I just love it
-
The "big picture" is that you said: "Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known." and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity. Though, it clearly does apply to *your* religion. "It's not christianity alone I have a beef with." Of course. That's why any second now you're going to run out into the street and yell something like: "Mohammad is a big doodie-head!" Hell, I'd be surprised if you even have the guts to write "Islam" with a small "i." I'll bet you're even very punctual to write "Qur'an," as though that spelling were more correct (and less likely to cost you your head) than "Koran."
islam koran quoran mohammed was a big doodle head. Sorry, Joergen, I couldn't wait to jump on that one. :-D You sound like you're assuming Joergen is islamic. Talk about not paying attention. :laugh:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
Islam, mohammed, dillweed allah? And for your information, the quran is spelled koran in Swedish. You know, I couldn't care less about these superstitious figures.
Ilíon wrote:
and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity.
You're still not seeing the point. But that's ok. Your only box seem to be the one with a big cross on it. Life is shiny and happy inside that box of yours, and damn those who wants you to take a peek outside it...?
Ilíon wrote:
*your* religion
Go get a dictionary and lookup the word religion.
-- Fun for the whole family - except grandma and grandpa
"Islam, mohammed, dillweed allah?" You ran out in the street and mocked the sensibilities of the "Religionists of Pieces?" Where some of them can actually respond in that manner we've all come to know and love? "And for your information, the quran is spelled koran in Swedish." It's also spelled "Koran" in English. But there are a great number of people who seem to think spelling it "Qur'an" will earn them brownie-points. And, by some odd coincidence, there is a great deal of overlap in those who are punctilious to spell it "Qur'an" and those who are punctilious to spell it "christ" and "xtianity."
You're still not seeing the point. But that's ok. Your only box seem to be the one with a big cross on it. Life is shiny and happy inside that box of yours, and damn those who wants you to take a peek outside it...?
I'd say that *you* are not getting the point. I can arm-chair psychoanalyze you, too. And my "diagnosis" is going to be closer to the mark. You 'atheists' are such interesting folk. You like to dish it out, but you don't like to get it back. Yet, there is an odd logic to that, considering that the dish you serve was dead and stale 100 years ago and the one we're serving it still biting. "Go get a dictionary and lookup the word religion." Open your eyes and get a clue.
-
islam koran quoran mohammed was a big doodle head. Sorry, Joergen, I couldn't wait to jump on that one. :-D You sound like you're assuming Joergen is islamic. Talk about not paying attention. :laugh:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
"Islam, mohammed, dillweed allah?" You ran out in the street and mocked the sensibilities of the "Religionists of Pieces?" Where some of them can actually respond in that manner we've all come to know and love? "And for your information, the quran is spelled koran in Swedish." It's also spelled "Koran" in English. But there are a great number of people who seem to think spelling it "Qur'an" will earn them brownie-points. And, by some odd coincidence, there is a great deal of overlap in those who are punctilious to spell it "Qur'an" and those who are punctilious to spell it "christ" and "xtianity."
You're still not seeing the point. But that's ok. Your only box seem to be the one with a big cross on it. Life is shiny and happy inside that box of yours, and damn those who wants you to take a peek outside it...?
I'd say that *you* are not getting the point. I can arm-chair psychoanalyze you, too. And my "diagnosis" is going to be closer to the mark. You 'atheists' are such interesting folk. You like to dish it out, but you don't like to get it back. Yet, there is an odd logic to that, considering that the dish you serve was dead and stale 100 years ago and the one we're serving it still biting. "Go get a dictionary and lookup the word religion." Open your eyes and get a clue.
Ilíon wrote:
You 'atheists' are such interesting folk. You like to dish it out, but you don't like to get it back.
You don't seem so full of the milk of human kindness, brotherly love, and turning the other cheek. Sounds like we're getting under your skin to me. I guess self righteous applies, too. :suss:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
"You sound like you're assuming Joergen is islamic. Talk about not paying attention." Just how dense are you? No, seriously, I want to know.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You 'atheists' are such interesting folk. You like to dish it out, but you don't like to get it back.
You don't seem so full of the milk of human kindness, brotherly love, and turning the other cheek. Sounds like we're getting under your skin to me. I guess self righteous applies, too. :suss:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Oh, now *that* hurts. I am just wounded to the quick. I don't know where you 'atheists' get this strange idea that "turning the other cheek" has anything to do with being a door-mat or allowing obvious falsefoods and irrationalities to go unchallenged. But wherever you get this strange idea, you'd really better get over it. If you can't handle me, you're really not going to like the next generation of us. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that offensive the mention that we have a next generation?
-
This is bad, Hannibal Wjousts, real bad!
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
CleaKO wrote:
Wow, you forced me to lookup a word. I would say that there is a huge difference here, it is one thing to believe that someone existed, that they did certain things, that they died a certain way, but there arent religions based on all of those things. Religion is the deciding factor here.
