Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on November 24, 2015, 03:59:43 PM
-
deleted
-
Some people don't seem to understand that this is an internet forum, and as such is as far from the real world as you can effectively get. If you take it so seriously, then you need to get a hobby, and occupy your mind with something substantial.
-
Some people don't seem to understand that this is an internet forum, and as such is as far from the real world as you can effectively get. If you take it so seriously, then you need to get a hobby, and occupy your mind with something substantial.
Then why do you complain at the odd use of bad language, if, as you say, you are not taking it seriously?
-
Then why do you complain at the odd use of bad language, if, as you say, you are not taking it seriously?
It is not whether the forum is serious or not, in this instance, it is about your respect for others and how you address them when it comes to the use of foul language. The English Language, the most expressive in the world, has words for every kind of need or emotion. There are literally tens of thousands of adjectives for every need and nuance of meaning; and it speaks volumes to the sparsity of peoples' vocabularies if they cannot express themselves without expletives. Ever heard of a thesaurus?
-
Course I have - they died out with all the others 65 million years ago.
-
Course I have - they died out with all the others 65 million years ago.
;D
-
It is not whether the forum is serious or not, in this instance, it is about your respect for others and how you address them when it comes to the use of foul language. The English Language, the most expressive in the world, has words for every kind of need or emotion. There are literally tens of thousands of adjectives for every need and nuance of meaning; and it speaks volumes to the sparsity of peoples' vocabularies if they cannot express themselves without expletives. Ever heard of a thesaurus?
Fuck! If you rule out the use of swear words you're limiting your vocabulary. I would have thought that was fucking obvious.
-
It is indeed true (obvious, actually) that a vocabulary of x words + swearing is going to be larger than x - swearing. That's simple maths, not linguistics.
-
I doubt I am alone in getting extremely fed up with the very small handful of 'Christian' posters on this forum, and one in particular, who keep slagging off non believers and pagans in a very unpleasant fashion. Yet if anyone retaliates in kind they scream, whinge and throw a temper tantrum! They seem totally unable to see that their behaviour is not only very hypocritical, it sullies the faith they claim to love.
If a faith doesn't make you a better person there is no point in it, in my opinion.
Imagine how nasty these people would be if they were not Christians.
-
Imagine how nasty these people would be if they were not Christians.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
It is indeed true (obvious, actually) that a vocabulary of x words + swearing is going to be larger than x - swearing. That's simple maths, not linguistics.
And of course, spurious. You can add as many swear words as you like to your vocabulary ( in your case, taking it into the tens!), but it still doesn't by any stretch, make it acceptable to anybody with standards - you may need to look that last word up!
-
'Standards' is just your excuse for prudery.
-
'Standards' is just your excuse for prudery.
Any excuse to (try) and justify bad manners, and unnecessary bad language. It must be horrendous in your family when you get into some discussion or other. And I dread to think what your games of scrabble are like! :)
-
And of course, spurious. You can add as many swear words as you like to your vocabulary ( in your case, taking it into the tens!), but it still doesn't by any stretch, make it acceptable to anybody with standards - you may need to look that last word up!
Nope - I think old Shaky delivers some of the best fucking prose we ever see posted in this Forum!
-
Nope - I think old Shaky delivers some of the best fucking prose we ever see posted in this Forum!
I agree, his prose is the word you use to describe it!
-
Any excuse to (try) and justify bad manners, and unnecessary bad language. It must be horrendous in your family when you get into some discussion or other. And I dread to think what your games of scrabble are like! :)
Interesting in both cases :)
-
Interesting in both cases :)
But only if you are under 12. :)
-
Not really, although under 12s know all the interesting words anyway :)
-
Not really, although under 12s know all the interesting words anyway :)
They would have learned the words from the likes of you anyway.
-
They would have learned the words from the likes of you anyway.
Only if they were eavesdropping :D
-
Only if they were eavesdropping :D
They wouldn't need to eavesdrop: they need only listen to your everyday language.
-
Whilst I am not keen on swear words, particularly the 'f' word, what bugs me much more is the hypocrisy displayed by some posters who are blinded by the huge beams in their own eyes when criticising others.! :(
-
I doubt I am alone in getting extremely fed up with the very small handful of 'Christian' posters on this forum, and one in particular, who keep slagging off non believers and pagans in a very unpleasant fashion. Yet if anyone retaliates in kind they scream, whinge and throw a temper tantrum! They seem totally unable to see that their behaviour is not only very hypocritical, it sullies the faith they claim to love.
If a faith doesn't make you a better person there is no point in it, in my opinion.
And before anyone, as they surely will, points out how imperfect I am, yes realise I am far from being any kind of saint.
I think that just about every philosophy of life is brought into disrepute by posters on the board; more often than not because the people responsible have to misrepresent other philosphies in order to make their accusations against whichever philosophy they are slating sound legit. In some cases this is probably done unwittingly - perhaps because of a lack of knowledge or understanding of that philosophy.
-
Fuck! If you rule out the use of swear words you're limiting your vocabulary. I would have thought that was fucking obvious.
ad_o, with a vocabulary of about half a million words, English has a vast pool of words for every situation without use of 'swear words'. At the same time, there are situations when what appear to be swear words are being used in perfectly 'legitimate' ways. After all, most swear words date from centuries-old linguistic forms of our language that we no longer use regularly (such as Anglo-Saxon English).
-
Whilst I am not keen on swear words, particularly the 'f' word, what bugs me much more is the hypocrisy displayed by some posters who are blinded by the huge beams in their own eyes when criticising others.! :(
I agree: these atheists are just full of hypocrisy! :)
-
I agree: these atheists are just full of hypocrisy! :)
You are the only one that has been shown to be hypocritical, as Shaker has ably demonstrated.
-
You are the only one that has been shown to be hypocritical, as Shaker has ably demonstrated.
I love "discussing" with you; mainly because you always show yourself up to be so facile.
-
I love "discussing" with you; mainly because you always show yourself up to be so facile.
I think the opposite is true, but I will leave others to make their own judgement.
-
I think the opposite is true, but I will leave others to make their own judgement.
I think you are an ok poster! :)
-
I think you are an ok poster! :)
Thank you
-
I think that just about every philosophy of life is brought into disrepute by posters on the board; more often than not because the people responsible have to misrepresent other philosphies in order to make their accusations against whichever philosophy they are slating sound legit. In some cases this is probably done unwittingly - perhaps because of a lack of knowledge or understanding of that philosophy.
In some cases NOT unwittingly - as with your comments upon Paganism but, in the same case - because of a lack of knowledge or understanding of that philosophy.
-
Some people don't seem to understand that this is an internet forum
Exactly so unfortunately Floo we always have (and probably always will) have handfuls of obnoxious christians to deal with........ won't we BA ::)
-
ad_o, with a vocabulary of about half a million words, English has a vast pool of words for every situation without use of 'swear words'. At the same time, there are situations when what appear to be swear words are being used in perfectly 'legitimate' ways. After all, most swear words date from centuries-old linguistic forms of our language that we no longer use regularly (such as Anglo-Saxon English).
That at least is a fairly reasonable assessment of the matter. I'm sure St Paul would agree - Romans 14:14.
As far as I'm concerned, people can swear as much as they like: there's no apodeictic relationship between swearing and having a poor vocabulary and limited intelligence, as one trolling dimwit here keeps asserting.
-
Exactly so unfortunately Floo we always have (and probably always will) have handfuls of obnoxious christians to deal with........ won't we BA ::)
Can't find a single obnoxious, or foul-mouthed atheist anywhere on here!! ::)
-
Fuck! If you rule out the use of swear words you're limiting your vocabulary. I would have thought that was fucking obvious.
It is a limited vocabulary which means people cannot express themselves so substitute with swear words. ;D
Other people use swear words as an expression of anger and annoyance.
But there is always a time and place for that.
-
Can't find a single obnoxious, or foul-mouthed atheist anywhere on here!! ::)
Unfortunately Bash,
Atheists are as selective with truth as they are with reality.
Is it any wonder they reflect their own faults onto believers.
I guess their opinions of others are also obnoxious and need each other to support their wrong views.
-
Unfortunately Bash,
Atheists are as selective with truth as they are with reality.
Is it any wonder they reflect their own faults onto believers.
I guess their opinions of others are also obnoxious and need each other to support their wrong views.
What, all atheists?
-
What, all atheists?
No, not all.... ;D
-
No, not all.... ;D
Good!
-
Unfortunately Bash,
Atheists are as selective with truth as they are with reality.
Is it any wonder they reflect their own faults onto believers.
I guess their opinions of others are also obnoxious and need each other to support their wrong views.
As selective as people like you and your soul mate, Sass! ;D
-
As selective as people like you and your soul mate, Sass! ;D
Don't use the word "soul," since you don't believe in one; and have not the slightest inkling what it means anyway.
-
Don't use the word "soul," since you don't believe in one; and have not the slightest inkling what it means anyway.
First he came for Christmas, next he came for soul..
-
First he came for Christmas, next he came for soul..
I'm a soul man!!
-
I'm a soul man!!
Yes, you are.
Soul, definitely.
-
Yes, you are.
Soul, definitely.
Isaac Hayes and David Porter: oh, forget it.
-
Never mind Bashers; the people who read my last post quickly will get it ;)
-
Never mind Bashers; the people who read my last post quickly will get it ;)
Always assuming anybody bothers to read your post. :)
-
Always assuming anybody bothers to read your post. :)
Well you can't keep away, even or especially when you claim to be ignoring them.
-
Well you can't keep away, even or especially when you claim to be ignoring them.
But I'm a keen amateur psychologist, and like to observe the quirky. :)
-
But I'm a keen amateur psychologist, and like to observe the quirky. :)
No, that's why I'm here, as I don't like zoos and they won't let you do the shilling tour of the asylums any more.
-
No, that's why I'm here, as I don't like zoos and they won't let you do the shilling tour of the asylums any more.
Yes, I know from past references that you liked to visit asylums. I suppose you felt comfortable in the environment. :)
-
It is a limited vocabulary which means people cannot express themselves so substitute with swear words. ;D
Other people use swear words as an expression of anger and annoyance.
But there is always a time and place for that.
Sass? you can make sense, I agree with you, but the world changes as time goes by and swearing is no longer frowned on by our newer generation and when you think about it they are only words, I still don't like to see or hear them, after the third swear word here in my home, I start to think about if I want this person here or not.
