Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[Czernobog]

Yes it it easy to ponder how we got here and come to the conclusion that something greater than us put us here but every piece of evidence for this creator are stories made up. Some on purpose (cults) and some people truly believe they had an experience.

There may be a creator and if he does care you better be good for goodness sake.

Do I think belief would matter to this creator? No. That religion bs.

I think it's important people be open to the possibility there might not be a God. Otherwise that person talks about God as if it's a fact when it is not.

God can't even qualify as a theory. At least not a scientific one. So while reason and experience might tell you one thing evidence says another

Ok, so if there were a creator why don't you believe he cares?

Cancer, Alzheimer's

So, you believe everything would have to be perfect for their to be a creator? Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? Are you always perfect in everything you do with them? Does the fact that everything isn't always perfect somehow mean you love them less?

So...this "creator" is as flawed as we are? Why would anyone want to worship a flawed being? In that case, I might as well worship my cousin Brent. All hail Brent!

Probably because you are already worshiping yourself.

Ooooo...snap! So, another question that you are incapable of answering. Doesn't surprise me. You don't seem to have put a great deal of actual thought into this whole God thing. Just listened to what everyone else has told you, and learned to parrot the thoughts of others.

 

[ding]

I see... so if it were up to you would you abolish religion?

Sorry, Sealybobo. dingdong seems to think that anyone who is not completely enamoured with magical thinking must be authoritarian, and want to pass laws to criminalise religion.

You don't think he could answer that question on his own? Or is it that you believe I am so dangerous that he needed cliff notes. Either way, that ain't good.

Oh, I'm sorry. You were bragging earlier that 6 against one was unfair, and we were all outgunned. What? You suddenly can't handle just two?

lol, no, jump in and answer the questions for him. I don't mind. You don't have much of a sense of humor. I though fat people were supposed to be jolly.

Do you believe that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed?

Oh, the latter, clearly. Which is why legislation is unnecessary. Actually, I would go so far as to say it is counterproductive. After all, when you expose behaviour for the stupidity that it is, rational people lose interest. When you try to criminalise it, it becomes a taboo to push the limits. This is why criminalising prostitution never did a thing to prevent it. Or drugs. Or gambling. Or any other stupid personal behaviour that moralists keep trying to criminalise.

Let me clarify:

Do you believe is a harmful influence?

Do you believe that religion should not be tolerated?

Do you believe that religion should be countered?

Do you believe that religion should be criticized?

Do you believe that religion should be exposed?

Do you believe that you should condemn respect for people who follow a religion?

 

[Czernobog]

Sure it is, but inflicting innocent people, including children, with debilitating, excruciating disease, hunger, or other afflictions that have nothing to do with growing old, and dying comfortably in old age seems a bit...unnecessary, don't ya think?

Well... since you don't believe in God, don't you think that is a little silly of you to blame him for that?

You know you can just admit that you have no answer for the question. It's okay to admit that you can't understand how the God you choose to worship could choose to be so cruel.

Oh, you want me to defend why God allows bad things to happen to good people? Sure, just as soon as you finish out our discussion on your lack of objectivity and your being a militant atheist. Fair enough?

I thought we had. Your bias has led you to conclude that I am the one who lacks objectivity, and I am perfectly happy allowing you your delusion. Moving on...

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

 

[ding]

Ok, so if there were a creator why don't you believe he cares?

Cancer, Alzheimer's

So, you believe everything would have to be perfect for their to be a creator? Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? Are you always perfect in everything you do with them? Does the fact that everything isn't always perfect somehow mean you love them less?

So...this "creator" is as flawed as we are? Why would anyone want to worship a flawed being? In that case, I might as well worship my cousin Brent. All hail Brent!

Probably because you are already worshiping yourself.

Ooooo...snap! So, another question that you are incapable of answering. Doesn't surprise me. You don't seem to have put a great deal of actual thought into this whole God thing. Just listened to what everyone else has told you, and learned to parrot the thoughts of others.

lol, that was in reference to comment about worshiping your cousin Brent.

 

[ding]

Well... since you don't believe in God, don't you think that is a little silly of you to blame him for that?

You know you can just admit that you have no answer for the question. It's okay to admit that you can't understand how the God you choose to worship could choose to be so cruel.

