact opposite of that.
Some treat hate as the opposite of love... but they're still both emotions/actions.
Atheism may be the opposite of theism... but as practiced, it can still take on a religious flavor, because no matter if god exists or not, man is a religious being.
I've thrown the ball in your court,
You have done nothing of the sort. Your pathetic attempts at arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
either start doing that or you've shown you don't have any good reason to believe.
Actually science is not my God because I never gave science supernatural or superhuman powers.
God: 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
How is faith in atheism not a view to live by?
So you live by faith in atheism. But you don't think you have a religion. Heh.
If you are an example of a faithful atheist, I pray to God that I never get that foolish.
Give me some examples on what religion gives you that I don't have and why it's more rsional then what I believe and why.
This entire thread is exactly that.
You don't get it. That you don't get what I'm talking about is part of why your atheism has zero attraction to me. It's a stupid religion for the fools who hate religion (!).
God is basically a way of saying, "I give up looking for an answer, so I'll be happy to hold my beliefs over science."
Oh look, there's your dogmatic recitation of fatih in SCIENCE, again!
I know religion. You have religion. You made SCIENCE your god... which is utterly inadequate for.
That makes you appear to be an adult holding a security blanket. Deal with it.
You lied to me about getting a revelation from god, I called out the lie, and now you're immediately changing the topic.
Are the words coming out of your mouth your security blanket?
Here, have a lollipop. Go cry yourself to sleep with your blankie, and learn a lesson that faith in atheism and science will not carry you through a rational argument.
Religious Faith makes you look like an adult holding a security blanket who is to afraid to live.
Considering your religious level of faith in atheism... that sounds like pure projection.
That was a revelation by God, at least the voice said it was God, could of been an alien, or a delusion, doesn't matter, or I could of made it up, you have no way to tell.
You made it up. That's what the evidence points towards.
Why? Because if you had an actual experience with some god, and wanted to pass on your revelation... you would not be mocking religious faith as you are doing even now.
You would be humbled, rather than arrogantly accusing.
That you're not even smart enough to see how your lie falls apart is once again a demonstration of how foolish atheist thinking is. You do not understand faith, and so you belittle it, and then make utterly incompetent criticisms of it in ignorance.
Intelligence would be to criticize with knowledge and understanding, you idiot.
There, if you honestly believe in the bible or that God can talk to man, you have to believe I was just given a prophecy and revealed it to man.
Idiot. You have no credbility because you're a liar (lied about being "nice"), you're a fool (doesn't understand distinction between religion/theology), and a self-described atheist (doesn't believe in god or the supernatural).
So when you claim you received a revelation, I don't have to believe you.
The problem is believing in God word on earth is that you must accept all words "spoken" by God, it's a joke, just like religious belief
No I don't. For instance, I just rejected your claim of a revelation, "spoken by God".
Did you seriously not see that coming? Religious does not mean gullible, you ignorant fool.
It should be intellectual abuse to being children up in a religious house hold, parents should face jail time for it.
Do you even have a girlfriend, let alone a wife who wants to make babies with you?
Of course, you entirely ignore the fact that Mother Theresa couldn't have believed the bible because she had never read it,
Mother Teresa's beliefs in the Bible are irrelevant to the points made in this discussion. Of course the topic is ignored.
And I do not accept your claim of fact, because you are irrational and cannot describe reality correctly.
and you can't believe or disbelieve something you never read (discovered by some of my former fundy friends when they were helping with her visit here).
So illiterate people cannot believe anything? Wrong, again.
Evidence that we live in a moral universe: We care about morality.
How many times have you appealed to morality "defined by us" as a standard of behavior?
The absurdity is that "defined by us" morality is no morality at all.
Also, how is doing bad things to people who do bad things moral?
You don't believe in self-defense, then. If a young girl is being attacked by a robber, a rapist, a murderer... you would call her immoral for defending herself with a weapon and doing bad things to her attacker. She must submit to the robbery, the rape, to die... or be called immoral by you.
Funny how you do nothing about the immoral robber, rapist, murderer. You help the immoral instead of the victim... and you call this "morality"?
If there were a universal standard, we certainly haven't found it.
You confuse rebellion against a universal standard with an inability to find the universal standard.
Same-sex marriage and child adoption are not longer "bad things" - to the contrary, children raised by same-sex couples are exposed to far less domestic violence.