I still don't expect anyone to exclaim 'oh what a nuisance I've hit my thumb with a hammer', so as you say Sass there's a time and place.
ippy
-
I found this on another forum. Talk about bringing Christianity into disrepute and then some! >:(
Evangelist Calls On Christians To Assassinate Abortion Providers
Popular Facebook evangelist Joshua Feuerstein calls on Christians to “punish Planned Parenthood” and make abortion providers fear for their life.
The obnoxious but popular Christian evangelist Joshua Feuerstein published the following video to his Facebook page on July 29:
Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.
I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life.
After a Christian terrorist shot and killed two civilians and a police officer and injured nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on Friday, Feuerstein removed the despicable call to violence from his Facebook page.
The video is important because it demonstrates a dangerous and radical strain of Christian extremism that enjoys considerable popularity, and is part of a much larger campaign waged by conservative Christians within the Republican party to demonize abortion providers and Planned Parenthood.
Feuerstein, a former pastor who calls himself a “social media personality,” is no stranger to making controversial and dangerous statements. Feuerstein was behind the recent Christian freak out over Starbucks’ alleged “anti-Jesus” red holiday cups.
Even more alarming, last year Feuerstein encouraged Christians to fight same-sex marriage with guns.
Feuerstein may be an ignorant and ugly religious zealot, but with over 1.8 million Facebook followers his influence should not be underestimated. And while it is unclear whether or not the Christian terrorist behind the recent attack on Planned Parenthood was directly influenced by Feuerstein’s dangerous call to action, there can be no doubt that the video feeds and encourages the dangerous climate that makes terrorist acts against Planned Parenthood not only likely, but inevitable.
Bottom line: Feuerstein is a Christian terrorist promoting Christian terrorism.
-
I found this on another forum. Talk about bringing Christianity into disrepute and then some! >:(
I think the selling of aborted body parts (without permission) that PP has been accused of brings the organization, perhaps even society if it condones the action, no less into disrepute.
-
"No less" than threatening murder to medical people doing their lawful job?
Literally no less?
Are you serious?
-
I think the selling of aborted body parts (without permission) that PP has been accused of brings the organization, perhaps even society if it condones the action, no less into disrepute.
You mean the accusation that so far on all investigations been found to be false? What about editing videos to misrepresent PP?
-
"No less" than threatening murder to medical people doing their lawful job?
Literally no less?
Are you serious?
You have to remember Hope regards everything that is a 'sin' as equivalent.
-
You have to remember Hope regards everything that is a 'sin' as equivalent.
He has his religion to "thank" for that.
-
You mean the accusation that so far on all investigations been found to be false? What about editing videos to misrepresent PP?
From what I've seen from a variety of sources, there is evidence for both sides of the argument.
From the BBC article on the shooting at the Colorado abortion clinic:
Planned Parenthood has been the focus of protests recently after an anti-abortion organisation secretly recorded a Planned Parenthood official discussing how to obtain aborted foetal tissue for medical research.
Pro-life advocates say this proves Planned Parenthood is selling foetal parts for profit - which is illegal - but this is disputed by the organisation.
Its worth remembering that PP have been the focus of protests and investigations over a number of years.
-
You have to remember Hope regards everything that is a 'sin' as equivalent.
Wrong, I regard them as equal. That isn't to say that I don't believe that the punishment meted out may well need to be different from society's perspective, but I follow God's way of thinking - that wrong is wrong.
-
Seems to lack perspective or any sense of nuance, this god chap of yours.
-
From what I've seen from a variety of sources, there is evidence for both sides of the argument.
From the BBC article on the shooting at the Colorado abortion clinic:
Its worth remembering that PP have been the focus of protests and investigations over a number of years.
I wasn't talking about people saying there is or is not evidence but that the House of Representatives investigation that was held found the accusation not proved. There are further investigations but accusations in themselves are not evidence.
The original videos were edited so given your belief that every sin is equivalent and this would be a form.of lying, you presumably think those accusing PP are at least as bad a murdering paedophile.
-
Wrong, I regard them as equal. That isn't to say that I don't believe that the punishment meted out may well need to be different from society's perspective, but I follow God's way of thinking - that wrong is wrong.
See definition 1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivalent
So right
-
Wrong, I regard them as equal. That isn't to say that I don't believe that the punishment meted out may well need to be different from society's perspective, but I follow God's way of thinking - that wrong is wrong.
Wow, claiming to know what God thinks...that's quite something.
-
The original videos were edited so given your belief that every sin is equivalent and this would be a form.of lying, you presumably think those accusing PP are at least as bad a murdering paedophile.
Well, both have done wrong. Neither have done partial wrong, or partial right. The same applies to PP if they are proven to have broken the law which they have been in previous situations, by the way. Wrong is wrong, but society decides to punish different wrongs differently. In other words, the difference is in the punishment not in the fact of wrong having been committed.
-
Wow, claiming to know what God thinks...that's quite something.
Well, one only has to read what Jesus taught to know what God thought - after all, they are one and the same.
-
Wow, claiming to know what God thinks...that's quite something.
It amuses me when people claim to know what the deity, who might not exist, is thinking!
-
Well, both have done wrong. Neither have done partial wrong, or partial right. The same applies to PP if they are proven to have broken the law which they have been in previous situations, by the way. Wrong is wrong, but society decides to punish different wrongs differently. In other words, the difference is in the punishment not in the fact of wrong having been committed.
And because society punishes things differently it judges them to be neither equal or equivalent.
-
See definition 1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivalent
So right
OK, NS, I'll give you that, but notice the first word that occurs in that definition ;)
-
Well, one only has to read what Jesus taught to know what God thought - after all, they are one and the same.
Does the same apply to the Koran as a record of what God thinks?
-
And because society punishes things differently it judges them to be either equal or equivalent.
NS, what comes first, the conviction or sentence? Does a court use a different word to refer to a murderer's misdeed to, say, a liar's misdeed. No, the word used in every such case is either innocent or guilty.
-
OK, NS, I'll give you that, but notice the first word that occurs in that definition ;)
What? Equal ?
-
Does the same apply to the Koran as a record of what God thinks?
Which member of the Islamic 'hierarchy' claims to be God?
-
Which member of the Islamic 'hierarchy' claims to be God?
None - but it's in the nature of claims that that's all they are ... just claims.
-
NS, what comes first, the conviction or sentence?
The conviction, so what? They are not treated as equal or equivalent. Further even using that, what actually comes first is the law making at which time they are not treated as equal or equivalent and within that there is a further categorisation of something being a civil or criminal wrong as another way of not treating things as equal or equivalent.
-
Well, one only has to read what Jesus taught to know what God thought - after all, they are one and the same.
No, that's what people wrote in a book.
-
I found this on another forum. Talk about bringing Christianity into disrepute and then some! >:(
Evangelist Calls On Christians To Assassinate Abortion Providers
Popular Facebook evangelist Joshua Feuerstein calls on Christians to “punish Planned Parenthood” and make abortion providers fear for their life.
The obnoxious but popular Christian evangelist Joshua Feuerstein published the following video to his Facebook page on July 29:
Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.
I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life.
After a Christian terrorist shot and killed two civilians and a police officer and injured nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on Friday, Feuerstein removed the despicable call to violence from his Facebook page.
The video is important because it demonstrates a dangerous and radical strain of Christian extremism that enjoys considerable popularity, and is part of a much larger campaign waged by conservative Christians within the Republican party to demonize abortion providers and Planned Parenthood.
Feuerstein, a former pastor who calls himself a “social media personality,” is no stranger to making controversial and dangerous statements. Feuerstein was behind the recent Christian freak out over Starbucks’ alleged “anti-Jesus” red holiday cups.
Even more alarming, last year Feuerstein encouraged Christians to fight same-sex marriage with guns.
Feuerstein may be an ignorant and ugly religious zealot, but with over 1.8 million Facebook followers his influence should not be underestimated. And while it is unclear whether or not the Christian terrorist behind the recent attack on Planned Parenthood was directly influenced by Feuerstein’s dangerous call to action, there can be no doubt that the video feeds and encourages the dangerous climate that makes terrorist acts against Planned Parenthood not only likely, but inevitable.
Bottom line: Feuerstein is a Christian terrorist promoting Christian terrorism.
It amazes me the double standards that atheists or even agnostics have.
When Islam terrorist kill innocent people they say that the peaceful 'true' Muslims are not responsible and they are the real Islam religious followers. But when it comes to Christianity and you get break-off groups who act contrary to the teachings of love your neighbour you immediately want to make this about every Christian believer as if automatically they are one and the same.
NO the above is NOT mainstream Christianity or it's teachings and you have no right to make it about bringing Christianity into disrepute because right minded people who know what Christianity is, do not associate the actions of the few the actions of Jesus Christ.
-
No, that's what people wrote in a book.
And you have evidence that that is all it was? Remember that the earliest written reports date from perhaps 12 years after the death and putative resurrection of Christ. We have already had the 'previous written document that the gospel writers based their accounts on' suggestion, and not from one of the normal religious apologists. We also know from studies that oral cultures were better at retaining stories and their wording than literate cultures like ourselves.
-
NO the above is NOT mainstream Christianity or it's teachings and you have no right to make it about bringing Christianity into disrepute because right minded people who know what Christianity is, do not associate the actions of the few the actions of Jesus Christ.
Sass, people do have the right to make it about bringing Christianity (or Islam, or Hindusim or Buddhism) into disrepute. Whether such things really do this is a different matter - after all, as I have pointed out before, almost all the same forms of events can occur at the hand of anyone, regardless of their belief system.
-
It amazes me the double standards that atheists or even agnostics have.
When Islam terrorist kill innocent people they say that the peaceful 'true' Muslims are not responsible and they are the real Islam religious followers. But when it comes to Christianity and you get break-off groups who act contrary to the teachings of love your neighbour you immediately want to make this about every Christian believer as if automatically they are one and the same.
NO the above is NOT mainstream Christianity or it's teachings and you have no right to make it about bringing Christianity into disrepute because right minded people who know what Christianity is, do not associate the actions of the few the actions of Jesus Christ.
Sass you are one of the 'Christians' on this forum who do the faith no favours at all, imo!
-
Msg 76 It amazes me how anyone of any "faith" needs "teachings" It's just bloody annoying. What is it that you don't know? Religious faiths are a curse on mankind. Why oh why can't you walk away from it?
-
Sass, people do have the right to make it about bringing Christianity (or Islam, or Hindusim or Buddhism) into disrepute. Whether such things really do this is a different matter - after all, as I have pointed out before, almost all the same forms of events can occur at the hand of anyone, regardless of their belief system.
