“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#592163 Sep 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nano wrote this, it's perfect.
<quoted text>It is easy to mock when you have never been touched by the supernatural. I get that, I've been there, but some people have had experiences that cannot be explained by the limited science of man. Eyewitness accounts are all we have, IOWs, what effect the supernatural had on the "natural" world. The funny thing IS that even those of us who have experienced the inexplicable are skeptical of others who claim similar experiences. It is the nature of man to hold the stories of strangers as suspect.
I think it's funny when an atheist who declares there is no God also go on to say that he/she believes in ghosts. One must, logically, admit that if one type of entity exists there is always the possibility that the other type also does. I call them "entity bigots".
Now, it's your turn to call every supernatural event the result of drugs, mental illness or whatever your favorite argument against it is.
Those of us who have experienced the inexplicable know that it exists in spite of the lack of empirical, physical evidence.
No. Those of you who have experienced what you believe to be inexplicable are naive and misinterpret your brain signals. You're basically like children.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#592164 Sep 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.
You claim to have stayed on topic, but you didn't.
Here was the posts.
RR: My analogy is based on your comment that if I believe in one religion's miracles, I "have to" believe in all religion's miracles.
(to which you replied)
Hiding: Creation science isn't science.
---
How the flick is that staying on topic?!?
This was your second post to me, dishonest one:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I have to allow anything from all religions?
That's like me telling you that if you allow for your version of science, then you also have to allow for the Creationist version of science.
So, no, you aren't being honest above. Your analogy is a total failure, for it relies upon a misuse of the word science. Apparently that is so far beyond you, that you cannot understand it. I've explained it to you, but for you, since the words are spelled the same, that's all you see.

Is this seriously the best you can do? This is what passes for argument from you?

Since: May 11

UK

#592165 Sep 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I see deceit everywhere in your arguments. You don't know how to argue honestly - and you don't even seem to realize that you're silly word games, cherry picking of evidence, is dishonest.
And your initial statement on our different training is true. You argue this way because you were never trained to - you can't recognize the serious flaws in your personal use of logic.
You're arguing with the religious, and I'm afraid your expectations are too high.

This is the man who exhibits perfect 'cultish' behaviour. He is able to change his point of view, reasoning and interpretation of the facts depending upon the point be argued. The truth is whatever makes the dogma work against whatever particular criticism is being levelled at it. It is the perfection of double-think and Orwell would be proud.

I say "argument" because this is not debate. The folks arguing for god here have never participated in a moderated debate. A winning gambit for them would be, "You're wrong, look it up" or "you spelled "favour" wrong".

They can dishonestly compartmentalise each point being argued, for example acknowledging that the Sumerians developed written communication way before the Hebrews yet postulating that Adam wrote down the creation story and passed it to moses. This ability to reconcile obvious conflict within hours of each post occurs with no hesitation. Their entire worldview is whatever is convenient at the time and they see absolutely no problem with that because they are fools for the lawd and don't mind appearing so, even seeing it as a virtue.

Their 'religion' or scriptures morph and twist to meet the demands of critical thought. I can only imagine the internal struggle they have to keep it together, sometimes I literally blush for them when they post such howlers.

I also think you're being very charitable in attributing any spark of logic to them. Their brains work very differently and their internal filters validate every new fact they hear(using a form of pidgin logic) against their own permissible logic which is this:

Religious logic on Topix.

Question: "Does this idea threaten my dogma?

If "yes", discount or seek apologetics to reinforce dogma(a form of mantra meditation), attempt to change subject or seek out typographical, grammatical or spelling errors in the post one finds uncomfortable without delay and fixate on them.

If "no", accept and claim credit for said idea.(i.e. "The christian church practised science before 'scientists'").

Use the Vietnam lacuna(declare victory and leave). END

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#592166 Sep 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing with the religious, and I'm afraid your expectations are too high.
This is the man who exhibits perfect 'cultish' behaviour. He is able to change his point of view, reasoning and interpretation of the facts depending upon the point be argued. The truth is whatever makes the dogma work against whatever particular criticism is being levelled at it. It is the perfection of double-think and Orwell would be proud.
I say "argument" because this is not debate. The folks arguing for god here have never participated in a moderated debate. A winning gambit for them would be, "You're wrong, look it up" or "you spelled "favour" wrong".
They can dishonestly compartmentalise each point being argued, for example acknowledging that the Sumerians developed written communication way before the Hebrews yet postulating that Adam wrote down the creation story and passed it to moses. This ability to reconcile obvious conflict within hours of each post occurs with no hesitation. Their entire worldview is whatever is convenient at the time and they see absolutely no problem with that because they are fools for the lawd and don't mind appearing so, even seeing it as a virtue.
Their 'religion' or scriptures morph and twist to meet the demands of critical thought. I can only imagine the internal struggle they have to keep it together, sometimes I literally blush for them when they post such howlers.
I also think you're being very charitable in attributing any spark of logic to them. Their brains work very differently and their internal filters validate every new fact they hear(using a form of pidgin logic) against their own permissible logic which is this:
Religious logic on Topix.
Question: "Does this idea threaten my dogma?
If "yes", discount or seek apologetics to reinforce dogma(a form of mantra meditation), attempt to change subject or seek out typographical, grammatical or spelling errors in the post one finds uncomfortable without delay and fixate on them.
If "no", accept and claim credit for said idea.(i.e. "The christian church practised science before 'scientists'").
Use the Vietnam lacuna(declare victory and leave). END
Very well said, sir. I will have to give it some thought.

