Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

[koshergrl]

What a bunch of garbage.

You build a huge castle of air upon sand that in turn is built on water. It's nothing. Your brilliant logic isn't even logic, it's just silly nothings.

Saying Christians are illogical IS an assumption, the assumption being that all Christians are illogical. It's also a claim, there's nothing that says one precludes the other, you moron. You're one of those who is in love with the sound of his own voice, but in the end, you never say anything....

And whether or not what a person has faith in exists in reality or not has no bearing on whether or not that faith is a pathway to truth. A fucking purple people eater can be a pathway to truth, if you believe he expects you to seek truth and be truthful.

Christians are humble, it's the hallmark of their being. But they don't answer to self absorbed twits who think they are the end-all see-all of reality. They answer to God and to each other. That is what it comes down to. Elitist prigs like you think that everybody should kowtow to you and your pasty faced loony friends...with your lofty and meaningless concepts and your garbled abuse of the English language that you think passes for clarity and intelligence..but which really just show you up for the self centered, bigoted and narrow scoped assholes you are.

 

[newpolitics]

What a bunch of garbage.

You build a huge castle of air upon sand that in turn is built on water. It's nothing. Your brilliant logic isn't even logic, it's just silly nothings.

Saying Christians are illogical IS an assumption, the assumption being that all Christians are illogical. It's also a claim, there's nothing that says one precludes the other, you moron. You're one of those who is in love with the sound of his own voice, but in the end, you never say anything....

And whether or not what a person has faith in exists in reality or not has no bearing on whether or not that faith is a pathway to truth. A fucking purple people eater can be a pathway to truth, if you believe he expects you to seek truth and be truthful.

Christians are humble, it's the hallmark of their being. But they don't answer to self absorbed twits who think they are the end-all see-all of reality. They answer to God and to each other. That is what it comes down to. Elitist prigs like you think that everybody should kowtow to you and your pasty faced loony friends...with your lofty and meaningless concepts and your garbled abuse of the English language that you think passes for clarity and intelligence..but which really just show you up for the self centered, bigoted and narrow scoped assholes you are.

There is nothing that says definitions aren't what they are? Yes, there is. It's called a dictionary. "Assumptions" are not synonymous with "claims." In fact, they are mutually exclusive for all practical purposes. For the one hundredth time, this doesn't matter anyways, because I never claimed that christians are illogical. Perhaps I implied it, but that is also untrue, because I explicitly stated that I don't believe christians are necessarily illogical. Do you not remember when I said intelligence has nothing to do with belief, and that I know many smart christians? Where in this, do you even get an assumption, let alone a claim from me, that christians are illogical? I will say, that you are a fucking moron.

Wait, so something can be a pathway to truth, because that which you have faith in expects YOU to seek truth and be truthful? Therefore, by your own words, it is not the object of your faith that is producing truth. It is you. You have just demonstrated my point. God is useless in this scenario. The only necessary thing for truth is you, and your search for truth. God has no purpose in seeking truth. In fact, this is where I believe religion is damaging. It makes you think you need a god in order to seek or see truth. You don't. You have been duped by a lie.

 

[koshergrl]

You're a fucking idiot.

"
as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/

Noun:

• A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".

You accept that all Christians are illogical, without proof. You are making an assumption.That lead you to make a CLAIM:

"
claim/klām/

Verb:State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

You make the assumption, you make the claim. You do both, looky there.

PS..you don't want to play this game with me. I can tell already you aren't up for it.

 

[newpolitics]

You're a fucking idiot.

"
as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/

Noun:

• A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".

You accept that all Christians are illogical, without proof. You are making an assumption.That lead you to make a CLAIM:

"
claim/klām/

Verb:State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

You make the assumption, you make the claim. You do both, looky there.

PS..you don't want to play this game with me. I can tell already you aren't up for it.

Oh, I'm going. Read a little closer. The devil is in the details. The usage for these terms, in other words, their function, is what separates them entirely and makes them nearly mutually exclusive and non-interchangeable. You demonstrated this yourself when you wrote this:

"You are making an assumption.That lead you to make a CLAIM."

By itself, this might make sense, but you have proved your own premise false right there. You could not have switched the two words, and said:

"You are making a claim. That lead you to make an assumption"

This makes no sense in the context of what we are talking about. "I made a claim that christians are illogical, which led me to make an assumption that christians are illogical?"

Nope. That's non-sensical.

I will not contest you any further on what I actually said about christians, because clearly, you don't want to believe that I don't think christians are illogical, as a generality. I assume that is because you want to be a troll, but am not necessarily making the claim that you are a troll (or am I?)

 

[koshergrl]

No, I'm not beat.

You make assumptions about Christians that show you to be a bigot, and to make idiotic claims.

You're exposed already. You can diddle the words all you like, it won't make any difference. I know the language. When people like you screw themselves they like to go over it with a microscope and point out exactly how they didn't screw themselves...but it doesn't matter. It's just drivel.