" Divorce represents one of the most stressful life events for both children and their parents."
That's the thing about "universal standards" - there are so many different ones.
Yes, there are an infinite number of wrong answers.
1+1 = 3 is wrong. 1+1 = 4 is wrong. 1+1 = 5 is wrong....
That does not mean there is no right answer. That does not mean that it is impossible to find the right answer. People who argue what you just argued are beyond stupid, you are foolish.
The stupid can't help it; the foolish choose it. The upside is that you can choose to stop being foolish. Repent.
If you expect moral behavior from people, history disagrees with you.
History is not a person that can disagree with me.
I'll clarify, though. It's not that I think people will do what is right; it's that I think there is a universal standard of behavior people ought to live up to. We live in a moral universe; that's why we expect morality of people and do bad things to those who don't do so.
We get to decide. Why do you have a problem with that, since there's no evidence that the universe is ethical or just or moral?
You are confusing "I" and "We". You are not "We". You are a freak who looks down on mankind as irrational beings.
I do not. And that's because morality is not a popularity contest amongst the irrational; one piece of evidence for that is that you would strenuously object to being burned at the stake for being a transsexual - even if that is the popular thing to do to freakish people.
I would object as well, as annoying as you may be on this online forum. You still have a dignity as a human being that should be respected. Destroy the belief in that moral standard at your own risk.
I don't believe people are irrational and wrong the way you do. That's why we ought to expect moral behavior from them; which you expect also, even as you believe in a universe where such expectations are irrational.
Oh, right, you believe that just because people believe there is a god, that's a reason to believe there is a god. No logic there!
I explained my point, and it's not what you are saying here. Oh well.
Our "morals and ethics" have, as I've pointed out previously, changed in contradictory ways over time.
In an amoral universe, "morals and ethics" do not matter. They are no better or worse over time. Since you don't think they have any factual basis, contradictory is no better or worse than consistency.
Look at how many people use the bible as an excuse
In an amoral universe with no facts to support morality, everything is an excuse. Why single out the Bible?
they're not acting rationally based on any evidence.
In an amoral universe, why does it matter if people act rationally or irrationally?
The bible is worse than wikipedia.
According to what? The morality you made up today, based on excuses?
While they're both written by a bunch of people, at least with wikipedia we can independently verify the sources.
What does independence and verification matter in an amoral universe where morality is based off of excuses?
Your own citation acknowledges that it may very well be that the masses believed in a flat earth at one time.
The sentence doesn't take a position. It may very well be that the masses never believed in a flat earth at any time.
Logic is hard for the irrational.
my position, according to your own citation, is quite reasonable.
Based on 0 facts. You only have excuses according to your own standards. Why do you use excuses instead of reasons? You've actually said why: "And I'm certainly not rational all the time"
You're being irrational right now... and most of the time.
I don't have to provide absolute proof, just reasonable proof. Just as you can't provide absolute proof against it.
History doesn't do "proofs", you ignoramus. There's historical evidence, and there's lack of historical evidence. And then there's false histories fabricated to support ignorant prejudice, like the flat earth myth.
Rational people don't feel a need to lie about other people present and past in order to feel better about themselves, "Barbara".
No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
If there's no fact making slavery/discrimination "illegal", then those aren't reasons, those are just excuses.
Just because the universe is amoral doesn't mean we can't choose to define our own morals and ethics.
In an amoral universe, there is no morality. Nor does rationality matter. There's no such thing as a reason why a confused transsexual like yourself shouldn't be discriminated against.
When you say it's not my cite but yours, you're lying [slashdot.org].
I didn't say it was your citation. My citation was in response to an unsupported claim from you; that you have still failed to support with any facts.
You're irrational. You managed to trip up on summarizing the discussion and who has the burden of proof on which claims.
You're the one who linked to it first, not me.
My linking the article is not in dispute. I linked it in response to your unsupported claim.
You can't pick and choose just the portions of your citation that agree with you and ignore the rest.
The Wiki article does not state that the public at large believed in a flat earth.
That is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dumb.
You believe that a quotation that avoids taking a position either way is evidence for your position. You are dumb, and your accusations of dishonesty have no weight.
Then that means that what you judge to be Evil could be Good from someone else's perspective.
In general an act is good if the majority of society deems it good, knowing the full truth, and an act is evil is the majority of society deem is evil, knowing the full truth.