Therein lies the problem for all to see. You omit the parts which are relevant to what has been said:-
It amazes me the double standards that atheists or even agnostics have.
When Islam terrorist kill innocent people they say that the peaceful 'true' Muslims are not responsible and they are the real Islam religious followers. But when it comes to Christianity and you get break-off groups who act contrary to the teachings of love your neighbour you immediately want to make this about every Christian believer as if automatically they are one and the same.
Either address the whole post or don't address it at all.
You are cherry picking points out of context now answer the whole post or not at all. :o
-
Sass you are one of the 'Christians' on this forum who do the faith no favours at all, imo!
You mean because you don't like the truth you automatically make judgement calls without any evidence or facts.. That would be about right..
You would be the perfect example for these verses:
And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
That is the attitude you have and yet blind to see that is the attitude that caused people to be put to death by God. Because they do not love others.
-
Msg 76 It amazes me how anyone of any "faith" needs "teachings" It's just bloody annoying. What is it that you don't know? Religious faiths are a curse on mankind. Why oh why can't you walk away from it?
Show me what damage Christ did in his mission?
He healed the sick, cured the lame and fed the hungry. For which of these things should he be cursed for?
Do you think you are too busy living in the present to see the reality of the past?
Who made guns and weapons of destruction? Who causes the famine now and destroys other humans? I think that humans are bloody annoying and even worse than two faced. They are like town hall clock faced all round. For the destruction in this present time is solely theirs as authors.
-
Show me what damage Christ did in his mission?
He healed the sick, cured the lame and fed the hungry. For which of these things should he be cursed for?
Do you think you are too busy living in the present to see the reality of the past?
Who made guns and weapons of destruction? Who causes the famine now and destroys other humans? I think that humans are bloody annoying and even worse than two faced. They are like town hall clock faced all round. For the destruction in this present time is solely theirs as authors.
Temper! Temper!
There is not one iota of evidence Jesus actually did any of the less than credible things his followers claimed he did!
-
Msg 83 Sassy You are part of the deluded problem. The solution is for people to try and drop all their strange unproven beliefs. I agree it may be hard to free yourselves but the prize would help mankind in so many ways.
-
And you have evidence that that is all it was? Remember that the earliest written reports date from perhaps 12 years after the death and putative resurrection of Christ. We have already had the 'previous written document that the gospel writers based their accounts on' suggestion, and not from one of the normal religious apologists. We also know from studies that oral cultures were better at retaining stories and their wording than literate cultures like ourselves.
"Here We Go Again Happy As Can Be", there's nothing like the old songs.
ippy
-
And you have evidence that that is all it was?
We have evidence in that 'book' that the accounts about Jesus' nature vary considerably, according to interpretation - even in the writings of Paul. I don't think we need to go into the truth or untruth of the Trinity again, but the disputes down the ages about Jesus' degree of 'humanness" indicate that claims that he 'was God' are indeed just matters of interpretation. And we have one believer on this very thread who rejects your original statement.
-
It amazes me the double standards that atheists or even agnostics have.
When Islam terrorist kill innocent people they say that the peaceful 'true' Muslims are not responsible and they are the real Islam religious followers. But when it comes to Christianity and you get break-off groups who act contrary to the teachings of love your neighbour you immediately want to make this about every Christian believer as if automatically they are one and the same.
NO the above is NOT mainstream Christianity or it's teachings and you have no right to make it about bringing Christianity into disrepute because right minded people who know what Christianity is, do not associate the actions of the few the actions of Jesus Christ.
You make a salient point,Sassy. The truth is, the atheists on here have no clue, it seems, as to what Christianity is truly about; nor do they care. They are stuck in the Middle Ages, in some kind of weird time-warp, and are bent only on debunking. It's sad. Though they will, of course, enjoy joining in with Christian festivities over the next month! Got your Advent Calendars, trees, cards, presents and all, you lot!
-
Msg 88 BA "stuck in the Middle Ages. Some kind of weird time warp" That's you, don't you get it. The book is the book is the book is the book. From so long long long ago. No update acoming.
-
Msg 88 BA "stuck in the Middle Ages. Some kind of weird time warp" That's you, don't you get it. The book is the book is the book is the book. From so long long long ago. No update acoming.
Just a helpful hint: check your English before posting.
-
You make a salient point,Sassy. The truth is, the atheists on here have no clue, it seems, as to what Christianity is truly about; nor do they care. They are stuck in the Middle Ages, in some kind of weird time-warp, and are bent only on debunking. It's sad. Though they will, of course, enjoy joining in with Christian festivities over the next month! Got your Advent Calendars, trees, cards, presents and all, you lot!
Your memory's going - must be your age, I guess. We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago and it was explained to you, with far more care and patience than you actually deserve, that the atheists here don't join in with a Christian festival.
The non-Christian origins of things like trees and cards also seem to have slipped your mind.
-
Your memory's going - must be your age, I guess. We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago and it was explained to you, with far more care and patience than you actually deserve, that the atheists here don't join in with a Christian festival.
The non-Christian origins of things like trees and cards also seem to have slipped your mind.
Shaker
Give it up! BA only listens to God!
-
Doesn't say much for God, does it?
-
Your memory's going - must be your age, I guess. We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago and it was explained to you, with far more care and patience than you actually deserve, that the atheists here don't join in with a Christian festival.
The non-Christian origins of things like trees and cards also seem to have slipped your mind.
The origin is nothing to do with whether you follow the traditions now. And that is why I so amply proved you to be a hypocrite. Can't take it, can you!
You forgot Advent Cards? Any atheist here got the honesty to admit they have one?
-
Shaker
Give it up! BA only listens to God!
Of course I do. I believe in Him just as you have your beliefs, and stand up for them.
-
Doesn't say much for God, does it?
Listen who's talking! Wow, what massive self-deception: as if your nasty comments are of any worth.
-
The origin is nothing to do with whether you follow the traditions now. And that is why I so amply proved you to be a hypocrite. Can't take it, can you!
You forgot Advent Cards? Any atheist here got the honesty to admit they have one?
Advent cards?
-
The origin is nothing to do with whether you follow the traditions now.
No Christian traditions, no
And that is why I so amply proved you to be a hypocrite. Can't take it, can you!
Can you link to that again?
You forgot Advent Cards? Any atheist here got the honesty to admit they have one?
I don't know what they are.
-
No Christian traditions, no
Can you link to that again?
I don't know what they are.
Don't pretend ignorance... but then...
-
Don't pretend ignorance... but then...
So tell us what advent cards are, then. If you know.
-
So tell us what advent cards are, then. If you know.
Give it up, Shaker!
You are never, ever, going to get him to admit that he meant Advent CALENDARS! Calendars - it does contain the letters of cards!
-
So tell us what advent cards are, then. If you know.
The Advent card/calendar is a method of counting up the days to Christmas, day by day, as even children know. And as you will have googled, in order to attempt a cheap shot. You are so predictable, and sad.
-
The Advent card/calendar is a method of counting up the days to Christmas, day by day, as even children know. And as you will have googled, in order to attempt a cheap shot. You are so predictable, and sad.
Just what is it that you have against Google?
Oh I forgot, you are a Professor of Divinity and get all your information on every subject under the Sun from your God and would like to deny all others any other source of information that might contradict what he tells you.
And also, of course, because you are also, probably, computer illiterate and thus cannot use Google.
Regardless - I hope that you and yours enjoy your Christmas as much as I will enjoy my Yule, with my family and copious amount of the Golden Nectar - Mead!
-
The Advent card/calendar is a method of counting up the days to Christmas, day by day, as even children know.
I don't need one of those - I look at today's date and subtract it from 25, with my dad helping me if I get stuck.
-
I don't need one of those - I look at today's date and subtract it from 25, with my dad helping me if I get stuck.
I bet you have to look up the date on Google! Not for any other reason than that you cannot do anything without reference to it! :)
-
Just what is it that you have against Google?
Oh I forgot, you are a Professor of Divinity and get all your information on every subject under the Sun from your God and would like to deny all others any other source of information that might contradict what he tells you.
And also, of course, because you are also, probably, computer illiterate and thus cannot use Google.
Regardless - I hope that you and yours enjoy your Christmas as much as I will enjoy my Yule, with my family and copious amount of the Golden Nectar - Mead!
Thank you for acknowledging my superiority, in all things. I wish I could do the same for you! :D
-
Msg 90 BA. "Just a helpful hint" Think for yourself and while you are at it get your own opinions. Keep on defending those hand me down stories, those second hand hand me down stories, those endless interpretations you have to mind juggle with makes you come across as the classic shadow boxer.
-
Msg 90 BA. "Just a helpful hint" Think for yourself and while you are at it get your own opinions. Keep on defending those hand me down stories, those second hand hand me down stories, those endless interpretations you have to mind juggle with makes you come across as the classic shadow boxer.
Crikey! i'm berated right left and centre for airing my opinions! I don't think you follow closely enough - just a suggestion!
-
Thank you for acknowledging my superiority, in all things. I wish I could do the same for you! :D
You arrogant arse! Get this through your skull - I WAS TAKING THE PISS! The only thing you are superior to anyone in is believing ijn the contents of that pathetic book of manufactured history that you consider to be truth!
If I enjoy nothing else while I am away I will enjoy being away from your unending posting of bollocks, crap and fucked up history - oh, and your distaste at the use of bad language, I bet you blush like a girl seeing David Beckham's Y-front ad for the first time when you read it!
I have given myself an early Yule gift! I found it on Google actually - it is a little book calle "The Website Moderators guide to acceptable insults" and I look forward to 2016 when I can try some of them out on here and you!
-
You arrogant arse! Get this through your skull - I WAS TAKING THE PISS! The only thing you are superior to anyone in is believing ijn the contents of that pathetic book of manufactured history that you consider to be truth!
If I enjoy nothing else while I am away I will enjoy being away from your unending posting of bollocks, crap and fucked up history - oh, and your distaste at the use of bad language, I bet you blush like a girl seeing David Beckham's Y-front ad for the first time when you read it!
I have given myself an early Yule gift! I found it on Google actually - it is a little book calle "The Website Moderators guide to acceptable insults" and I look forward to 2016 when I can try some of them out on here and you!