Religion is only the deciding factor because it's at odds with an atheist's belief. Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted when it comes to history. We know Marie Antoinette was beheaded because there were eyewitness accounts. We know Julius Caesar was assassinated thanks to Plutarch. We know of Socrates because of Plato. And yet, for obvious reasons, the atheist who accepts all these things suddenly decides that Jesus never existed and didn't perform miracles because there's simply not enough evidence. Never mind that in the case of Caesar and Socrates we have only one recording witness each and in the case of Jesus we have four. After all, it's more important to suspend use of logic when your dogma is at stake.
Red Stateler wrote:
Religion is only the deciding factor because it's at odds with an atheist's belief. Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted when it comes to history.
No, they aren't. There are lots of accounts of magical going ons with historical figures that never make it into the history books because historians dismiss them as nonsense. The appropriate standard was laid down by British philosopher David Hume.
[N]o Testimony is sufficient to establish a Miracle, unless the Testimony be of such a Kind, that its Falshood would be more miraculous, than the Fact, which it endeavours to establish David Hume: Of Miracles, 1748.
John Carson
-
Ilíon wrote:
Just how dense are you?
A little less dense than water overall. I float. Does that make me a witch?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
Does that make me a witch?
Not unless you weigh the same as a duck!
Rhys
ELYSIUM, n. An imaginary delightful country which the ancients foolishly believed to be inhabited by the spirits of the good. This ridiculous and mischievous fable was swept off the face of the earth by the early Christians -- may their souls be happy in Heaven!
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914)
Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.
Louis D. Brandeis (1856 - 1941)
-
"Islam, mohammed, dillweed allah?" You ran out in the street and mocked the sensibilities of the "Religionists of Pieces?" Where some of them can actually respond in that manner we've all come to know and love? "And for your information, the quran is spelled koran in Swedish." It's also spelled "Koran" in English. But there are a great number of people who seem to think spelling it "Qur'an" will earn them brownie-points. And, by some odd coincidence, there is a great deal of overlap in those who are punctilious to spell it "Qur'an" and those who are punctilious to spell it "christ" and "xtianity."
You're still not seeing the point. But that's ok. Your only box seem to be the one with a big cross on it. Life is shiny and happy inside that box of yours, and damn those who wants you to take a peek outside it...?
I'd say that *you* are not getting the point. I can arm-chair psychoanalyze you, too. And my "diagnosis" is going to be closer to the mark. You 'atheists' are such interesting folk. You like to dish it out, but you don't like to get it back. Yet, there is an odd logic to that, considering that the dish you serve was dead and stale 100 years ago and the one we're serving it still biting. "Go get a dictionary and lookup the word religion." Open your eyes and get a clue.
Yes, I don't like to get it back by deluded people who believe in fairy tales.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
-
Yes, I don't like to get it back by deluded people who believe in fairy tales.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
-
Translation: "I can't deal with the logical consequences of my own "logic" and my own assertions about the nature of reality."
Your theological pseudo-arguments just aren't worth arguing with. I don't care to be your Don Quixote.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
-
Your theological pseudo-arguments just aren't worth arguing with. I don't care to be your Don Quixote.
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
If my arguments are indeed pseudo, and if you do indeed want no part of them, that it would seem that the rational thing for you to do is ignore them. However, I think that actual truth of the matter is that you can't deal with my arguments. And possibly you can't deal with the fact that I don't know that I'm supposed to be a door-mat. As we all *know* -- for do not 'atheists' constantly proclaim it to be so -- Christians are, by "definition," deluded. Christians are too stupid to even see that they're deluded. As we all *know* -- for do not 'atheists' constantly proclaim it to be so -- Christians cannot reason logically and there is no reason and no logic in their position. Christians are too stupid to even see that they lost the fight before it started. And here I am, refusing to be illogical. And here I am, rubbing the noses of the 'atheists' in the logic of their own reasonings. And here I am, making a public specticle of the illogic of the 'atheists.' What I think is that you can't face real logical reasoning. You seem to do quite well when you're in the hot-house, tenderly shielded from opposing reasoning. But, damn! someone brought the outside into the hot-house, and you can't deal with it.
-
digital man wrote:
Oh dear: I accidently just gave you 5: sorry, I meant to give you a 1. Never mind: I'm sure we'll both get over it.
Don't worry. The left-wing circle jerk that is the Soapbox will guarantee me plenty of ones for my dissent. After all, you leftists do have a philosophy with all the sophistication the middle ages could provide. I'm surprides you're not endorsing my house arrest!
Red Stateler wrote:
After all, you leftists do have a philosophy with all the sophistication the middle ages could provide.
Actually, your statement is a reflection of some anti-Christian propaganda ... The persons who started this (the 'Enlightened' secularists of 200 or so years ago) *knew* they were lying, but did it anyway. People who repeat it today (often) do not realize it is false. But it is false, nonetheless. The truth is, the phrase "Dark Ages" is anti-Christian mythology. The truth is, the "Middle Ages" (aka "Dark Ages") were a brilliant time of philosophical, technical and scientific advancement. In fact, what we call modern science is a direct development of those so-called "Dark Ages." The truth is, "the Renaissance" was -- intellectually speaking -- a step backwards.