So majority vote on what is Good/Evil... Assuming that knowing the full truth is always Good... except that it isn't, because it's relative too if Good/Evil are relative.
Given your own philosophy, there's nothing wrong with Mother Teresa's actions. You just personally object to what she did... but it's majority vote if it's actually Good/Evil... And you haven't actually put that up to a vote.
You believe nonsense, all the way down. The fool says in his heart that there is no god. Ever learn that in your Christian Bible studies?
And I showed you that your own cite said that it was quite possible the majority believed the world was flat.
That's not remotely evidence that the majority believed the world was flat.
It's possible you're a liar. That possibility is not evidence that you're a liar.
Not my cite, yours. Why do you have a problem getting that.
It's not evidence, you dimwit.
The majority do not believe things for a reason. Belief in something that contradicts the facts isn't reasonable. They can make excuses for it, but they don't have a reason - just excuses.
So far, your definition of "excuse" has been "reasons for things I don't like".
The majority is wrong so often that trying to say they do things "rationally" - based on reason - is just wrong.
Any God which wouldn't stop that is no God I want to even acknowledge [...]
God doesn't exist because Mother Teresa is worse than Hitler. Interesting. And stupid.
That isn't evidence that God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, you'd have to explain why Good/Evil exist and why we should be judging Teresa on that.
Shocking how people aren't taught the truth, but at least now you know.
No, I don't know. I haven't forgotten all the unnecessary errors you made over the past dozen posts.
You aren't nice, you don't know religion, you don't know theology, you don't know philosophy; I cannot accept anything you say at face value.
If you start with her Christian/Catholic religion's definition of good... "no, not one".
Me, I don't consider my judgement of another's goodness to be useful, so I haven't paid close attention to her life, or that of other historical figures/celebrities.
As far as she sacrificed and successfully helped the poor; those are good acts. If she was not successful in helping the poor, she had good intentions but not good actions; results matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I accept your apology. Posting here since that previous article is now locked to comments.
I guess this is as good a place to continue that previous discussion if you wish.
First of all I absolutely do not give science any power above that of man. Man preforms science to get answers and pose bigger questions.
Then no man has any obligation to accept what "science" says, which makes your constant appeals to science pointless.
Yet again, your philosophy contradicts itself. You claim one stance, but act against it.
You want me to apologize, but for what?
The following:
The Gospel of Andrew: "And God just said to me, anyone who believes in him is an idiot".
There, if you honestly believe in the bible or that God can talk to man, you have to believe I was just given a prophecy and revealed it to man.
Followed by:
That was a revelation by God, at least the voice said it was God, could of been an alien, or a delusion, doesn't matter, or I could of made it up, you have no way to tell.
This is an insult to my intelligence, regardless of your intentions.
That you're still asking me to "prove God" demonstrates you had no such experience at all ... and yet you expect me to believe your lies just because I believe there is a god? Idiocy, all the way down.
I don't intend to insult your intelligence in anyway, I would never make a personal attack directly at you as I don't know you. If you felt at anytime I did then I'm sorry, it was intended to come off that way, but I seriously want to hear what ace's you have in your pocket to prove God, Please!.
That is not an apology. You claim ignorance and innocent intentions, and then say you're sorry for my feelings, which you are not responsible for.
The facts are that you made up a stupid lie and you expected me to believe it. Apologize for your actions, not for my feelings, and do so without excuses.
I've asked you several times to make arguments in the name of God, you've rejected it.
Because you don't have the intellectual integrity to handle it.
For example, you lied about getting a divine revelation and it was trivially easy to poke a hole in the claim.
When you think I'm bound by my religion to accept your lies because you added "god" into the sentence ... reasoned arguments are pointless.
If you can get why that was stupid, and then apologize for insulting my intelligence with such nonsense, I will provide an argument for the existence of god for you to critique.
he belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power
Which point of my atheism fits into those?
You believe in science as a superhuman ("above, beyond"-human) source of knowledge, which takes the place of God in the absence of evidence for god.
Like I said, I know religion. I'm seeing it in you. You shouldn't assume that hatred of god and disbelief in god means you escape the religious nature of mankind.
You still don't get it, for atheism to be a religion it would have to put a God in place to believe in,
For that to be true, Buddhism has to not be a religion.
