My integrity nor my character or faith is in question.

Your integrity and character are absolutely questionable, and I explained why. I've pointed to specific examples of your dishonesty.

I'm not questioning your faith.

>what you want I'm intellectually honest about my faith,
>beliefs, and responses.

No, you're intellectually dishonest in the way that you engage. You seem to confuse the fact that you believe the things you say with whether or not your responding honestly to the question or statement being posed.

The bulk of your responses have been non sequiturs that dodge, deflect or divert from the points that were raised, and fun fact: your four questions have been, in great part, what you've used to dodge, divert, and deflect.

These have been pointed out in real time, time and again.

>Your ability to answer the 4 questions below is in question.

And here you are, grandstanding.

You've created a situation where I either enable your dishonest tact by giving your dishonest diversions an honest response, or I hold your feet to the fire you created with your dishonesty.

>And your ability to understand what the meanings of the
>following two words Atheist and Omnipotence is also in
>question.

lol. seriously. lol. atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Simple.

Which means that if there is a god that you do not believe in, you are an atheist in regard to the notion of that particular god. Your belief in a different god does not change this.

Omnipotence is to have unlimited power or authority.

If there is a logical limit, then that is a limit, which is not unlimited. Creating an internally consistent tautology to define your god doesn't make that god omnipotent.

I clearly have a firm grasp on both terms.

>I've answered you and have given you straight answers many
>times.

No, I'm specifically referring to the non-sequitur answers you've given countless times, and specifically in the use of these four questions as a response. You don't get to pretend that providing such responses are intellectually honest.

>You don't like my responses because I wont dance to
>your beat.

First, it has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” your responses. It’s about whether your responses make sense as response to what I’ve actually said, and ignoring my statements in entirety and replying with a question irrelevant to my responses is an intellectually dishonest response. Period.

But here you are, actively changing the terms to fit a fictional narrative you’re creating in real time.

And here I am, pointing out exactly what you’re doing with specificity.

>Also, youcan't handle being on the Hot Seat or being put in a
>corner to justify your views when it comes to my questions.

LMAO is the random, unnecessary capitalization a byproduct of a condition you have, or just plain trolling?

>But you hate God.

No, I don't believe in a god. Any god. I think you may be genuinely incapable of grasping that difference though.

That's why you
>constantly run up into my post trying to debate, bash,
>disrespect and challenge my beliefs.

Way to blame your god for your actions. That’s a fantastic bonus.

Debate? Challenge? Sure. But then, you posted things about reconciling faith with science and another making the grandiose statement that there must be a moral lawgiver. Both were question begging train wrecks, and I pointed out those problems, directly.

My issue was with the premises presented in the articles, not with a deity for which no good supporting evidence exists.

Bash? Disrespect? I call out your dishonesty where and when it happens, directly and specifically. If you don’t like being called out for things like, oh, I don’t know….. posting a debate, asking people to watch, and poisoning the well by setting up a very biased perception of what will take place before they hit change your approach.

Because me calling that out has zero to do with a fictional deity created by bronze age sheep herders, and everything to do with the tactics you employed in the process.

And that’s the best part of all this:

You watched your Charlemagne post fall like a delusional person at Benny Hinn show, and decided to get your numbers by going pop with a post deliberately designed to garner the response it got.

>You never ask questions without issues a passive aggressive or
>an aggressively disrespectful comment.

No, I’m usually pretty direct. My disrespect is… where, exactly? If you’re referring to the times where I call a snake tactic for what it is, I’ll Bee Dat © Redman

Gladly.

And it’s not passive aggressive to point out the obvious issues in a post based around a question-begging article that did nothing but present logical fallacies and false dichotomies left and right.

>You never ask for the
>sake of getting to know why I believe anything.

I ask for the sake of getting down to the rationale behind it. That you can’t provide anything more substantial than an argument from ignorance is your problem. If you don’t like those beliefs to be challenged, keep them to yourself or save it for the usual safe spaces.

Your beliefs are all good. But when you present an article about faith reconciling with science, it’s going to get challenged. When you post about a moral “law” that requires a “law giver”, that’s going to get challenged.

You don’t get to deflect direct, detailed responses to your kindergarten apologetics by asking a question of your own, and then grandstand when I don't further enable your dishonest tact.

Sorry.

As I said in my initial reply to your farce of a post:

If you wanted genuine discussion, you would have presented this without prejudice. But you showed your hand from jump and got what you were fishing for.