Oh, you want me to defend why God allows bad things to happen to good people? Sure, just as soon as you finish out our discussion on your lack of objectivity and your being a militant atheist. Fair enough?

I thought we had. Your bias has led you to conclude that I am the one who lacks objectivity, and I am perfectly happy allowing you your delusion. Moving on...

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity. so what exactly was in your good tally of positive influences of religion?

 

[Czernobog]

Let me clarify:

Do you believe is a harmful influence?

Yes

Do you believe that religion should not be tolerated?

No, I do not believe that.

Do you believe that religion should be countered?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be criticized?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be exposed?

Yes.

Do you believe that you should condemn respect for people who follow a religion?

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

 

[ding]

Let me clarify:

Do you believe is a harmful influence?

Yes

Do you believe that religion should not be tolerated?

No, I do not believe that.

Do you believe that religion should be countered?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be criticized?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be exposed?

Yes.

Do you believe that you should condemn respect for people who follow a religion?

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Then by definition you are a militant atheist.

 

[Czernobog]

You know you can just admit that you have no answer for the question. It's okay to admit that you can't understand how the God you choose to worship could choose to be so cruel.

Oh, you want me to defend why God allows bad things to happen to good people? Sure, just as soon as you finish out our discussion on your lack of objectivity and your being a militant atheist. Fair enough?

I thought we had. Your bias has led you to conclude that I am the one who lacks objectivity, and I am perfectly happy allowing you your delusion. Moving on...

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

 

[Czernobog]

Let me clarify:

Do you believe is a harmful influence?

Yes

Do you believe that religion should not be tolerated?

No, I do not believe that.

Do you believe that religion should be countered?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be criticized?

Yes.

Do you believe that religion should be exposed?

Yes.

Do you believe that you should condemn respect for people who follow a religion?

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Then by definition you are a militant atheist.

No. by definition, I am an atheist. I told you before, there is no such thing as a "militant" atheist. There are just atheists. If it makes you feel any better, I also don't think there are militant Christians; there are just Christians. You all believe the same fairy tales, and you all react pretty much exactly the same way when those fairy tales are challenged.

The only theological belief system that I would say does have a "militant" variety, would be Islam. I mean that religion has motherfuckers that strap on bombs and blow shit up, if their religion is challenged! Now that is some militant shit!

 

[ding]

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Basically this means that any religious person you ever come into contact with who tells you about their beliefs will be mocked. This means you condemn respect for people who believe in God. That's a nasty habit that will affect all parts of your life. You can't corral bad behaviors because they become bad habits. I suspect you treat everyone in an arrogant manner except those who hold power over you like your boss or other authoritative persons.

 

[ding]

Oh, you want me to defend why God allows bad things to happen to good people? Sure, just as soon as you finish out our discussion on your lack of objectivity and your being a militant atheist. Fair enough?

I thought we had. Your bias has led you to conclude that I am the one who lacks objectivity, and I am perfectly happy allowing you your delusion. Moving on...

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

 

[Czernobog]

I thought we had. Your bias has led you to conclude that I am the one who lacks objectivity, and I am perfectly happy allowing you your delusion. Moving on...

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

 

[Czernobog]

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Basically this means that any religious person you ever come into contact with who tells you about their beliefs will be mocked.

Pretty much.

This means you condemn respect for people who believe in God. That's a nasty habit that will affect all parts of your life. You can't corral bad behaviors because they become bad habits. I suspect you treat everyone in an arrogant manner except those who hold power over you like your boss or other authoritative persons.

Not true. I specifically illustrated the religious people I feel no inclination to mock even a little bit. And mocking arrogant delusionals isn't a bad habit; it's entertainment. You talking about arrogance is rather like a crack head condemning an alcoholic for his weakness, and addiction.

You really are a walking, talking example of irony.

 

[ding]

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Basically this means that any religious person you ever come into contact with who tells you about their beliefs will be mocked.

Pretty much.

This means you condemn respect for people who believe in God. That's a nasty habit that will affect all parts of your life. You can't corral bad behaviors because they become bad habits. I suspect you treat everyone in an arrogant manner except those who hold power over you like your boss or other authoritative persons.