You old charmer you! ;D ;D
Such an exemplary advert for paganism! :(
You always put me in mind of Darwin: the survival of the fittest. If you are one of the 'fit" survivors, goodness only knows what the unfit must have been like! ;D ;D
-
You old charmer you! ;D ;D
Such an exemplary advert for paganism! :(
You always put me in mind of Darwin: the survival of the fittest. If you are one of the 'fit" survivors, goodness only knows what the unfit must have been like! ;D ;D
You are far from charming and a even worse advert for Christianity.
You drag my religion into a argument about your honesty - which, on this forum, is sadly lacking.
My coach leaves in an hour so I will see you on the other side of New Years which should give you time to learn that if you can't take it you shouldn't try dishing it out.
As to what the "unfit" were like - look in a mirror - they were just like you!
-
Temper! Temper!
There is not one iota of evidence Jesus actually did any of the less than credible things his followers claimed he did!
There is a history that men who witnessed went all over the world telling others.
People did the same as Christ and the witnesses.
You mean you do not accept the witness statements. Then again, you could seek to believe with a good heart and see for yourself. Truth is your heart is too hard and you don't want it to be true. That is more like it... isn't it. :(
-
Msg 83 Sassy You are part of the deluded problem. The solution is for people to try and drop all their strange unproven beliefs. I agree it may be hard to free yourselves but the prize would help mankind in so many ways.
Without Christ the world would NOT be what it is today...
That is the truth. But why should you really be interested in the truth?
You like being deluded...
-
Without Christ the world would NOT be what it is today...
That is the truth. But why should you really be interested in the truth?
You like being deluded...
Sez Sass the most deluded of the lot! ;D ;D ;D
-
Sez Sass the most deluded of the lot! ;D ;D ;D
"Deluded?" Well, that's pretty rare coming from someone as closed-minded and unpleasant such as yourself!
-
"Deluded?" Well, that's pretty rare coming from someone as closed-minded and unpleasant such as yourself!
You are closed minded as I established some time ago.
I on the other hand am open minded.
-
You are closed minded as I established some time ago.
I on the other hand am open minded.
Well, I think I'd veer more to the mindless, rather than open-minded! :D :D
-
Well, I think I'd veer more to the mindless, rather than open-minded! :D :D
Your arguments are indeed mindless and poorly reasoned.
But, I did establish that you ARE closed minded.
That is a fact.
-
Your arguments are indeed mindless and poorly reasoned.
But, I did establish that you ARE closed minded.
That is a fact.
You haven't established anything, ever. Just shows how self-deluded some can be.
Perhaps you could be more specific and give some examples of the above? Such generalisations rarely convey anything of substance; which is why your posts usually lack any real substance.
-
You haven't established anything, ever. Just shows how self-deluded some can be.
Perhaps you could be more specific and give some examples of the above? Such generalisations rarely convey anything of substance; which is why your posts usually lack any real substance.
It's very simple. You failed the open minded test and ran away.
I am an atheist but I accept that I could be completely wrong, and the god you believe in could actually exist, and have all the attributes you think he has.
Now, for you to be open minded, YOU have to accept that YOU could be wrong, and it could be that your god DOES NOT exist.
Do you accept this?
You have to answer YES to be open minded. It is a Yes or No question.
-
It's very simple. You failed the open minded test and ran away.
I am an atheist but I accept that I could be completely wrong, and the god you believe in could actually exist, and have all the attributes you think he has.
Now, for you to be open minded, YOU have to accept that YOU could be wrong, and it could be that your god DOES NOT exist.
Do you accept this?
You have to answer YES to be open minded. It is a Yes or No question.
You are not tempting me into your childish little "game," which you have rattled on with for months. Do get a hobby. and when you feel that you can say something of worth, come back. It is not a yes or no question; it is more a play-ground knock-about.
Hope you are well.
-
You are not tempting me into your childish little "game," which you have rattled on with for months. Do get a hobby. and when you feel that you can say something of worth, come back. It is not a yes or no question; it is more a play-ground knock-about.
Hope you are well.
It IS a yes or no answer. You are simply being asked whether you could be wrong. If you cannot accept that, then you are closed minded. That's what being closed minded is!
So you cannot answer YES.
This demonstrates that you are closed minded.
-
A certain 'Christian' poster confirms the point I was making in my opening post over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum! ::)
-
A certain 'Christian' poster confirms the point I was making in my opening post over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum! ::)
Floo, "the point I was making... over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum! ::)" applies to all your posts. Aren't you aware of that?
-
Floo, "the point I was making... over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum! ::)" applies to all your posts. Aren't you aware of that?
But you dare not answer the simple question.
Do you concede that you are closed minded.
That is the logical conclusion from your avoidance of the test.
-
But you dare not answer the simple question.
Do you concede that you are closed minded.
That is the logical conclusion from your avoidance of the test.
End of.
-
End of.
You have confirmed your closed mindedness.
Will you now never accuse others of being closed minded, when you are yourself?
-
You have confirmed your closed mindedness.
Will you now never accuse others of being closed minded, when you are yourself?
End of. Get it?
-
End of. Get it?
Yes, I get that you are a closed minded coward that dare not answer a simple Yes or No question.
A question, I have no problem answering, but you cannot.
-
Yes, I get that you are a closed minded coward that dare not answer a simple Yes or No question.
A question, I have no problem answering, but you cannot.
End.... oh, forget it! :(
-
What is so very sad is that the poster in question seems totally unaware of how they come over to others, apart from their soul mate. HYPOCRITICAL BIG TIME when they accuse others of things they are doing themselves. They usually start any unpleasantness then have a temper tantrum when people respond in kind! They accuse some posters of being unintelligent failing to grasp that their brain cell is on a downward spiral! ::)
-
What is so very sad is that the poster in question seems totally unaware of how they come over to others, apart from their soul mate. HYPOCRITICAL BIG TIME when they accuse others of things they are doing themselves. They usually start any unpleasantness then have a temper tantrum when people respond in kind! They accuse some posters of being unintelligent failing to grasp that their brain cell is on a downward spiral! ::)
Why don't you ever have the guts to say to whom you are referring, instead of "the poster" in question, or some such?
-
Why don't you ever have the guts to say to whom you are referring, instead of "the poster" in question, or some such?
Why don't you have the guts to answer a simple Yes No question?
A question that I can easily answer totally defeats you.
-
Your arguments are indeed mindless and poorly reasoned.
But, I did establish that you ARE closed minded.
That is a fact.
All the above from someone who doesn't even know the bible the subject he tries discussing.
The man is in the altogether...
-
It's very simple. You failed the open minded test and ran away.
I am an atheist but I accept that I could be completely wrong, and the god you believe in could actually exist, and have all the attributes you think he has.
Now, for you to be open minded, YOU have to accept that YOU could be wrong, and it could be that your god DOES NOT exist.
Do you accept this?
You have to answer YES to be open minded. It is a Yes or No question.
How and why does he have to accept his knowledge of the presence of God could be wrong? That example above has NOTHING to do with open mindedness at all.
You are basically trying to bully someone out of their beliefs. When if you were open minded and believed you could be wrong about your beliefs in God, you would accept Bash's belief as being a reason to support that. However if you want him to maintain the same stance as you then you really have no idea what faith means.
Even the evidence today shows the disciples had witnessed Christ performing miracles and what he did had such a profound affect on their lives that something had to have happened for them to die for those beliefs.
You show very poor reasoning and need to apologise to Bash for your lack of knowledge and understanding as to what faith really means.
-
It IS a yes or no answer. You are simply being asked whether you could be wrong. If you cannot accept that, then you are closed minded. That's what being closed minded is!
So you cannot answer YES.
This demonstrates that you are closed minded.
Faith is to be sure of the things we hope for. Faith is the willingness to act on the basis of what we know of God and trust him that he will not let us down.
If God is not letting Bash down and doing everything he says where it the close mindedness in that? As I said previous post. You created your own idea of close mindedness and if you understood what it was to have faith you would know it does not rely on Bash himself.
Whereas your beliefs have only one source and it all comes from you.
You therefore have no choice but to be open minded, however your arguments do not display any open mindedness when it comes to the beliefs or respect of the beliefs of others.
-
Floo, "the point I was making... over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum! ::)" applies to all your posts. Aren't you aware of that?
Floo, is too busy worrying about what the other athiests will think about her.
As a people pleaser she has left her roots and wandered into no mans land.
A land where she never really feels acceptance and attacks those who are a God pleaser and no a man pleaser. Cut her some slack she hasn't a clue she is basically just baiting you. Pity that no moderator has read her comments on the thread. Her attacks are out and out personal and intended.
Howto bring atheists and agnostics into disrepute describes the thread aptly.
-
So Bash is not closed minded... the person asking the question is not qualified and lacks knowledge so misuses the term on Bash.
-
Floo, is too busy worrying about what the other athiests will think about her.
As a people pleaser she has left her roots and wandered into no mans land.
A land where she never really feels acceptance and attacks those who are a God pleaser and no a man pleaser. Cut her some slack she hasn't a clue she is basically just baiting you. Pity that no moderator has read her comments on the thread. Her attacks are out and out personal and intended.
Howto bring atheists and agnostics into disrepute describes the thread aptly.
Backing your soul mate I see, or are clones of one another? ;D I have never given a monkey's what anyone thought of me, much to my late Mother's distress, I should add! ;D
Pot and kettle, ::) you should read your own posts, you are usually attacking non believers and do Christianity no credit at all!
-
How and why does he have to accept his knowledge of the presence of God could be wrong? That example above has NOTHING to do with open mindedness at all.
You are basically trying to bully someone out of their beliefs. When if you were open minded and believed you could be wrong about your beliefs in God, you would accept Bash's belief as being a reason to support that. However if you want him to maintain the same stance as you then you really have no idea what faith means.
Even the evidence today shows the disciples had witnessed Christ performing miracles and what he did had such a profound affect on their lives that something had to have happened for them to die for those beliefs.
You show very poor reasoning and need to apologise to Bash for your lack of knowledge and understanding as to what faith really means.
My reasoning is clear and correct.
If you cannot accept that you MAY be wrong, then you are by definition closed minded.
Could you be wrong about the existence of god?
-
Backing your soul mate I see, or are clones of one another? ;D I have never given a monkey's what anyone thought of me, much to my late Mother's distress, I should add! ;D
Pot and kettle, ::) you should read your own posts, you are usually attacking non believers and do Christianity no credit at all!
Well, if you had any clue to real Christianity then you would know there is absolutely NO REASON to attack people for being none believers.
Stick and stones, but in your case there is no reason to be distressed or even bothered about what you think.
