Re: Religious e-mails (and the evolution of the perfect snappy comeback) - split

<< < (3/10) > >>

BoogieMonster (November 30, 2009, 13:36:29 PM):



Don't you believe that god originated out of nothing?
Mandarb (November 30, 2009, 15:25:47 PM):
Quote
The only way to read the story would be to purchase said respectable and reputable newspaper

I stopped reading at that point. You're saying that the same newspaper that regularly says that Tokoloshes exist is real, is a reputable and respectable newspaper? Oh dear Wotan, I can't stop laughing.
Irreverend (December 01, 2009, 01:30:44 AM):
Atheism

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened ... blah, blah, blah.
Yup, another response as devoid of factual content as it is full of faith-based supposition. Please point me at the atheist who says either directly or by implication that "I don't know" means "everything came from nothing". It's funny though how most atheists emerge from a position of indoctrinated belief. One is tempted to say that atheists outgrow the need for juvenile fairytales concerning origins.

Don't you believe that god originated out of nothing?
Theologians are more or less agreed that god is a "necessary being". Apart from not saying exactly which of several thousand gods is The One nor what properties such necessity entails, that's the usual hysterically funny religionistic copout: god works in mysterious ways and manages to pull himself out of his own ass in the process.
Midd93 (December 01, 2009, 08:46:03 AM):
Irreverend, you are quite right - the point of posting that pic in response to the one on Christianity, was to illustrate that anything can seem absurd when written in such a way and taken out of context.

BoogieMonster - No, I do not believe that God originated out of nothing. It would be better to ask someone with theistic beliefs.

Mandarb - Dear Wotan indeed. I have an excellent collection of articles from the Daily Sun, ranging from zombies to tokoloshes, people being raped by snakes and muthi.

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.

To answer you questions:
"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. 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.

You said: "I did. This isn't my problem. You are trying to say something. Do it right or leave it alone." There is no stipulation in the terms of use for this forum that all posted stories or pics from newspapers should be accompanied by the full text. You have no place or right to tell me to leave it alone.

the text:



Please proceed to roll, as you do.

"I was a cop for 8 years. Jesus was never in my heart. I doubt Jesus is in any heart in any of the ways you just described. At most he is an idea in their heads. The heart doesn't do what you think it does."

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 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.

Thanks again.

cyghost (December 01, 2009, 09:25:24 AM):
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.
Quote
"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.
Quote
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?
Quote
You said: "I did. This isn't my problem. You are trying to say something. Do it right or leave it alone." There is no stipulation in the terms of use for this forum that all posted stories or pics from newspapers should be accompanied by the full text. You have no place or right to tell me to leave it alone.

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?
Quote


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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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. ::)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page