Cyghost - I am pleased that is how you roll, but you are doing the skeptic movement a disservice. Instead of supporting skepticism by arguing logically and factually, you revert to bully tactics and offensive behavior. This may scare some people off or make them hesitant to engage in further conversation with you, which would remove the opportunity to teach people critical thinking and logical argument. Indeed you should thrive on argument and debate, instead of allowing your insecurity and alpha male tendencies to beat down opposing thought.
I am not part of any movement and write for and of myself only. I am not here to teach anyone anything and my tactics are my own.
That being said, if you think to start a conversation by posting a shitty little picture of a newspaper heading as if making some kind of point, you'll get the response from me you have. Live with it. Or don't. I don't care at all. Now that you have your own add homs
out of the way lets continue. Well, lets see if there is anything to continue with first.
"Then why post fucked up little pictures of fucked up little newspapers as if you are making an argument of some kind in the first place?" I take this to mean "If you don't want to argue, why are you posting pictures of articles in newspapers?"
I do want to argue, I posted the pic for that purpose.
That is one screwed up way of making a point. And completely useless. Which forces me to amuse myself in other ways. GiGo.
I said "as loathe as I am to argue with a vampire/ghost skeptic guy, I must propose the following:" because I predicted, based on your previous behavior that you would react as you did.
Yes, yes we noted the add homs
and realise you think you are the only one allowed to make such. Moving on then shall we?
I don't. But I do so anyway. You can use it or not as you see fit. But the response you get is directly proportioned to your input. So then stop complaining about it like a baby perhaps?
Please proceed to roll, as you do.
I can't. It is too small. Absolutely useless. Why don't you tell us how prayer busted the thugs instead because you a) suck at initiating conversation and b) at posting information we can work with.
Yes, when I spoke of "the heart" in that context as the locus of feelings and intuitions. It is a fairly common metaphor and expression. No need to intentionally refer to things in another context where it is not ambiguous just to prove a point. Skeptics should value truth over making a point, right?
The point was truthful. That particular metaphor pisses me off in this context and I like to take the piss out of it. Again, I don't care how you perceive my style at all. If you were actually offering arguments instead of screwed up newspaper headings and cute metaphors, I'd perhaps have something to address and wouldn't have to amuse myself in these nefarious ways you object to so much?
The fact that you have never experienced "Jesus being in your heart" is only a result of lack of belief and adherence to the Christian faith. You would have experienced it as being compassion, love, kindness or philanthropic feelings, with no attached religious connotations - as a religious person would have.
So having Jesus in my heart and not having Jesus in my heart is the same eh? I kinda thought so.