Not true. I specifically illustrated the religious people I feel no inclination to mock even a little bit. And mocking arrogant delusionals isn't a bad habit; it's entertainment. You talking about arrogance is rather like a crack head condemning an alcoholic for his weakness, and addiction.

You really are a walking, talking example of irony.

If they believe in God and share their belief with you, you will mock them. That is condemning respect for them.

 

[ding]

No we did not conclude that and I don't think that was your reason for moving on either.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

 

[Czernobog]

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Basically this means that any religious person you ever come into contact with who tells you about their beliefs will be mocked.

Pretty much.

This means you condemn respect for people who believe in God. That's a nasty habit that will affect all parts of your life. You can't corral bad behaviors because they become bad habits. I suspect you treat everyone in an arrogant manner except those who hold power over you like your boss or other authoritative persons.

Not true. I specifically illustrated the religious people I feel no inclination to mock even a little bit. And mocking arrogant delusionals isn't a bad habit; it's entertainment. You talking about arrogance is rather like a crack head condemning an alcoholic for his weakness, and addiction.

You really are a walking, talking example of irony.

If they believe in God and share their belief with you, you will mock them. That is condemning respect for them.

Only those who can't keep their beliefs to themselves. I know a lot of religious folk - Christian, and otherwise - that I have never mocked, because they have never felt the need to subject me to their delusion. I only mock those who are arrogant enough to actually believe they have anything to say that I have not already heard, read, or studied for myself. (hint, hint)

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

No. If you had respected me enough to actually read my posts, instead of just waiting to see a post so that you could fire off your ready made response, you wouldn't need me to

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

LOL! So, you were being "objective" by cutting and pasting part of a Wikipedia article, instead of actually responding to my questions yourself, but I was not being objective by responding to what you actually posted?!?!

Do yourself a favour...quit while you're behind...

 

[ding]

Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.

Now do I think that religion should be mocked? At every opportunity. But, religious people? only when they feel the uncontrollable urge to bother me with their silly superstitions.

Basically this means that any religious person you ever come into contact with who tells you about their beliefs will be mocked.

Pretty much.

This means you condemn respect for people who believe in God. That's a nasty habit that will affect all parts of your life. You can't corral bad behaviors because they become bad habits. I suspect you treat everyone in an arrogant manner except those who hold power over you like your boss or other authoritative persons.

Not true. I specifically illustrated the religious people I feel no inclination to mock even a little bit. And mocking arrogant delusionals isn't a bad habit; it's entertainment. You talking about arrogance is rather like a crack head condemning an alcoholic for his weakness, and addiction.

You really are a walking, talking example of irony.

If they believe in God and share their belief with you, you will mock them. That is condemning respect for them.

Only those who can't keep their beliefs to themselves. I know a lot of religious folk - Christian, and otherwise - that I have never mocked, because they have never felt the need to subject me to their delusion. I only mock those who are arrogant enough to actually believe they have anything to say that I have not already heard, read, or studied for myself. (hint, hint)

You do realize that you are in a religious forum where religion is discussed. You are actively seeking out people to mock. That makes you a liar and a piece of shit to boot.

 

[ding]

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

No. If you had respected me enough to actually read my posts, instead of just waiting to see a post so that you could fire off your ready made response, you wouldn't need me to

If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity.

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

LOL! So, you were being "objective" by cutting and pasting part of a Wikipedia article, instead of actually responding to my questions yourself, but I was not being objective by responding to what you actually posted?!?!

Do yourself a favour...quit while you're behind...

Bullshit. You have never made an objective assessment of the good that religion brings to mankind in your life. Not once. You are delusional.

 

[Czernobog]

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

No. If you had respected me enough to actually read my posts, instead of just waiting to see a post so that you could fire off your ready made response, you wouldn't need me to

I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"

Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.

Fuck you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.

If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?

LOL! So, you were being "objective" by cutting and pasting part of a Wikipedia article, instead of actually responding to my questions yourself, but I was not being objective by responding to what you actually posted?!?!

Do yourself a favour...quit while you're behind...

Bullshit. You have never made an objective assessment of the good that religion brings to mankind in your life. Not once. You are delusional.

Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk