How is this let into schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Redweaver:

Volf:

Redweaver:

Deity = invisible man in the sky.

Wrong, Deism doesn't have official Dogma that states that the concept of the Divine is an "old man in the sky".

Redweaver:
Other indications of insanity:

Hearing voices and talking to someone/thing that isn't there (prayer)

Not part of Deism

Redweaver:
Visual hallucinations (seeing "visions" of angels or the virgin Mary)

Not part of Deism

Redweaver:
Thinking clothing gives you magic power (Morman temple garments and that square thing Jewish people wear)

Again, not part of Deism

Redweaver:
trivialize it again acting like it's not factual enough for you.

There is nothing to trivialize because you have yet to present any evidence that all theist or deist are insane.

Redweaver:
Please, then, explain how being insane is good.

strawman, I'm not arguing in favor of insanity

Awwwww. How cute.

Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
No it isn't.
Nuh-uh.

I notice no actual counter arguments though.

I remember this school of debate. Or rather, schoolyard I suppose.

Specifically point out where Deism makes these claims.

Volf:

Redweaver:

Volf:
Wrong, Deism doesn't have official Dogma that states that the concept of the Divine is an "old man in the sky".

Not part of Deism
Not part of Deism
Again, not part of Deism

There is nothing to trivialize because you have yet to present any evidence that all theist or deist are insane.

strawman, I'm not arguing in favor of insanity

Awwwww. How cute.

Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
No it isn't.
Nuh-uh.

I notice no actual counter arguments though.

I remember this school of debate. Or rather, schoolyard I suppose.

Specifically point out where Deism makes these claims.

I've said enough. It's your turn.

Refute my claims or defend deism.

Volf:
I didn't say religious people should hold government jobs, I said that they should have a role in politics just like any other group, whether that be through voting or lobbyist groups.

So you're saying that policies like raping one's own daughter with impunity have a place in politics?

Because that sort of horrid stuff is an inevitable consequences of allowing religion to play a role in politics. It's also strongly opposed to the rechtsstaat principle as pretty much every religion is opposed to that idea at the very core.

Because of that I'd say that religion in any form has no place in politics whatsoever. Strict secularism, because we learned the hard way it doesn't work otherwise.

Redweaver:
Snip

You are acting deliberatly ignorant. Demonstrate that religious people are "insane". Nah, I'll even do you one better, just prove most of them are insane. Hell, prove half. Get back to me on that.

Also, you should refrain from a dismissive and belittling attitude, such as saying "Awwww how cute", as it is in poor decorum for the quality of debate we want to acheive on this board.

chronobreak:

Redweaver:
Snip

You are acting deliberatly ignorant. Demonstrate that religious people are "insane". Nah, I'll even do you one better, just prove most of them are insane. Hell, prove half. Get back to me on that.

Also, you should refrain from a dismissive and belittling attitude, such as saying "Awwww how cute", as it is in poor decorum for the quality of debate we want to acheive on this board.

Already have. Thanks for pretending I haven't. I'm not wasting my time repeating the bleeding obvious. I'm not taking part in a Monty Python skit.

Refute my arguments or back down. Put up, or shut up.

Redweaver:
Already have. Thanks for pretending I haven't. I'm not wasting my time repeating the bleeding obvious. I'm not taking part in a Monty Python skit.

Refute my arguments or back down. Put up, or shut up.

You seem to misunderstand me. Please offer empirical evidence from a reputable source stating that deists are "insane". You have not done so, and until you do, your point cannot be taken as any more than mere opinion. Surely you realize this?

I am to believe that you are trolling, because your general attitude and refusal to provide ample serious discussion is blatantly obvious. If you are not, I suggest you frame your argument with more tact, befitting the quality of discussion we all enjoy partaking in, rather than offering nothing of substance and trying to pass it off as facts.