You attack your own family and that says more about you than anything I say, says about my faith.
Where do you get off, having a pop at others when even your own family you speak about with disdain.
No! I have to go a long way to be in your league when it comes to attacking others.
Do you know why you are like you are and where you are in life?
Anyone who can comment and bring their own family into disrepute has no loyalty or love at all for doing and saying the right thing. It is all about YOU... Do you ever think of how your words have hurt your parents? Or have you never told them the way you feel as expressed on here.
I don't know about you but I believe the way we treat and speak about others reflects more on the person themselves than their reasons for speaking about others.
I feel for you. I personally believe the world is an unforgiving place and people do not need to burden the bad feelings of others. Sometimes we have to love in a place where no love is given or felt. How else will it change? Would you have seen your parents change had you loved them inspite of everything?
No argument with you. I feel for you that you do not know how it feels to have the love of parents as it was meant. Sometimes parents get it wrong, too. But we have to allow them their mistakes and be thankful we have them. My parents were good parents and I miss them very much. I can only speak of their selflessness in raising 9 children whose lives they made secure, pleasant and loving.
I feel for those like yourself. I have no reason to attack them.
-
My reasoning is clear and correct.
If you cannot accept that you MAY be wrong, then you are by definition closed minded.
Could you be wrong about the existence of god?
Be wrong about what? What I have experienced?
You see you are not open minded enough or learned enough to accept the that what we EXPERIENCE is real for us. That you have no reasoning about sincerity or a persons ability to know what they are experiencing.
Do not try to lecture us regarding what we experience and know when you show only a close mind to that truth.
You have the problem and every time you write a post like the above you show how closed minded and uneducated you are in the faith of a Christian. The experiences are real... if you cannot accept that truth and accept that it happens how can you call yourself open minded.
Faith is not about atheism.
-
Well, if you had any clue to real Christianity then you would know there is absolutely NO REASON to attack people for being none believers.
Stick and stones, but in your case there is no reason to be distressed or even bothered about what you think.
You attack your own family and that says more about you than anything I say, says about my faith.
Where do you get off, having a pop at others when even your own family you speak about with disdain.
No! I have to go a long way to be in your league when it comes to attacking others.
Do you know why you are like you are and where you are in life?
Anyone who can comment and bring their own family into disrepute has no loyalty or love at all for doing and saying the right thing. It is all about YOU... Do you ever think of how your words have hurt your parents? Or have you never told them the way you feel as expressed on here.
I don't know about you but I believe the way we treat and speak about others reflects more on the person themselves than their reasons for speaking about others.
I feel for you. I personally believe the world is an unforgiving place and people do not need to burden the bad feelings of others. Sometimes we have to love in a place where no love is given or felt. How else will it change? Would you have seen your parents change had you loved them inspite of everything?
No argument with you. I feel for you that you do not know how it feels to have the love of parents as it was meant. Sometimes parents get it wrong, too. But we have to allow them their mistakes and be thankful we have them. My parents were good parents and I miss them very much. I can only speak of their selflessness in raising 9 children whose lives they made secure, pleasant and loving.
I feel for those like yourself. I have no reason to attack them.
As usual more amusing garbage from Sass who hasn't a clue what she is on about where I am concerned! ::)
-
Be wrong about what? What I have experienced?
You see you are not open minded enough or learned enough to accept the that what we EXPERIENCE is real for us. That you have no reasoning about sincerity or a persons ability to know what they are experiencing.
Do not try to lecture us regarding what we experience and know when you show only a close mind to that truth.
You have the problem and every time you write a post like the above you show how closed minded and uneducated you are in the faith of a Christian. The experiences are real... if you cannot accept that truth and accept that it happens how can you call yourself open minded.
Faith is not about atheism.
The question was could you be wrong in your belief that there is a God? It is quite a simple question really.
-
Folks have different experiences, which seem real at the time. One person's experience gives them cause to think a deity exists, another's experience makes them think it doesn't! The human brain can be very convincing.
-
The question was could you be wrong in your belief that there is a God? It is quite a simple question really.
Similarly, you could be asked the opposite/reverse, Maeght.
-
Why don't you have the guts to answer a simple Yes No question?
A question that I can easily answer totally defeats you.
E..n..d o..f
-
Dodge, dodge, bob and weave :D
-
Similarly, you could be asked the opposite/reverse, Maeght.
Yes, and I have said many times that I have no belief in God but that one might exist.
-
Similarly, you could be asked the opposite/reverse, Maeght.
I could be, and do not mind answering as I did above.
YES I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
Can theists say the same?
-
E..n..d o..f
Run away you scared little man.
You cannot answer the question, so you FAIL.
-
I could be, and do not mind answering as I did above.
YES I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
Can theists say the same?
I think that just about every theist on the board has said, at some time or other, that they could be wrong, BR. Thanks for being only about the 4th non-theist here to state that you could be wrong.
-
I think that just about every theist on the board has said, at some time or other, that they could be wrong, BR. Thanks for being only about the 4th non-theist here to state that you could be wrong.
There's me, BR and Maeght - who's the other one?
-
I think that just about every theist on the board has said, at some time or other, that they could be wrong, BR. Thanks for being only about the 4th non-theist here to state that you could be wrong.
Am I one of the four, I have often stated I could be wrong?
-
OK, that's the four then I guess.
-
Can I find out any non theists who have said they couldn't be wrong?
I can name some theists who have said they can't be wrong and know they are right. Alan Burns, for example, who is a charming lovely fellow but takes that position.
-
Can I find out any non theists who have said they couldn't be wrong?
I can name some theists who have said they can't be wrong and know they are right. Alan Burns, for example, who is a charming lovely fellow but takes that position.
Good point.
-
Note there are many theists who happily admit to being open to bring wrong. People who don't if whatever belief scare the forty coloured shite out of me.
-
As usual more amusing garbage from Sass who hasn't a clue what she is on about where I am concerned! ::)
On the contrary... everyone knows what I am on about where you are concerned.
Having posted with you over 10 years and heard all the discourse you have thrown out about your life history and religion... it would be difficult for anyone not know what I am on about as far as you are concerned.
Nothing amusing or garbage you are as usual in denial about all truth.
-
On the contrary... everyone knows what I am on about where you are concerned.
Having posted with you over 10 years and heard all the discourse you have thrown out about your life history and religion... it would be difficult for anyone not know what I am on about as far as you are concerned.
Nothing amusing or garbage you are as usual in denial about all truth.
Your 'truth' you mean? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh Sass you are so funny! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think that just about every theist on the board has said, at some time or other, that they could be wrong, BR. Thanks for being only about the 4th non-theist here to state that you could be wrong.
Let me add another to your list. I spent most of my life believing in some sort of 'spiritual' dimension to life - early on in a Christian context, later on more Buddhist, but for most of the time believing in a kind of Shavian 'Life Force'. I let go of all that sort of thing probably twenty years ago - I no longer believe in any sort of 'god'. But to echo BeRational (and also in capitals) - I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
-
Note there are many theists who happily admit to being open to bring wrong. People who don't if whatever belief scare the forty coloured shite out of me.
The "I KNOW" brigade are only really scary if they gain social or political power, surely? In that regard, I don't think the eccentric religious views of one or two around here would scare a maiden aunt, since the individuals in question hold such unorthodox (and indeed markedly divergent) beliefs. I don't know quite how 'right' non-believers such as bluehillside and Shaker think they are - but I certainly have no fears for society from them, since they both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock (which is more than I can say for most of the believers I've come across).
-
Run away you scared little man.
You cannot answer the question, so you FAIL.
E..n..d...o..f Again!!
-
I don't think you need power to be scary, or rather, I don't think you need major power to be so. People who are certain are capable of being persuaded and persuading others to do almost anything in the name of their certainty. It contributes to a them and us approach, so that even say a lovely chap like Alan Burns thinks Rhiannon is a worse person for no longer being Christian - I find that scary.
-
I don't think you need power to be scary, or rather, I don't think you need major power to be so. People who are certain are capable of being persuaded and persuading others to do almost anything in the name of their certainty. It contributes to a them and us approach, so that even say a lovely chap like Alan Burns thinks Rhiannon is a worse person for no longer being Christian - I find that scary.
Unsettling, certainly. He should pay more attention to what Rhiannon actually says, I think, instead of trying to fit her into his dubious paradigms.
-
E..n..d...o..f Again!!
So stay away if you are too much of a coward to answer
-
So stay away if you are too much of a coward to answer
I'm not staying away at your behest! I'm simply trying to help you understand that I don't wish to go on with the discussion.
You have not understood.
You FAIL the comprehension test! :D
-
I'm not staying away at your behest! I'm simply trying to help you understand that I don't wish to go on with the discussion.
You have not understood.
You FAIL the comprehension test! :D
So you do wish to continue.
You must accept that you are closed minded. As long as you do that you are at least honest.
-
So you do wish to continue.
You must accept that you are closed minded. As long as you do that you are at least honest.
Last try: e..n..d....o..f !!!!
-
BR it's funny it's your fault when someone is internally challenged. You are right, to me that's the big honest question. Not trying to catch anyone out, just want to know how someone thinks.
-
Last try: e..n..d....o..f !!!!
Make it your last.
You are proved to be closed minded.
Never say you are not.
-
BR it's funny it's your fault when someone is internally challenged. You are right, to me that's the big honest question. Not trying to catch anyone out, just want to know how someone thinks.
For your information: we have been over this interminably, and he had an answer. I have no intention of being rail-roaded by silly insults into going over the same ground once more. His persistence is odd.
-
For your information: we have been over this interminably, and he had an answer. I have no intention of being rail-roaded by silly insults into going over the same ground once more. His persistence is odd.
You have never answered!
Try again.
Could you be wrong about the existence of your God?
Yes or No?
-
You have never answered!
Try again.
Could you be wrong about the existence of your God?
Yes or No?
I answered that, and you know it. What's your problem? Don't bother to answer: I have no more to say.
-
I answered that, and you know it. What's your problem? Don't bother to answer: I have no more to say.
I do not believe you!
Answer now. It would be quicker than typing what you have.
If you had really answered you would have the nerve to say yes or no.
Why is this simple question beyond you?
-
I answered that, and you know it.
He may do.
I don't.
Where?
-
He may do.
I don't.
Where?
It's now such a long-standing silliness, I can't even recollect; and don't want to.
-
It's now such a long-standing silliness, I can't even recollect; and don't want to.
You do not need to recollect.