 

[newpolitics]

No, I'm not beat.

You make assumptions about Christians that show you to be a bigot, and to make idiotic claims.

You're exposed already. You can diddle the words all you like, it won't make any difference. I know the language. When people like you screw themselves they like to go over it with a microscope and point out exactly how they didn't screw themselves...but it doesn't matter. It's just drivel.

I'm done debating with someone as non-sensical as you. You have proven yourself unable to carry on a logical discussion as you have just demonstrated.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not non-sensical, nor am I illogical. And I knew you wouldn't be interested in continuing to debate...people who make a bad showing never are.

You join a party of about 4 well known lightweights who have declared (repeatedly, yawn) that they are going to ignore me because I'm just too darned dumb for them.

That doesn't keep them from commenting when they submit negs to me...but people who view themselves as literary scholars but who really operate at about 8th grade level quickly get depressed and give up when their silly, immature "wordsmithing" doesn't bamboozle quite the way they thought it would.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm not non-sensical, nor am I illogical. And I knew you wouldn't be interested in continuing to debate...people who make a bad showing never are.

You join a party of about 4 well known lightweights who have declared (repeatedly, yawn) that they are going to ignore me because I'm just too darned dumb for them.

That doesn't keep them from commenting when they submit negs to me...but people who view themselves as literary scholars but who really operate at about 8th grade level quickly get depressed and give up when their silly, immature "wordsmithing" doesn't bamboozle quite the way they thought it would.

This isn't a logical debate. This is mud-slinging, and I"m not interested in that. You can't follow ideas logically, and it is simply too energy draining to constantly have to correct you on what I say or have said. I realize in the past we have had some very vitriolic and mean-spirited discourses, but I am really trying to have a logical discussion here, and you are making that impossible. Don't make this about me giving up. I am simply cutting my losses. This is not enjoyable because you do not want to participate in any constructive manner. You only want to insult me personally and misrepresent my position, and do so in an attempt to further insult me, it seems. Have a good night.

 

[koshergrl]

If you aren't interested in mudslinging, then you should probably change the title of your thread and the entire text of the OP.

Like most "atheists" you think it's "logic" when you engage in bigotry, name calling, and jeering...but when Christians do it, it's "illogical" and "mudslinging".


Typical.

 

[newpolitics]

If you aren't interested in mudslinging, then you should probably change the title of your thread and the entire text of the OP.

Like most "atheists" you think it's "logic" when you engage in bigotry, name calling, and jeering...but when Christians do it, it's "illogical" and "mudslinging".


Typical.

I'm trying to not insult you right now.

This isn't my thread.

 

[koshergrl]

So it's not!

Well scratch that part. It applies to your recent posts as well.

 

[daveman]

Actually, it is you who are being infinitely arrogant in attempting to assert your own subjective standards of evidence over what the scientific method would require.

Most people don't use the scientific method in their personal lives. And I'm not attempting to force you to do anything, so your spurious charge of arrogance is asinine.

You, however, want to remove my right to vote because you're butthurt.

I think you're a moron, but I have no problem with you voting.

A guy tired of being told what he can believe by elitist pricks.

Hint: That's you.

If you've had revelation from god. I would call that sufficient FOR YOU. I've never experienced it, and I had no reason to believe because of your experience or your testimony of your experience, because you can not demonstrate to me that it was god that caused the experience. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't believe, but you can't prove it was god, so I have no reason to believe. That is all. There is no objectively verifiable proof of god that everyone can look at and say "that's god."

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand faith. Do I need to link to a definition?

No, I got it,

Faith

1.) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Did you read that last part? NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION.

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

You are claiming that I am attempting to remove your right to vote. Would you mind explaining how? That is impossible and that is not what I want. I want you to vote too.

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

All I am doing is posting words on an internet forum challenging the basic for your supernatural beliefs. I will fully admit that I do not respect your beliefs, at all, but I respect your right to have them. Don't assume that I don't want you to vote. I want to live in a free country, but with within that freedom, I am allowed to challenge your beliefs, and that is what I am doing. Do not make assumptions you can't substantiate, it's also really annoying!

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

 

[daveman]

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party. The Christian Right has hijacked the conservative party in a way that is deplorable and they have steered the national discussion towards things that don't matter, and made campaigns about topics that are absurd. It is necessary to attack to their beliefs, because they don't represent truth in any demonstrable way. There is zero evidence for any claims about the Christian god, or any god, yet people act is if he is real, and that everyone else should believe. That is really annoying, and so they are only getting what they deserve. If Christians would be a little more humble and not so obnoxious, perhaps they could be spared from such scrutiny, but they instead wish to stick their head into everyone's business, because they believe they are entitled too because they believe they are morally superior, which is truly ironic. Christians are the least moral people who simply pray away their sins and never actually deal with themselves. Pray away the gay? Give me a break. Christians are laughable in this regard. You demand this respect, yet give none.