Just a friendly reminder =)

EDIT: Also, don't tell me or anyone else on this board to "shut up".

chronobreak:

Redweaver:
Already have. Thanks for pretending I haven't. I'm not wasting my time repeating the bleeding obvious. I'm not taking part in a Monty Python skit.

Refute my arguments or back down. Put up, or shut up.

You seem to misunderstand me. Please offer empirical evidence from a reputable source stating that deists are "insane". You have not done so, and until you do, your point cannot be taken as any more than mere opinion. Surely you realize this?

I am to believe that you are trolling, because your general attitude and refusal to provide ample serious discussion is blatantly obvious. If you are not, I suggest you frame your argument with more tact, befitting the quality of discussion we all enjoy partaking in, rather than offering nothing of substance and trying to pass it off as facts.

Just a friendly reminder =)

EDIT: Also, don't tell me or anyone else on this board to "shut up".

Ahhhhh. I see now.

You think you have the authority to tell me not only which of my arguments I can or can't use, which are and are not valid and how this debate will be conducted.

And you think "no, it's not" is ample serious discussion.

And you have the hypocritical audacity to try to further trivialize my argument by calling me a troll. Yet more worthless deflection so you don't have to mount a real counterargument.

Yeah, this "debate" is going nowhere, and deliberately so apparently.

And you seem to think you have the authority to say I can't tell anyone to shut up.

Hmmmmmmmm...

Shut up. Having a nice day is entirely optional.

Redweaver:

I've said enough. It's your turn.

Refute my claims or defend deism.

You have made the claim with no evidence to back it up. Until you provide evidence, you are merely stating your opinion.

Redweaver:
snip

This is the last time I will ask. Please provide a link to empirical evidence that religious people are insane. You have not done so in your previous posts.

Blablahb:

Volf:
I didn't say religious people should hold government jobs, I said that they should have a role in politics just like any other group, whether that be through voting or lobbyist groups.

So you're saying that policies like raping one's own daughter with impunity have a place in politics?

Because that sort of horrid stuff is an inevitable consequences of allowing religion to play a role in politics. It's also strongly opposed to the rechtsstaat principle as pretty much every religion is opposed to that idea at the very core.

Because of that I'd say that religion in any form has no place in politics whatsoever. Strict secularism, because we learned the hard way it doesn't work otherwise.

...what? I'm just saying that like ethnic minorities, business owners, parents, doctors, ect. religious people should also be given a chance to vote or have lobbyist.

Redweaver:
Deity = invisible man in the sky.

LOL.

I love it when people who are obnoxious and aggressive make posts like the above, demonstrating that they have absolutely no concept what they are talking about.

No, in deism, a deity is NOT necessarily an invisible man in the sky.

Seriously, you might try educating yourself before you toss around uninformed insults like you have been.

Katatori-kun:

Redweaver:
Deity = invisible man in the sky.

LOL.

I love it when people who are obnoxious and aggressive make posts like the above, demonstrating that they have absolutely no concept what they are talking about.

No, in deism, a deity is NOT necessarily an invisible man in the sky.

Seriously, you might try educating yourself before you toss around uninformed insults like you have been.

An oversimplification of the concept does not equal a lack of education. Yes, a deity is essentially an invisible man in the sky, parsing out semantics and dressing it up isn't necessary.

Edit:

Just to outline what I mean more clearly.

A diety is generally not seen. Ie. is invisible.
A diety is typically anthropomophized. Ie. is a man.
Dieties are generally considered to live in a heaven or higher plane of existence. Ie. in the sky.

So, I feel I'm pretty spot on. Please explain how I'm completely wrong. I admit it's simplistic, but it's effective and relatively accurate, and is sufficient for this non-university setting.

chronobreak:

Redweaver:
snip

This is the last time I will ask. Please provide a link to empirical evidence that religious people are insane. You have not done so in your previous posts.

I'm glad it's the last time you'll ask.

I'll not have anyone holding me to a rigorous standard they don't hold themselves to. You're asking me to provide links and empirical evidence for my side, but, apparently for your side I have to just accept belief and faith and generally your word for it when it comes to the awesomeness of deism and religeon.