My one question would then be: why bother interacting with these irrational people at all?

No amount of cogent discussion is going to appeal to their senses. No logic, not rationality.

Might as well just laugh at their displays of incoherence and move on.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#592167 Sep 17, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>That's because you're not looking my way..
I agree

Since: May 11

UK

#592168 Sep 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No one aborts babies. That is, by definition, impossible.
2. Using abortion as a weapon to put someone down...? What are you talking about?
It's called an, ignorantio elenchi.

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Iím not blaming this on President Obama, I just think itís an interesting coincidence."

...It broke out under Gerald Ford but hey it's a christian-dominionist, historical-revisionist republican speaking.

"I think this war is wrong"..."Why do you hate America?"

or more simplistically, "Won't someone think of the children!"~Helen Lovejoy.

There are Helen Lovejoys' everywhere. Who cannot get their heads around the simple fact that someone who has been born has more rights than someone who has not been born yet.

Since: May 11

UK

#592169 Sep 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well said, sir. I will have to give it some thought.
My one question would then be: why bother interacting with these irrational people at all?
No amount of cogent discussion is going to appeal to their senses. No logic, not rationality.
Might as well just laugh at their displays of incoherence and move on.
Laugh and move on or stay...but just keep laughing.
Bongo

Brentwood, NY

#592170 Sep 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron you are. You have no idea what you are talking about, but still argue.
Dude: You might fool the Mexican government if you came to it with your last six months of pay stubs upon expatriation. What would you show them a year later when your visa came up for renewal?
They would show you the Rio Grande.
Why doesn't the USA have criteria like this? And is the Mexican govt. setting up ex/pats to have a ransom if needed?

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#592171 Sep 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh and move on or stay...but just keep laughing.
Good advice...LOL.
Bongo

Brentwood, NY

#592172 Sep 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing with the religious, and I'm afraid your expectations are too high.
This is the man who exhibits perfect 'cultish' behaviour. He is able to change his point of view, reasoning and interpretation of the ", accept and claim credit for said idea.(i.e. "The christian church practised science before 'scientists'").
Use the Vietnam lacuna(declare victory and leave). END
Charrington ol chap, youre a long winded blowhard. Who practiced law before law , savages? or was it barbarians? Those who have Jesus always win, no matter how much your ilk maligns them. Don't you know sheep drown if they look upwards when its raining.
Bongo

Brentwood, NY

#592173 Sep 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete and utter liar. That is not the conversation at all.
To my brilliant remark "if you believe in one religion's miracles, because all religions share equal evidence, then you have to accept all the miracle claims in all religions"
To which you replied, using a semantic argument so that you wouldn't have to address the point "waaa! then you have to accept Creationist science as science!"
So, no, dishonest one, I am not the person who avoided the argument. You are and you did through semantic bs.
Hfy, youre too advanced for us cretins, its no contest. You need to find a Christian Catcher to have at it with.

Since: May 11

UK

#592174 Sep 17, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Charrington ol chap, youre a long winded blowhard. Who practiced law before law , savages? or was it barbarians? Those who have Jesus always win, no matter how much your ilk maligns them. Don't you know sheep drown if they look upwards when its raining.
I suggest you don't look up when it's raining then...

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#592175 Sep 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing with the religious, and I'm afraid your expectations are too high.
This is the man who exhibits perfect 'cultish' behaviour. He is able to change his point of view, reasoning and interpretation of the facts depending upon the point be argued. The truth is whatever makes the dogma work against whatever particular criticism is being levelled at it. It is the perfection of double-think and Orwell would be proud.
I say "argument" because this is not debate. The folks arguing for god here have never participated in a moderated debate. A winning gambit for them would be, "You're wrong, look it up" or "you spelled "favour" wrong".
They can dishonestly compartmentalise each point being argued, for example acknowledging that the Sumerians developed written communication way before the Hebrews yet postulating that Adam wrote down the creation story and passed it to moses. This ability to reconcile obvious conflict within hours of each post occurs with no hesitation. Their entire worldview is whatever is convenient at the time and they see absolutely no problem with that because they are fools for the lawd and don't mind appearing so, even seeing it as a virtue.
Their 'religion' or scriptures morph and twist to meet the demands of critical thought. I can only imagine the internal struggle they have to keep it together, sometimes I literally blush for them when they post such howlers.
I also think you're being very charitable in attributing any spark of logic to them. Their brains work very differently and their internal filters validate every new fact they hear(using a form of pidgin logic) against their own permissible logic which is this:
Religious logic on Topix.
Question: "Does this idea threaten my dogma?
If "yes", discount or seek apologetics to reinforce dogma(a form of mantra meditation), attempt to change subject or seek out typographical, grammatical or spelling errors in the post one finds uncomfortable without delay and fixate on them.
If "no", accept and claim credit for said idea.(i.e. "The christian church practised science before 'scientists'").
Use the Vietnam lacuna(declare victory and leave). END
I have wanted for some time to make a similar post, difficult to imagine how to keep it short. The bible teaches them, it is full of contradictions, if the bible says "A" it will usually also say "-A". And then there is aplogetic which can turn anything into whatever. The god as depicted by the bible is "the most vile beast ever imagined" yet christians will claim it as love. They have no trouble <moral qualm> with transferred guilt (original sin)(subsitutional atonement). They often contradict their own ideas, and see no difficulty.