So -- you petulantly demand that Christians not allow their faith to direct their decisions.

How's that working out for you?

Ridiculing is not demanding, its ridiculing. Don't be so melodramatic. At most, I suggested Christians be more humble. You are really imperceptive or unintelligent if you think I demanded anything, and you also continually misrepresent what I say, much like Koshergrl. Funny how christians and conservatives have similar thought processes characterized by an inability to interpret reality without extreme confirmation bias. You seem to have a pre-formed belief about me based on the fact that I am a liberal athiest, and project that onto every post I write, and then interpret your own projections. That's called being delusional (and narcissistic, which both of you are), because nowhere in this last post did I "putulantly demand that Christians not allow their faith to direct their decisions." I'm an american, and honor and respect our constitution, as much as you wish I didn't. Please direct me to the line where I DEMANDED that christians not follow their faith? It's called a marketplace of ideas, and in America, its free game. Funny how in financial markets, conservatives want a free market, but when it comes to their religious beliefs, they hide behind the government. That's a little backwards and hypocritical if you ask me.

So, in summary, you don't want us to psychoanalyze you, while you psychoanalyze us.

What a flaming hypocrite.

 

[koshergrl]

Not only that, he's annoyed by any references to HIS intelligence or HIS belief system...but thinks criticism about the intelligence and belief system of Christians needs to be broadcast without any sort of challenge.

 

[newpolitics]

Most people don't use the scientific method in their personal lives. And I'm not attempting to force you to do anything, so your spurious charge of arrogance is asinine.

You, however, want to remove my right to vote because you're butthurt.

I think you're a moron, but I have no problem with you voting.

A guy tired of being told what he can believe by elitist pricks.

Hint: That's you.

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand faith. Do I need to link to a definition?

No, I got it,

Faith

1.) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Did you read that last part? NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION.

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

You are claiming that I am attempting to remove your right to vote. Would you mind explaining how? That is impossible and that is not what I want. I want you to vote too.

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

All I am doing is posting words on an internet forum challenging the basic for your supernatural beliefs. I will fully admit that I do not respect your beliefs, at all, but I respect your right to have them. Don't assume that I don't want you to vote. I want to live in a free country, but with within that freedom, I am allowed to challenge your beliefs, and that is what I am doing. Do not make assumptions you can't substantiate, it's also really annoying!

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment. Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

 

[Newby]

No, I got it,

Faith

1.) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Did you read that last part? NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION.

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

All I am doing is posting words on an internet forum challenging the basic for your supernatural beliefs. I will fully admit that I do not respect your beliefs, at all, but I respect your right to have them. Don't assume that I don't want you to vote. I want to live in a free country, but with within that freedom, I am allowed to challenge your beliefs, and that is what I am doing. Do not make assumptions you can't substantiate, it's also really annoying!

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment. Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

Yeah, exactly like the irrational utopian socialist beliefs that leftist morons insist on pushing on the rest of us thru government fiat.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I got it,

Faith

1.) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Did you read that last part? NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION.

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

All I am doing is posting words on an internet forum challenging the basic for your supernatural beliefs. I will fully admit that I do not respect your beliefs, at all, but I respect your right to have them. Don't assume that I don't want you to vote. I want to live in a free country, but with within that freedom, I am allowed to challenge your beliefs, and that is what I am doing. Do not make assumptions you can't substantiate, it's also really annoying!

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment. Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

Why don't you give us an example there, skippy? I want to see an example of the real actions based on irrational religious beliefs that are affecting others.

 

[GreatestIam]

Is there any part of the Bible you believe to be true?

True as in make sense? Sure.

Things like this that destroys your notions of Jesus and his sacrifice to himself.

Ezekiel 18:20
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Regards
DL

So it has to make sense to you to be true. I see. You've put yourself in quite a lofty position.

Should I, like you, believe in things that do not make sense?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

And I'm sure you're less likely to follow blindly than, say, me, who gets to listen to idiots like you proclaim how dumb and brainwashed Christians are about a hundred times a day.

Tell me..why is it that atheists feel it's so important to ridicule the beliefs of Christians?

I am not an atheist but would like to answer here for most of the atheists I know who tolerate my beliefs thanks to my morals matching theirs and trumping Christian morals.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

See if you can understand the message in this link.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU]The Real God: An Epiphany - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[koshergrl]

True as in make sense? Sure.

Things like this that destroys your notions of Jesus and his sacrifice to himself.

Ezekiel 18:20
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Regards
DL

So it has to make sense to you to be true. I see. You've put yourself in quite a lofty position.

Should I, like you, believe in things that do not make sense?

Regards
DL

I am 100 percent certain you already do.

Tell me..do you think abortion prevents child abuse?