Just answer yes or no now.
It is really really simple, but too difficult for you it seems.
-
I can say it as often as you like. I could be wrong. Eezy Peezy
-
I can say it as often as you like. I could be wrong. Eezy Peezy
It is easy for some, me included to say.
Others, it seems, it is very hard to the point of not possible.
-
I do not believe you!
Answer now. It would be quicker than typing what you have.
If you had really answered you would have the nerve to say yes or no.
Why is this simple question beyond you?
That is not a YES or NO question.
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
Bash has experienced the presence of God. Have you?
Well how can you ask the question and question his experience when you have felt Gods presence.
So what is it you want him to do? Lie and pretend he does not believe in his personal experience of God. Truth is you are not open minded otherwise you would show Bash the courtesy of believing him when he says he believes his experience of God is real. If open minded and sincere you would not question the possibility that he sincerely believes he knows God presence so has no reason to believe it could be wrong.
-
That is not a YES or NO question.
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
And after a few coughs and splutters, the Fallacy Bandwagon kicks into life once more.
-
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
We've been through this before Sass. The number of people believing any given thing does nothing to prove the rightness or otherwise of the situation.
As I stated previously, at one time the majority of people believed the earth was flat. They were wrong.
Your argument is facile.
-
That is not a YES or NO question.
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
Bash has experienced the presence of God. Have you?
Well how can you ask the question and question his experience when you have felt Gods presence.
So what is it you want him to do? Lie and pretend he does not believe in his personal experience of God. Truth is you are not open minded otherwise you would show Bash the courtesy of believing him when he says he believes his experience of God is real. If open minded and sincere you would not question the possibility that he sincerely believes he knows God presence so has no reason to believe it could be wrong.
Sass there is NO evidence the deity exists. The brain is a remarkable organ and can convince people something is 'true' however fanciful that belief happens to be.
-
I don't know quite how 'right' non-believers such as bluehillside and Shaker think they are - but I certainly have no fears for society from them, since they both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock (which is more than I can say for most of the believers I've come across).
Like you, I don't think that society has anything to fear from the likes of bhs and Shaker, though I would disagree that they "both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock". Over time, they have both made what, to me, appear to be fundamental errors in their arguments.
-
Sass there is NO evidence the deity exists. The brain is a remarkable organ and can convince people something is 'true' however fanciful that belief happens to be.
I'm sorry, Floo, but there is only "'No' evidence the deity exists" because you seem to believe in a reality that is only physical. Others do not believe that reality is limited to that aspect.
-
Like you, I don't think that society has anything to fear from the likes of bhs and Shaker, though I would disagree that they "both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock". Over time, they have both made what, to me, appear to be fundamental errors in their arguments.
One could argue your faith position has fundamental errors too!
-
I'm sorry, Floo, but there is only "'No' evidence the deity exists" because you seem to believe in a reality that is only physical. Others do not believe that reality is limited to that aspect.
I would say to the contrary that the physical world itself is evidence for God, and that some people are in wilful rebellion of their creator.
-
I would say to the contrary that the physical world itself is evidence for God, ...
I would agree with you, 2Corrie, but part of the issue is that that physical world is more than merely physical.
-
One could argue your faith position has fundamental errors too!
One could, but when people like you make such fundamental errors - such as claiming that Mary was a victim of child abuse because she became pregnant as a young teenager when the cultural norm of the time was that children became adults far younger than they do now.
-
I'm sorry, Floo, but there is only "'No' evidence the deity exists" because you seem to believe in a reality that is only physical. Others do not believe that reality is limited to that aspect.
And these 'others'', such as yourself, have abjectly (and unsurprisingly) failed to demonstrate that this unreality that they claim exists is somehow part of the real!
-
I would say to the contrary that the physical world itself is evidence for God, and that some people are in wilful rebellion of their creator.
You would say that, wouldn't you? ;D
There is NO evidence the deity featured in that book had anything to do with the creation of the universe. But supposing it did then all right minded people should be in rebellion against that evil psycho. >:(
-
Like you, I don't think that society has anything to fear from the likes of bhs and Shaker, though I would disagree that they "both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock". Over time, they have both made what, to me, appear to be fundamental errors in their arguments.
So why is it that whenever you're asked, as you have been many, many times, to point out these alleged errors, you're unable to do so?
-
And after a few coughs and splutters, the Fallacy Bandwagon kicks into life once more.
You don't have an answer, I see.
Probably would have been more sensible to have said nothing than let the whole world know you could not find a sensible reply. ::)
-
We've been through this before Sass. The number of people believing any given thing does nothing to prove the rightness or otherwise of the situation.
As I stated previously, at one time the majority of people believed the earth was flat. They were wrong.
Your argument is facile.
Poor answer Trent... (((SHAKES HEAD SMILEY)))
It was not a question of something be right or wrong.
It is about the personal experience of the individual. Go back to sleep. ;D
-
I would say to the contrary that the physical world itself is evidence for God, and that some people are in wilful rebellion of their creator.
Wilful suggests intentional - that some people know God exists but rebel by saying they don't. Is that what you mean? If so I don't know of anyone who that would fit.
-
Like you, I don't think that society has anything to fear from the likes of bhs and Shaker, though I would disagree that they "both seem to have thought through their philosophies right to the bedrock". Over time, they have both made what, to me, appear to be fundamental errors in their arguments.
That will be because your thinking is so ring-fenced within fallacies: and where, ironically, you have built said fence yourself (albeit on nothing as substantial as bedrock).
I'd suggest you urgently need to acquire some wire-cutters.
-
You don't have an answer, I see.
Yup - it's known formally as the argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum. (Don't tell Hope; he's very touchy about people identifying logical fallacies by their technical names for some reason). It's an appeal to numbers as a marker of the rightness of a position or the soundness of an argument. Trent covered it anyway a few posts up.
-
Sass there is NO evidence the deity exists. The brain is a remarkable organ and can convince people something is 'true' however fanciful that belief happens to be.
Back to the drawing board, Floo.
Bash has experienced the presence of God. Have you?
Well how can you ask the question and question his experience when you have felt Gods presence.
So what is it you want him to do? Lie and pretend he does not believe in his personal experience of God. Truth is you are not open minded otherwise you would show Bash the courtesy of believing him when he says he believes his experience of God is real.
Read and weep... not one of you could even give the reality the time to reply but ignored what was written....
So for all atheists read the above quote. And don't bother asking for a 'yes' or 'no' answer for something already explained.
-
Yup - it's known formally as the argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum. (Don't tell Hope; he's very touchy about people identifying logical fallacies by their technical names for some reason). It's an appeal to numbers as a marker of the rightness of a position or the soundness of an argument. Trent covered it anyway a few posts up.
In other words... "Any excuse when found lacking" Well show us the logical reason for the earth and us existing in a very dead void called space?
Seems you have no reasoning unless it is made up on your part with absolutely NOTHING to support your excuse for a post.
-
Poor answer Trent... (((SHAKES HEAD SMILEY)))
It was not a question of something be right or wrong.
It is about the personal experience of the individual. Go back to sleep. ;D
You were the one that quantified it in terms of more believers than non believers, and also brought up the concept of whether it is right or wrong, so don't try and wriggle out of it. I'll just post this to remind you:
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
And try not to be a patronising pillock - little girl.
-
Back to the drawing board, Floo.
That sort of answer could well get your reply of 'You don't have an answer, I see.'
Read and weep... not one of you could even give the reality the time to reply but ignored what was written....
So for all atheists read the above quote. And don't bother asking for a 'yes' or 'no' answer for something already explained.
Reading the quote it suggests the answer is no.
-
In other words... "Any excuse when found lacking" Well show us the logical reason for the earth and us existing in a very dead void called space?
Seems you have no reasoning unless it is made up on your part with absolutely NOTHING to support your excuse for a post.
What does this latest effusion of illiteracy have to do with the fallacy you committed in #181?
-
Back to the drawing board, Floo.
Read and weep... not one of you could even give the reality the time to reply but ignored what was written....
So for all atheists read the above quote. And don't bother asking for a 'yes' or 'no' answer for something already explained.
My daily giggle from Sass, has helped ease the unpleasantness of yesterday's tooth extraction! ;D ;D ;D You couldn't come up with a credible explanation even if you tried Sass!
-
That is not a YES or NO question.
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
Bash has experienced the presence of God. Have you?
Well how can you ask the question and question his experience when you have felt Gods presence.
So what is it you want him to do? Lie and pretend he does not believe in his personal experience of God. Truth is you are not open minded otherwise you would show Bash the courtesy of believing him when he says he believes his experience of God is real. If open minded and sincere you would not question the possibility that he sincerely believes he knows God presence so has no reason to believe it could be wrong.
Trent read the above.It will explain why you were wrong...
-
Sass there is NO evidence the deity exists. The brain is a remarkable organ and can convince people something is 'true' however fanciful that belief happens to be.
Using that way of thinking it can also make you believe so you miss the evidence that God exists... Do stop making stupid statements about things other people experience as if you can prove they are not real.
The truth is you have NO evidence to support your view even from a personal belief stance.
-
Trent read the above.It will explain why you were wrong...
Silly little girl.
It doesn't.
You made a statement about right & wrong that I have quoted unchanged and in context, and you are now trying to wriggle out of it.
-
Using that way of thinking it can also make you believe so you miss the evidence that God exists... Do stop making stupid statements about things other people experience as if you can prove they are not real.
The truth is you have NO evidence to support your view even from a personal belief stance.
Sass thanks for another giggle! ;D
-
Silly little girl.
It doesn't.
You made a statement about right & wrong that I have quoted unchanged and in context, and you are now trying to wriggle out of it.
You really need to learn about Christianity before making ignorant comments. Start with reading what others write CORRECTLY.
-
Sass thanks for another giggle! ;D
Well! guess small things amuse small minds... Let me get my microscope and see if we can find yours...
-
Well! guess small things amuse small minds... Let me get my microscope and see if we can find yours...
Oh well Sass, my mind might be small but at least my imagination doesn't generate the complete religious twaddle yours does, and for that I am very grateful! ;D
-
You really need to learn about Christianity before making ignorant comments. Start with reading what others write CORRECTLY.
Did you or did you not type this:
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
Did you or did you not bring up the concept of right or wrong in relationship to the numbers of believers?
Will you continue to evade, deflect and lie so that you do not look as monumentally stupid as you clearly are?
-
Did you or did you not type this:
Did you or did you not bring up the concept of right or wrong in relationship to the numbers of believers?