And that doesn't negate or refute my arguments. How about you just try answering what I've said.

Volf:

Redweaver:

I've said enough. It's your turn.

Refute my claims or defend deism.

You have made the claim with no evidence to back it up. Until you provide evidence, you are merely stating your opinion.

That's not how a debate works.

I've stated my side.

Now you state yours or refute mine.

But you won't.

And neither will your little pile-on friends.

So what's the point again of me putting forth all this effort on demand when you won't?

And the best part. If I say I'm done with this conversation because it's pointless to argue with a brick wall, you'll call it a win because I gave up.

Redweaver:

I'll not have anyone holding me to a rigorous standard they don't hold themselves to. You're asking me to provide links and empirical evidence for my side, but, apparently for your side I have to just accept belief and faith and generally your word for it when it comes to the awesomeness of deism and religeon.

And that doesn't negate or refute my arguments. How about you just try answering what I've said.

You don't have to accept anything I say, and I haven't asked you to. I'm not trying to negate your arguments, I just want you to back up your argument with proof. I'm not here arguing the existence of God or faith, for all I know that shit ain't real at all. Don't see why you're dividing us to different sides, I'm not trying to stand off against you.

As far as accepting belief and faith, you don't have to, and it isn't like I have any explanation for that stuff, it's well over my head. The only reason I responded to what you wrote in the first place was because I don't believe religious people are insane.

Now, if there is evidence that they are, just show me! I'm open to everything! If not, just admit that you made a broad statement that isn't really factually accurate, and that you have no reliable evidence to support your claim. Do you?

Nobody here is going to lose respect for you or treat you any different or anything if you just fess up to not having the evidence, but people do tend to remember when someone is clearly asked for something and dodge and skirt the issue multiple times.

So one more time I ask you- Do you have ONE reputable source you can show me to prove that religious people are insane? One.

colby694:
Atheist are also insane because they are in futile struggle and cannot prove that no such God exist and sense they keep trying time after time to disprove him but yet always get the same results,

Hmm no we do not. We are asking for proof when deist claims the existence of god but always get the same result. We do not have to disprove this god. Deists are doing that them selves by not producing any evidence what so ever. Atheists did not wake up one morning thinking "Who is this god I never heard of? I am going to disprove him". Deists are calming it is one. I would not bugger them for proof it they kept their faith private. But religion is anything but private. So they can either give me proof when pestering me at my own door or the street, or they can have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

And faith is a social acceptable insanity. This is because so many suffers from it.

chronobreak:

Redweaver:

I'll not have anyone holding me to a rigorous standard they don't hold themselves to. You're asking me to provide links and empirical evidence for my side, but, apparently for your side I have to just accept belief and faith and generally your word for it when it comes to the awesomeness of deism and religeon.

And that doesn't negate or refute my arguments. How about you just try answering what I've said.

You don't have to accept anything I say, and I haven't asked you to. I'm not trying to negate your arguments, I just want you to back up your argument with proof. I'm not here arguing the existence of God or faith, for all I know that shit ain't real at all. Don't see why you're dividing us to different sides, I'm not trying to stand off against you.

As far as accepting belief and faith, you don't have to, and it isn't like I have any explanation for that stuff, it's well over my head. The only reason I responded to what you wrote in the first place was because I don't believe religious people are insane.

Now, if there is evidence that they are, just show me! I'm open to everything! If not, just admit that you made a broad statement that isn't really factually accurate, and that you have no reliable evidence to support your claim. Do you?

Nobody here is going to lose respect for you or treat you any different or anything if you just fess up to not having the evidence, but people do tend to remember when someone is clearly asked for something and dodge and skirt the issue multiple times.

So one more time I ask you- Do you have ONE reputable source you can show me to prove that religious people are insane? One.

Auditory hallucinations are a symptom of insanity. That's accepted fact. Like 2 + 2 = 4. I don't need to site any sources or proof of that.