the curse us to "eternal torture" and demand tolerance and respect for their beliefs.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#592176 Sep 17, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Good choice for you ~ I am very happy to have been able to work with GOD and have 2 children.......
I thought it was only one, Mary ?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#592177 Sep 17, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Hfy, youre too advanced for us cretins, its no contest. You need to find a Christian Catcher to have at it with.
It doesn't take much, Bongo. It doesn't take much at all.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#592178 Sep 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RR: My analogy is based on your comment that if I believe in one religion's miracles, I "have to" believe in all religion's miracles.
(to which you replied)
Hiding: Creation science isn't science.
---
How the flick is that staying on topic?!?
I was destroying your stupid analogy. It's stupid b/c it's relies on semantic trickery.

Yes, if you accept the miracles of one religion you have to accept them all, if you're a logical person.

Why, you ask, as a not logical person.

Because all religions have equal evidence to support their mythological claims. The only reason you really-really-really believe in yours is because you were brought up that way. Your personal experiences are encultured to interpret your nonmundane experiences as Christian. You have trained your body and brain to have Christian experiences.

Your Christian experiences do not represent reality beyond your own body. They're ultimately and only a product of your body and enculturation. That's it. They're not real beyond you, they aren't informative about anything beyond you. They only exist for you, and for people who have been likewise trained as you.

Since you believe them, since you hold them on high, you disregard all other religious claims - despite that believers of other religions have equally compelling reasons to "know" their reasons are "the only true religions." Just like you, their experiences describe their lived reality - and just like you, they have no evidence, no "proof," that their religion explains reality. Like you, their belief overrides their rationality.

So, yes, you have to believe that all religions' miracles are true if you're going to accept your own. Otherwise you aren't a rational person. You're a committed believer in a particular kind of dogma. That restricts your ability to learn, your ability to understand realty to the reality described by your religion.

And it's a small, pathetic and incorrect reality based on defaming humans (original sin), desiring to be a slave to a stalker deity who requires you to love him or else, and accepting fabrications about the nature of reality.

It's all in your head. You cannot argue logically because of it, you cannot accept evidence that disagrees with your dogma, and you can fabricate any position, regardless of honestly, to justify your beliefs.

And you are the example of why the rest of us must always be vigilant. We cannot allow your kind of thinking in science, philosophy, the humanities, any scholarship, politics if we're honest - any important decisions worldwide. Religion has poisoned your thinking. We cannot allow it to poison ours.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#592179 Sep 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OOH, I'm sorry.
<quoted text>
That is not extra points.
<quoted text>
That's like......negative points.
<quoted text>
If by "approved babblings" you mean Christian Doctrine, then yes.
<quoted text>
We don't have all of eternity to get this done, so let's get started.
Dear Heavenly Father...
As I thought. Theocrat terrorist wannabe.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#592180 Sep 17, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Congrats....Grandpa to be...
:-)
Thanks, Epi.

I will not, however, be called any variant of "Grandpa".

I prefer "Wise and revered elder".

Wish me luck with that one.

*helpless laughter*

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#592181 Sep 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why do you think that you get to determine what is and is not appropriate?
I have no choice but to find some things appropriate and others not, just as I have no choice but to find some things funny and others not, and some things interesting while others are not.

Perhaps you meant to ask why I think I get to express that judgment.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#592182 Sep 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>It's your projecting of your daydreams and fantastical delusions to think you know that another writer believes you're successful in doing anything against Christianity.
Points-100,000.
Why would he or I care what you believe?

It's amusing that immediately after posting those words about fantasy and delusion regarding success at countering Christianity that you award yourself fantasy delusion points for defending it with this pointless post.

You have the insight that has become famous among your kind on these threads. Rider told us that "snigger" is an epithet that reveals something unsavory about the author (hello!), and Skombolis calls others liar and bigot between his bigoted lies about Mexico.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min BenAdam 773,032
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 7 min Harrison Freebird 53,243
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 9 min UidiotraceuMAkeWo... 4,630
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min Catholic Girl 558,638
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 12 min ramakrishna 1,232
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 min Rider on the Storm 175,471
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. 34 min Hatti_Hollerand 86
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 52 min who 264,930
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr An NFL Fan 119,605