Will you continue to evade, deflect and lie so that you do not look as monumentally stupid as you clearly are?
QUOTE FULL POSTS.
THEN EXPLAIN IN CONTENT OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS TO THOSE WHOM THEY WERE WRITTEN TO.
Now apologise...
-
QUOTE FULL POSTS.
THEN EXPLAIN IN CONTENT OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS TO THOSE WHOM THEY WERE WRITTEN TO.
Now apologise...
You lie, evade and insult; and you want me to apologise?
Just have sex and travel.
-
In other words... "Any excuse when found lacking" Well show us the logical reason for the earth and us existing in a very dead void called space?
Seems you have no reasoning unless it is made up on your part with absolutely NOTHING to support your excuse for a post.
Unusual for you Sass, zero.
ippy
-
Quote: Just have sex and travel.
Interesting idea, makes me think of getting up very early and sneaking out to catch the 'bus/train before the other person wakes up.
(Years ago, when I was young, I read about such things.)
-
Quote: Just have sex and travel.
Interesting idea, makes me think of getting up very early and sneaking out to catch the 'bus/train before the other person wakes up.
(Years ago, when I was young, I read about such things.)
;D ;D
-
You lie, evade and insult; and you want me to apologise?
Just have sex and travel.
Do you know something Trent, I already know how deeply unhappy you are.
I cannot add further hurt to that.
But I can say you are accusing me and others of that which you do yourself.
I have no need to evade or insult. Nor lie... I just give you back a fuller measure of what you dole out.
But never to hurt but to make you try and see what you are doing.
Your suffering is not mine or any other persons fault. I am not your whipping boy and never will be...figuratively speaking.
-
I have no need to evade or insult.
Which means that the fact you consistently do so is purely gratuitous, then.
-
Do you know something Trent, I already know how deeply unhappy you are.
I cannot add further hurt to that.
But I can say you are accusing me and others of that which you do yourself.
I have no need to evade or insult. Nor lie... I just give you back a fuller measure of what you dole out.
But never to hurt but to make you try and see what you are doing.
Your suffering is not mine or any other persons fault. I am not your whipping boy and never will be...figuratively speaking.
You think you know me?
Your post would suggest otherwise.
What suffering do you think I am enduring?
And Sass - I've seen a video of you - you are definitely not my idea of anybody's whipping boy - and that isn't a compliment.
Why don't you look in the mirror and face the fact that you love grabbing the attention and will lie, evade and bully to get it.
I'm pretty sure they are not Christian principles.
-
Sass is the most attention seeking poster on this, and any other forum on which she has ever posted, imo.
-
Do you know something Trent, I already know how deeply unhappy you are.
I cannot add further hurt to that.
But I can say you are accusing me and others of that which you do yourself.
I have no need to evade or insult. Nor lie... I just give you back a fuller measure of what you dole out.
But never to hurt but to make you try and see what you are doing.
Your suffering is not mine or any other persons fault. I am not your whipping boy and never will be...figuratively speaking.
Quite a spectacular ejection of malodorous bile there, Sass, even for you.
-
;D ;D
She must have too much Christmas spirit inside her.
-
;D ;D
She must have too much Christmas spirit inside her.
And quite possibly most of the year round! ;D ;D ;D
-
Quite a spectacular ejection of malodorous bile there, Sass, even for you.
. Where yours is just a spontaneous ejection of good old usual verbal diarrhea .
Oh and floos stooge. I bet you don't jump very high. 🙋
-
Too much rich food on adults must act like some food colourings do on kids.
Must be the sugar rush ;) ;)
-
. Where yours is just a spontaneous ejection of good old usual verbal diarrhea .
Oh and floos stooge. I bet you don't jump very high. 🙋
Poor Sass! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Looks like another, Gang Up On Sass Day. Pathetic what some old ladies feel they have to do everyday. Why can't they do something useful like put masks and capes on then run out into the streets and fight crime.
-
Sass dishes it out well enough - are you suggesting she's so unable to take some back that she needs the likes of you white knighting for her?
-
Looks like another, Gang Up On Sass Day. Pathetic what some old ladies feel they have to do everyday. Why can't they do something useful like put masks and capes on then run out into the streets and fight crime.
It doesn't bear thinking about.... :o ;D
-
Sass dishes it out well enough - are you suggesting she's so unable to take some back that she needs the likes of you white knighting for her?
Oh Shaker,
I can give as good as I get, even better. But notice the atheists or the pagans always start it....
Shame it is still their doing and their fault. ;D
Truth hurts dunnit... Seems you are always running to the rescue of Floo I know whose side I would rather be on when it comes to being a knight and it isnt yours... Bah Humbug..
-
It doesn't bear thinking about.... :o ;D
With machine guns at the ready, of course! Oh I forgot this isn't the USofA where idiots think owning guns is a god given right! ;D >:(
-
Sass dishes it out well enough - are you suggesting she's so unable to take some back that she needs the likes of you white knighting for her?
Sass usually starts it with her nonsense assertions, so can expect a response, even if it is only a giggle!
-
Shaken and Stirred,
I am suggesting nothing of the sort old man. Your revolting arrogance is showing again. If you won't hide it, the least you could do is decorate it! Sass can take care of herself, just pointing out some people and their group bullying tactics, yourself included.
-
Shaken and Stirred,
I am suggesting nothing of the sort old man. Your revolting arrogance is showing again. If you won't hide it, the least you could do is decorate it! Sass can take care of herself, just pointing out some people and their group bullying tactics, yourself included.
If Sassy feels that she's being bullied - as opposed to you purporting to think that she is on her behalf, without her say-so - then she can always bring it to the attention of the mods or admin., which is part of their remit. Until and unless that occurs, butt out.
-
Oh I see, Shaker's arrogance allows him to stick up for others and answer for others, but he gets his grandma panties in a twist when others do so.
-
Sass usually starts it with her nonsense assertions, so can expect a response, even if it is only a giggle!
So, the two of you seem to be twins, in terms of 'nonsense assertions' ;)
-
So, the two of you seem to be twins, in terms of 'nonsense assertions' ;)
And what 'nonsense assertions' have I made?
-
That is not a YES or NO question.
Why not have a discussion about why there are more believers in God than there are Atheists and ask yourself who is most likely to be right than wrong giving the vast numbers that believe in God.
Bash has experienced the presence of God. Have you?
Well how can you ask the question and question his experience when you have felt Gods presence.
So what is it you want him to do? Lie and pretend he does not believe in his personal experience of God. Truth is you are not open minded otherwise you would show Bash the courtesy of believing him when he says he believes his experience of God is real. If open minded and sincere you would not question the possibility that he sincerely believes he knows God presence so has no reason to believe it could be wrong.
You're really cutting down on the assertions Sass.
ippy
-
The title of this thread is very apt!
Many of us have posted on forums for years and occasionally got into rows. After a while it is tedious, far easier to just ignore people who rub us up the wrong way - and take a step back when we feel a bit riled.
-
Three so called 'Christians' on this forum are well ahead of the pack when it comes to making Christianity a laughingstock. >:( I do wonder if they have mental health problems if they are unable to see how damaging their posts are to the faith they claim to love?
-
And what 'nonsense assertions' have I made?
Some of your threads - often resurrected ones, by the way - are based on a clear lack of understanding of either culture or human development.
-
Some of your threads - often resurrected ones, by the way - are based on a clear lack of understanding of either culture or human development.
And you have that understanding?
-
He seems to floo and you NEVER seem to.
-
He seems to floo
Where's this, then?
-
Some of your threads - often resurrected ones, by the way - are based on a clear lack of understanding of either culture or human development.
And most of your posts are based on a clear lack of understanding.
-
And most of your posts are based on a clear lack of understanding.
No more so than any of yours. I and others have regularly had to correct some posters' lack of basic biological, cultural and historical knowledge. For instance, there was the case of some posters questioning the morality of a 1st century young woman being married at the age of 12 or 13. Medical evidence shows that young people matured much younger then than they do currently.
-
No more so than any of yours. I and others have regularly had to correct some posters' lack of basic biological, cultural and historical knowledge. For instance, there was the case of some posters questioning the morality of a 1st century young woman being married at the age of 12 or 13. Medical evidence shows that young people matured much younger then than they do currently.
Which if true doesn't affect morality, you can't get an ought from an is. And I don't recall the evidence being provided.
-
Which if true doesn't affect morality, you can't get an ought from an is. And I don't recall the evidence being provided.
It wasn't and he contradicted himself in the same post and never addressed the issue.
-
It wasn't and he contradicted himself in the same post and never addressed the issue.
No way! :o
-
It wasn't and he contradicted himself in the same post and never addressed the issue.
Evidence?
-
Which if true doesn't affect morality, you can't get an ought from an is. And I don't recall the evidence being provided.
It was those who made the fuss who seemed to express moral outrage, iirc.
-
It was those who made the fuss who seemed to express moral outrage, iirc.
Eh? How does that begin to address your lack of understanding of morality and medicine, or the possibility that you didn't provide the evidence, useless, given that lack of understanding in the first place?
-
Evidence?
I wrote 17 pages proving it but I can't be bothered posting it.
-
Evidence?
No after you.
You have quite a lot of ground to make up.
-
No after you.
You have quite a lot of ground to make up.
Not really, most of the evidence I've been asked for over the months has been provided by a number of people over those same months. It has also been provided in a variety of documents that are more than in the public domain. The folk who have evidence to provide are those who question that evidence, but do so by positing possible alternatives without any solid supporting evidence. Until that evidence is provided it would seem to me that it is those folk who have the ground to make up.
-
Eh? How does that begin to address your lack of understanding of morality and medicine, or the possibility that you didn't provide the evidence, useless, given that lack of understanding in the first place?
NS, having worked for a medical and humanitarian agency for almost 8 years, and having a wife who is well-versed in medical matters being trained as an Australian SRN, maternal and child health nurse and midwife - which qualifications and the experience related to them the UK Nursing CXouncil chose to treat as unacceptable back in the 1980s - I have more than a passing knowledge of medicine. I also have a more than a passing understanding of morality - just because my understanding differs slightly from yours and that of some others here doesn't mean I don't have such an understanding. You will note that, though I have this difference of understanding, I don't tell you and the others that you lack understanding of the subject.
