Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I do? News to me. It seems to have slipped right by you that my issue is with big government. Somehow you equate that to individual waste of resources. You may want to look into comparing government waste to individual waste of the average lower-middle class person.You choose to selfishly throw your hands in the air and say it's too 'costly'.
Okay. Technically they are more allegory than fable, but that probably only matters to those who teach the difference between fables, allegories, myths, etc. i.e., it doesn't matter to the majority whether it is called fable, myth, allegory, parable, etc. Ballad, sonnet, ode, epic...one is as good as the other, right?I believe parables are the theological equivalent to fables.
You mean those of us who have always carefully conserved? It would be better if I were wasteful? Interesting.
All the same, I don't intend to change
Have always followed the philosophy of, "Live simply so others may simply live." Sorry not to have been more wasteful so that there would have been a greater demand for your green power.
Okay. Technically they are more allegory than fable, but that probably only matters to those who teach the difference between fables, allegories, myths, etc. i.e., it doesn't matter to the majority whether it is called fable, myth, allegory, parable, etc. Ballad, sonnet, ode, epic...one is as good as the other, right?I believe parables are the theological equivalent to fables.
I've done enough research to know I have no use for gods or religionAnd we, being human, have no idea that languages change and evolve? God's advice still stands. Seek and you will find. (I take "Seek" as "Do the research.")And if god is the perfect unassailable all powerful being you'd think that he would understand that languages would evolve wouldn't you?
or so they say.Many protestant ministers are well versed in both GREEK and HEBREW. Both are ancient languages of GOD's Word.That was the Protestant philosophy during the Reformation. Everyone, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can read the Bible for themselves with perfect understanding. That wasn't the Catholic position because language, cultures, and times change. One Protestant read the Bible, didn't understand the Hebrew (not that the King James translation was any help with that) and presto! He decides according to the Bible the earth is six thousand years old. Anyone who could read the Hebrew knew Ussher had it all wrong. Still, to this day (more than 200 years later) some still believe the earth is about six thousand years old.the bible is supposed to about for you isn't it? After all it's an instruction book on how to live in a way that god deems acceptable.
This is where religion and I part ways.
I shouldn't need someone to tell me what the word of god means.
hence no third party commentary or fluency in ancient languages should be necessary.
My other favorites, of course, is that people believe the events written about in Revelation are yet to happen, when each one happened two thousand years ago. Some Protestants believe there will be a day when some will be "Raptured" off the planet. And speaking of the planet, some think there had to be zebras, polar bears, and penguins on Noah's ark. Read the Hebrew. It didn't say the flood covered the planet, but the earth (meaning the ground) as far as the eye could see.
It is my opinion that Protestants and their insistence that everyone can read and understand the Bible on their own may be responsible for the number of atheists today. Don't tell me that understanding the history and cultures (commentary) and fluency in the original language(s) isn't necessary. Early Jews and Christians would be laughing hysterically at the ideas of Rapture, penguins on the ark, etc. Bet you anything they would be saying, "Don't know what you're reading, but it's not the Bible!"
Perhaps you can understand why limiting answers about the Bible to "Yes" or "No" isn't at all practical.
I haven't yet met a Catholic priest that was fluent in ancient languages so they are just being told what to say by someone else.
And if god is the perfect unassailable all powerful being you'd think that he would understand that languages would evolve wouldn't you?
But it is your default discussion style.And it was wrong when I did it too. The difference being I don't make it my mission to do that nor do I rationalize that I am justified in doing it.What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you doNo. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God
Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.
If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.
Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.
You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.
Re-read your post. You were accusing me, personally, without even knowing where I stand not only on Green energy, but on energy use.False. Anecdotal. Evidence. Why do this?
Why frequent religion forums? For example, I have no use for the flat earth society so it would not occur to me to visit their forums or website. I am from a family of true atheists, married to an atheist. Not one of them have a need to visit religion forums., so I am curious why some atheists feel this need.I've done enough research to know I have no use for gods or religion
This thread is about atheism not religionWhy frequent religion forums? For example, I have no use for the flat earth society so it would not occur to me to visit their forums or website. I am from a family of true atheists, married to an atheist. Not one of them have a need to visit religion forums., so I am curious why some atheists feel this need.I've done enough research to know I have no use for gods or religion
More precisely, accounts of some people relating some experiences of God. It is my opinion the one weakness of the Bible is that the story should be continuing down through the ages.So the bible is what a bunch of different people decided was the true word of their god
Yes, my point...atheism focused on what...This thread is about atheism not religion
Like the old telephone gameMore precisely, accounts of some people relating some experiences of God. It is my opinion the one weakness of the Bible is that the story should be continuing down through the ages.So the bible is what a bunch of different people decided was the true word of their god
Not at all. "Bible" means books. The Bible is a collection of books about God. Why stop collecting?Like the old telephone game
Not at all. "Bible" means books. The Bible is a collection of books about God. Why stop collecting?Like the old telephone game
That.. I will disagree with.But it is your default discussion style.And it was wrong when I did it too. The difference being I don't make it my mission to do that nor do I rationalize that I am justified in doing it.What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you doNo. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God
Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.
If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.
Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.
You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.
So you are in denial
Of course you do that's why it's called denial.That.. I will disagree with.But it is your default discussion style.And it was wrong when I did it too. The difference being I don't make it my mission to do that nor do I rationalize that I am justified in doing it.What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you doNo. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God
Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.
If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.
Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.
You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.
So you are in denial
Think what you want. I know better.Of course you do that's why it's called denial.That.. I will disagree with.But it is your default discussion style.And it was wrong when I did it too. The difference being I don't make it my mission to do that nor do I rationalize that I am justified in doing it.What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you doNo. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God
Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.
If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.
Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.
You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.
So you are in denial
Think what you want. I know better.Of course you do that's why it's called denial.That.. I will disagree with.But it is your default discussion style.And it was wrong when I did it too. The difference being I don't make it my mission to do that nor do I rationalize that I am justified in doing it.What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you doNo. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God
Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.
If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.
Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.
You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.
So you are in denial
They are books about people's experiences with God and living in His ways. Don't lose sight that the main focus of these books is about the people and their response(s).So are they books about god or are they more than that?