And you'll note that even then, Buddhism variants everywhere have adopted various deities for worship.
What it comes down to is that religion is not actually defined by the object of the worship, it's defined by the practice. And faithful atheists like yourself practice an "Atheism" religion which apes monotheistic religions like Christianity ... badly.
atheism is the exact opposite of that.
Some treat hate as the opposite of love ... but they're still both emotions/actions.
Atheism may be the opposite of theism ... but as practiced, it can still take on a religious flavor, because no matter if god exists or not, man is a religious being.
I've thrown the ball in your court,
You have done nothing of the sort. Your pathetic attempts at arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
either start doing that or you've shown you don't have any good reason to believe.
Not to be like you is reason enough to believe.
Actually science is not my God because I never gave science supernatural or superhuman powers.
God: 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
How is faith in atheism not a view to live by?
So you live by faith in atheism. But you don't think you have a religion. Heh.
If you are an example of a faithful atheist, I pray to God that I never get that foolish.
Give me some examples on what religion gives you that I don't have and why it's more rsional then what I believe and why.
This entire thread is exactly that.
You don't get it. That you don't get what I'm talking about is part of why your atheism has zero attraction to me. It's a stupid religion for the fools who hate religion (!).
God is basically a way of saying, "I give up looking for an answer, so I'll be happy to hold my beliefs over science."
Oh look, there's your dogmatic recitation of fatih in SCIENCE, again!
I know religion. You have religion. You made SCIENCE your god ... which is utterly inadequate for.
That makes you appear to be an adult holding a security blanket. Deal with it.
You lied to me about getting a revelation from god, I called out the lie, and now you're immediately changing the topic.
Are the words coming out of your mouth your security blanket?
Here, have a lollipop. Go cry yourself to sleep with your blankie, and learn a lesson that faith in atheism and science will not carry you through a rational argument.
Religious Faith makes you look like an adult holding a security blanket who is to afraid to live.
Considering your religious level of faith in atheism ... that sounds like pure projection.
That was a revelation by God, at least the voice said it was God, could of been an alien, or a delusion, doesn't matter, or I could of made it up, you have no way to tell.
You made it up. That's what the evidence points towards.
Why? Because if you had an actual experience with some god, and wanted to pass on your revelation ... you would not be mocking religious faith as you are doing even now.
You would be humbled, rather than arrogantly accusing.
That you're not even smart enough to see how your lie falls apart is once again a demonstration of how foolish atheist thinking is. You do not understand faith, and so you belittle it, and then make utterly incompetent criticisms of it in ignorance.
Intelligence would be to criticize with knowledge and understanding, you idiot.
There, if you honestly believe in the bible or that God can talk to man, you have to believe I was just given a prophecy and revealed it to man.
Idiot. You have no credbility because you're a liar (lied about being "nice"), you're a fool (doesn't understand distinction between religion/theology), and a self-described atheist (doesn't believe in god or the supernatural).
So when you claim you received a revelation, I don't have to believe you.
The problem is believing in God word on earth is that you must accept all words "spoken" by God, it's a joke, just like religious belief
No I don't. For instance, I just rejected your claim of a revelation, "spoken by God".
Did you seriously not see that coming? Religious does not mean gullible, you ignorant fool.
It should be intellectual abuse to being children up in a religious house hold, parents should face jail time for it.
Do you even have a girlfriend, let alone a wife who wants to make babies with you?
Of course, you entirely ignore the fact that Mother Theresa couldn't have believed the bible because she had never read it,
Mother Teresa's beliefs in the Bible are irrelevant to the points made in this discussion. Of course the topic is ignored.
And I do not accept your claim of fact, because you are irrational and cannot describe reality correctly.
and you can't believe or disbelieve something you never read (discovered by some of my former fundy friends when they were helping with her visit here).
So illiterate people cannot believe anything? Wrong, again.
Provide proof that we live in a moral universe.
Wrong question.
Evidence that we live in a moral universe: We care about morality.
How many times have you appealed to morality "defined by us" as a standard of behavior?
The absurdity is that "defined by us" morality is no morality at all.
Also, how is doing bad things to people who do bad things moral?
You don't believe in self-defense, then. If a young girl is being attacked by a robber, a rapist, a murderer ... you would call her immoral for defending herself with a weapon and doing bad things to her attacker. She must submit to the robbery, the rape, to die ... or be called immoral by you.
Funny how you do nothing about the immoral robber, rapist, murderer. You help the immoral instead of the victim ... and you call this "morality"?
If there were a universal standard, we certainly haven't found it.
You confuse rebellion against a universal standard with an inability to find the universal standard.
Same-sex marriage and child adoption are not longer "bad things" - to the contrary, children raised by same-sex couples are exposed to far less domestic violence.
Liar.
Divorce is not longer a "bad thing."
Liar yet again.
" Divorce represents one of the most stressful life events for both children and their parents."
That's the thing about "universal standards" - there are so many different ones.
Yes, there are an infinite number of wrong answers.
1+1 = 3 is wrong. 1+1 = 4 is wrong. 1+1 = 5 is wrong ....
That does not mean there is no right answer. That does not mean that it is impossible to find the right answer. People who argue what you just argued are beyond stupid, you are foolish.
The stupid can't help it; the foolish choose it. The upside is that you can choose to stop being foolish. Repent.
Now you claim I am a freak and mentally ill because I am a transsexual. The medical community disagrees with you. So does the law.
I didn't say mentally ill. You cannot help lying about what I actually said.
Your boy parts don't become girl parts just because you're willing to mutilate them. That level of delusion is what makes you a freak.
Now, why do you care what the irrational proclamations of the law and medical boards say about you? (irrational majority, remember?)
while you think that burning at the stake is "the popular thing to do with freakish people
Replace "is" with "were to be". It was supposed to be a hypothetical, not an observation. I guess English is not your native language.
After all, our society sets what is and what isn't moral and ethical, and where I sit, we have laws against that.
What has changed can change again. Why do you expect consistency from an irrational law set by an irrational majority?
If you expect moral behavior from people, history disagrees with you.
History is not a person that can disagree with me.
I'll clarify, though. It's not that I think people will do what is right; it's that I think there is a universal standard of behavior people ought to live up to. We live in a moral universe; that's why we expect morality of people and do bad things to those who don't do so.
We get to decide. Why do you have a problem with that, since there's no evidence that the universe is ethical or just or moral?
You are confusing "I" and "We". You are not "We". You are a freak who looks down on mankind as irrational beings.
I do not. And that's because morality is not a popularity contest amongst the irrational; one piece of evidence for that is that you would strenuously object to being burned at the stake for being a transsexual - even if that is the popular thing to do to freakish people.
I would object as well, as annoying as you may be on this online forum. You still have a dignity as a human being that should be respected. Destroy the belief in that moral standard at your own risk.
Lie, duh!
I have no interest in lying to you.
I don't believe people are irrational and wrong the way you do. That's why we ought to expect moral behavior from them; which you expect also, even as you believe in a universe where such expectations are irrational.
Oh, right, you believe that just because people believe there is a god, that's a reason to believe there is a god. No logic there!
I explained my point, and it's not what you are saying here. Oh well.
Our "morals and ethics" have, as I've pointed out previously, changed in contradictory ways over time.
In an amoral universe, "morals and ethics" do not matter. They are no better or worse over time. Since you don't think they have any factual basis, contradictory is no better or worse than consistency.
Look at how many people use the bible as an excuse
In an amoral universe with no facts to support morality, everything is an excuse. Why single out the Bible?
they're not acting rationally based on any evidence.
In an amoral universe, why does it matter if people act rationally or irrationally?
The bible is worse than wikipedia.
According to what? The morality you made up today, based on excuses?
While they're both written by a bunch of people, at least with wikipedia we can independently verify the sources.
What does independence and verification matter in an amoral universe where morality is based off of excuses?
Do what?
Your own citation acknowledges that it may very well be that the masses believed in a flat earth at one time.
The sentence doesn't take a position. It may very well be that the masses never believed in a flat earth at any time.
Logic is hard for the irrational.
my position, according to your own citation, is quite reasonable.
Based on 0 facts. You only have excuses according to your own standards. Why do you use excuses instead of reasons? You've actually said why: "And I'm certainly not rational all the time"
You're being irrational right now ... and most of the time.
I don't have to provide absolute proof, just reasonable proof. Just as you can't provide absolute proof against it.
History doesn't do "proofs", you ignoramus. There's historical evidence, and there's lack of historical evidence. And then there's false histories fabricated to support ignorant prejudice, like the flat earth myth.
Rational people don't feel a need to lie about other people present and past in order to feel better about themselves, "Barbara".
Nice to ignore my point - that WE get to decide the rules.
You think WE is irrational.
These rules are not based on any natural facts - they are quite arbitrary. As such, they are subject to change. See stuff like same-sex marriage.
If it's not based on facts, you say it's not a reason. Thus, no reason, just an excuse. Irrational.
If you have a problem with that, then you need to look up the definition of society.
Why are you asking me to use reason with definitions when society is irrational, morality is irrational, and all the rules are based off of excuses?
You believe nonsense, all the way down. The fool says in his heart that there is no god. Ever learn that in your Christian Bible studies?
Quoting the bible to defend God is like me quoting harry potter to define hogwarts. Grow up.
Foolish atheist. You can't even get the simplest of points.
I quoted the Bible to call you a fool. I don't even need to defend God against your intellectual diarrhea.
Now grow up and get a real philosophy. Even a house of cards has more durability than what you have right now.
There is no "fact" that makes any of those actions illegal.
Remember saying this?
No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
If there's no fact making slavery/discrimination "illegal", then those aren't reasons, those are just excuses.
Just because the universe is amoral doesn't mean we can't choose to define our own morals and ethics.
In an amoral universe, there is no morality. Nor does rationality matter. There's no such thing as a reason why a confused transsexual like yourself shouldn't be discriminated against.
Enjoy the harvest of what you sowed.
When you say it's not my cite but yours, you're lying [slashdot.org].
I didn't say it was your citation. My citation was in response to an unsupported claim from you; that you have still failed to support with any facts.
You're irrational. You managed to trip up on summarizing the discussion and who has the burden of proof on which claims.
You're the one who linked to it first, not me.
My linking the article is not in dispute. I linked it in response to your unsupported claim.
You can't pick and choose just the portions of your citation that agree with you and ignore the rest.
The Wiki article does not state that the public at large believed in a flat earth.
That is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dumb.
You believe that a quotation that avoids taking a position either way is evidence for your position. You are dumb, and your accusations of dishonesty have no weight.
Good / Evil are relative
Then that means that what you judge to be Evil could be Good from someone else's perspective.
In general an act is good if the majority of society deems it good, knowing the full truth, and an act is evil is the majority of society deem is evil, knowing the full truth.
So majority vote on what is Good/Evil ... Assuming that knowing the full truth is always Good ... except that it isn't, because it's relative too if Good/Evil are relative.
Given your own philosophy, there's nothing wrong with Mother Teresa's actions. You just personally object to what she did ... but it's majority vote if it's actually Good/Evil ... And you haven't actually put that up to a vote.
You believe nonsense, all the way down. The fool says in his heart that there is no god. Ever learn that in your Christian Bible studies?
And I showed you that your own cite said that it was quite possible the majority believed the world was flat.
That's not remotely evidence that the majority believed the world was flat.
It's possible you're a liar. That possibility is not evidence that you're a liar.
Not my cite, yours. Why do you have a problem getting that.
It's not evidence, you dimwit.
The majority do not believe things for a reason. Belief in something that contradicts the facts isn't reasonable. They can make excuses for it, but they don't have a reason - just excuses.
So far, your definition of "excuse" has been "reasons for things I don't like".
The majority is wrong so often that trying to say they do things "rationally" - based on reason - is just wrong.
What fact makes being wrong, wrong?
Any God which wouldn't stop that is no God I want to even acknowledge [...]
God doesn't exist because Mother Teresa is worse than Hitler. Interesting. And stupid.
That isn't evidence that God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, you'd have to explain why Good/Evil exist and why we should be judging Teresa on that.
Shocking how people aren't taught the truth, but at least now you know.
No, I don't know. I haven't forgotten all the unnecessary errors you made over the past dozen posts.
You aren't nice, you don't know religion, you don't know theology, you don't know philosophy; I cannot accept anything you say at face value.
Sure, why not.
Was Mother Teresa a good person?
Depends on your standard of good.
If you start with her Christian/Catholic religion's definition of good ... "no, not one".
Me, I don't consider my judgement of another's goodness to be useful, so I haven't paid close attention to her life, or that of other historical figures/celebrities.
As far as she sacrificed and successfully helped the poor; those are good acts. If she was not successful in helping the poor, she had good intentions but not good actions; results matter.