What I have said is that some here have a lack of knowledge of both culture and biology, insofar as the fact that even 1000 years ago here in the British Isles, women gave birth to children perfectly naturally at a younger age than they have done over the past couple of hundred years is concerned. That had to do with the lower average life expectancy prevalent at the time. There were a number of additional dietary/social/cultural and other factors that led to 1) the increase in that average life expectancy between the start and finish of the second millennium and 2) the changed approach to childhood, and thus to the age at which it was felt right for women to be having babies, even if that didn't necessarily reflect the age at which they became mature enough able to bear children - something that has fluctuated across time and across levels of wealth and therefore diet.
-
NS, having worked for a medical and humanitarian agency for almost 8 years, and having a wife who is well-versed in medical matters being trained as an Australian SRN, maternal and child health nurse and midwife - which qualifications and the experience related to them the UK Nursing CXouncil chose to treat as unacceptable back in the 1980s - I have more than a passing knowledge of medicine. I also have a more than a passing understanding of morality - just because my understanding differs slightly from yours and that of some others here doesn't mean I don't have such an understanding. You will note that, though I have this difference of understanding, I don't tell you and the others that you lack understanding of the subject.
What I have said is that some here have a lack of knowledge of both culture and biology, insofar as the fact that even 1000 years ago here in the British Isles, women gave birth to children perfectly naturally at a younger age than they have done over the past couple of hundred years is concerned. That had to do with the lower average life expectancy prevalent at the time. There were a number of additional dietary/social/cultural and other factors that led to 1) the increase in that average life expectancy between the start and finish of the second millennium and 2) the changed approach to childhood, and thus to the age at which it was felt right for women to be having babies, even if that didn't necessarily reflect the age at which they became mature enough able to bear children - something that has fluctuated across time and across levels of wealth and therefore diet.
You do understand evidence is not citing who you are married to? I'll move into the other issues of lack of understanding when you actually start to provide some. Note that isn't saying it doesn't exist, just that so far you seem to show no understanding of what evidence is.
Oh and BTW why are you lying about not telling others they lack understanding as it was you doing precisely that to Floo in reply 242 on this thread that kicked this set of posts off?
-
Just to help Hope with his lack of understanding on evidence here is a link.
http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm
Note Hope's original claim on this was that puberty historically happened much earlier than it does now.
-
Just bumping this thread up!
The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.
-
Just bumping this thread up!
The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.
It's easy to understand the social side of the meetings etc., that's involved with claming to have a faith, but where's the need to pretend believing the magic, mysteicism and supernatural content, that apparently doesn't do much, that I've ever seen, to elevate the decency of those taken in by this unevidenced nonsense.
Ippy
-
Just bumping this thread up!
The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.
I think you make a big assumption that people behave here in a way that they would behave in face2face situations, Floo; I also think that you assume that the antics, attitudes and behaviours of some on your side of the debate are somehow better than those of those on the other side. Aftr all, one could turn your question around and ask what the point of having no faith is if it doesn't make you a better person.
As far as I'm concerned, the folk of no-faith that I have debated with face2face generally seem to feel that they are pretty decent people and are happy with that. On the other hand, most Christians I know are pretty decent people who believe that they can be better. In that sense, the now is less important for the Christian; what is more important is how they can become better over time.
-
It's easy to understand the social side of the meetings etc., that's involved with claming to have a faith, but where's the need to pretend believing the magic, mysteicism and supernatural content, that apparently doesn't do much, that I've ever seen, to elevate the decency of those taken in by this unevidenced nonsense.
It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy. Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism. The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.
-
Hope,
It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy. Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism. The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.
Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.
Why?
Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?
-
Hope,
Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.
See also: fallacy, negative proof - why does he still keep churning that one out after all this time?
Why?
Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?
I've had exactly the same idea myself, bluey. It would save a lot of time - except in the writing of such a list, because to compile a list of every instance of flat assertion and every type of logical fallacy of which we see so much here day in and day out would be a formidable challenge indeed.
Could be an interesting collaborative exercise, though, and worth being stickified. I can see it now: "Ah yes, but there's no evidence that it's not true, is there?" "That's 3(a)."
-
Hope,
Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.
Why?
Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?
Just had a look at my PC to see whatever you may have come up with Hope, I note Blue and Shakes have beaten me to it and it looks like yet another drubbing.
Quite simply you come up with a story, we non-religious people don't, believe your stories, we tell you your stories haven't been substantiated, particularly the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of your stories, so until you can prove otherwise the ball is rather obviously in your court.
We're not looking to make anything up, evidence should be enough for anyone, well in most cases it should.
ippy
-
It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy. Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism. The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.
There is no difference between belief in magic and mysticism and religion like Christianity, imo.
-
There is no difference between belief in magic and mysticism and religion like Christianity, imo.
And you are entitled to your opinion - but do you have any evidence to support that opinion, Floo?
-
And you are entitled to your opinion - but do you have any evidence to support that opinion, Floo?
You have no evidence to support the notion that religion is any different!
-
Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.
Why?
Quite simple, bhs. From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations. With a little investigation, they don't hold water. I will often make this clear on the thread that the non-explanation has been posted on, and then 'go quiet for a bit' for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, having made my point about the non-explanation, I don't need to repeat that point: secondly, I have a life that may involve not using my computer for some hours, sometimes a day or two. For instance, currently I'm trying to finish my Fundraising course assignments which have been on hold since the end of October and have tried to avoid using this and other sites between about 10am and late afternoon (at which point I tend to abandon the computer anyway in order to cook evening meal for the family). Then there are the days I'm at the 2 charities I'm involved with, and then - as today - I help at various events and activities (I'm currently helping at a jobclub held at our church that runs once a week for 8 weeks)
As for my "pop(ping) up and repeat it elsewhere", there are those from your side of the debate who will make the same or very similar non-explanation' on a variety of threads, and I feel that it is my duty to respond to them on that thread - hence the repetition of my point that the 'explaation' doesn't hold water.
[/quote]Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?
[/quote]I suppose I could, if I had the time, do the equivalent for many of the non-explanations that people love to post. Not sure that I'd manage to get up to 5 on such a list - after all, many of the non-explanations are so similar that one rebuttal can do for several.
-
You have no evidence to support the notion that religion is any different!
Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo. Religious faith does. That's quite a considerable difference.
-
Lots of talk about evidence here.
What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?
Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.
Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.
The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.
There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.
If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches? How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?
-
Quite simple, bhs. From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations. With a little investigation, they don't hold water.
And do you seriously think the Bible stories are watertight? :o
-
Lots of talk about evidence here.
What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?
Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.
Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.
The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.
There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.
If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches? How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?
Couldn't remember so I had a quick look on Wikki, "egotism" food poisoning, by fungus in their diet, the fungus grows in rye and other cereal crops, the symptoms among others are mania and psychosis, was the cause of those women thinking the were witches or something very much like that, can't remember the details; maybe Hope?
Can't remember where I read about it, could have been Newcastle or Aberdeen, but I read about this somewhere some considerable amount of years ago from now.
ippy
PS sorry about the Newcastle etc but that's where my addled mind went at the time, no,not Newcastle; no not even the least bit amusing, yes I know.
ippy
-
Couldn't remember so I had a quick look on Wikki, "egotism" food poisoning, by fungus in their diet, the fungus grows in rye and other cereal crops, the symptoms among others are mania and psychosis, was the cause of those women thinking the were witches or something very much like that, can't remember the details; maybe Hope?
Can't remember where I read about it, could have been Newcastle or Aberdeen, but I read about this somewhere some considerable amount of years ago from now.
ippy
PS sorry about the Newcastle etc but that's where my addled mind went at the time, no,not Newcastle; no not even the least bit amusing, yes I know.
ippy
Presume this is predictive text changing ergotism to egotism?
-
Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo. Religious faith does. That's quite a considerable difference.
As I have stated elsewhere, magic, as in ta witch's spells, is the effecting in the physical world of a change or action by dint of manipulation of natural forces with either the aquiescence or assistance of a deity - exactly what Christ's miracles were - ergo Christ's miracles are exactly the same "magic" as a witch's spell.
-
Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo. Religious faith does. That's quite a considerable difference.
But if often does. If you prefer, belief in a deity is no more credible than belief in the ability of mediums to communicate with the dead!
-
Presume this is predictive text changing ergotism to egotism?
The most likely suspect will always in my case be my sad lifelong experience with spelling issues.
In my defence on this one my spell checker picked it up so I accepted it was correct and I would always place my bet on spell checker rather than on myself.
Please be more surprised when I get it right where spelling issues are concerned.
ippy
PS we all have a many and a varied amount of faults NS my efforts at spelling are atrocious, mind you I don't try to order people about, nor would it give me any particular pleasure to even try to do so, perhaps that might balance out some of the faults I have, faults that we all have, of various kinds of course.
-
Hope,
Quite simple, bhs. From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations. With a little investigation, they don't hold water. I will often make this clear on the thread that the non-explanation has been posted on, and then 'go quiet for a bit' for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, having made my point about the non-explanation, I don't need to repeat that point: secondly, I have a life that may involve not using my computer for some hours, sometimes a day or two. For instance, currently I'm trying to finish my Fundraising course assignments which have been on hold since the end of October and have tried to avoid using this and other sites between about 10am and late afternoon (at which point I tend to abandon the computer anyway in order to cook evening meal for the family). Then there are the days I'm at the 2 charities I'm involved with, and then - as today - I help at various events and activities (I'm currently helping at a jobclub held at our church that runs once a week for 8 weeks)
As for my "pop(ping) up and repeat it elsewhere", there are those from your side of the debate who will make the same or very similar non-explanation' on a variety of threads, and I feel that it is my duty to respond to them on that thread - hence the repetition of my point that the 'explaation' doesn't hold water.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Your broken thinking at issue is your “OK, I may be guessing but scientists are too” schtick. You’ve been corrected on it more than once yet you repeat it nonetheless.
Why ?
I suppose I could, if I had the time, do the equivalent for many of the non-explanations that people love to post. Not sure that I'd manage to get up to 5 on such a list - after all, many of the non-explanations are so similar that one rebuttal can do for several.
Again you’d have to explain what you mean by a “non-explanation” – and if you can do that, perhaps you could explain why you think it’s ok to replace a “don’t know” with a “here’s the answer then that happens to be a personal faith belief of my own”.
The point though is that you are notorious here for relying on logical fallacies, both formal and informal. As you just repeat them even after you’ve had them explained, perhaps it would be simpler to have a numbered list so that the rest of us could just post, “Hope balls up number six” or whatever. I doubt it’ll stop you doing it, but it’ll save others time at least.