Hearing voices, ie. "god" speaking to you (like several repub candidates say god told them to run for office, or several murder cases where the perp claimed god told them to do it) is an auditory hallucination.

2 + 2 = 4.

Stop being obtuse, this doesn't require a source, it requires a couple brain cells.

Rastelin:

Redweaver:
Atheist are also insane because they are in futile struggle and cannot prove that no such God exist and sense they keep trying time after time to disprove him but yet always get the same results,

Hmm no we do not. We are asking for proof when deist claims the existence of god but always get the same result. We do not have to disprove this god. Deists are doing that them selves by not producing any evidence what so ever. Atheists did not wake up one morning thinking "Who is this god I never heard of? I am going to disprove him". Deists are calming it is one. I would not bugger them for proof it they kept their faith private. But religion is anything but private. So they can either give me proof when pestering me at my own door or the street, or they can have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

And faith is a social acceptable insanity. This is because so many suffers from it.

You quoted the wrong person, that's not mine.

Redweaver:
You quoted the wrong person, that's not mine.

Yes I believe I did. It was colby694 I meant to quote. Sorry about that.

Redweaver:

Katatori-kun:

Redweaver:
Deity = invisible man in the sky.

LOL.

I love it when people who are obnoxious and aggressive make posts like the above, demonstrating that they have absolutely no concept what they are talking about.

No, in deism, a deity is NOT necessarily an invisible man in the sky.

Seriously, you might try educating yourself before you toss around uninformed insults like you have been.

An oversimplification of the concept does not equal a lack of education. Yes, a deity is essentially an invisible man in the sky, parsing out semantics and dressing it up isn't necessary.

Edit:

Just to outline what I mean more clearly.

A diety is generally not seen. Ie. is invisible.
A diety is typically anthropomophized. Ie. is a man.
Dieties are generally considered to live in a heaven or higher plane of existence. Ie. in the sky.

So, I feel I'm pretty spot on. Please explain how I'm completely wrong. I admit it's simplistic, but it's effective and relatively accurate, and is sufficient for this non-university setting.

No, invisible implies they CAN'T be seen. My general experience with modern and ancient deism is that deities aren't invisible, in fact the texts imply they are perfectly visible and simply take different forms. There's a difference between elusive and invisible, maybe keep that in mind.

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

Katatori-kun:

LOL.

I love it when people who are obnoxious and aggressive make posts like the above, demonstrating that they have absolutely no concept what they are talking about.

No, in deism, a deity is NOT necessarily an invisible man in the sky.

Seriously, you might try educating yourself before you toss around uninformed insults like you have been.

An oversimplification of the concept does not equal a lack of education. Yes, a deity is essentially an invisible man in the sky, parsing out semantics and dressing it up isn't necessary.

Edit:

Just to outline what I mean more clearly.

A diety is generally not seen. Ie. is invisible.
A diety is typically anthropomophized. Ie. is a man.
Dieties are generally considered to live in a heaven or higher plane of existence. Ie. in the sky.

So, I feel I'm pretty spot on. Please explain how I'm completely wrong. I admit it's simplistic, but it's effective and relatively accurate, and is sufficient for this non-university setting.

No, invisible implies they CAN'T be seen. My general experience with modern and ancient deism is that deities aren't invisible, in fact the texts imply they are perfectly visible and simply take different forms. There's a difference between elusive and invisible, maybe keep that in mind.

So, elusive man in the sky. Or shapeshifting man in the sky.

Fundimental difference, please?

This is why I said parsing semantics isn't necessary. Nice try, though.

This is pathetic...
Then again, all the anti-women and evolution deniers out there, this REALLY isn't a surprise.

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

An oversimplification of the concept does not equal a lack of education. Yes, a deity is essentially an invisible man in the sky, parsing out semantics and dressing it up isn't necessary.

Edit:

Just to outline what I mean more clearly.

A diety is generally not seen. Ie. is invisible.
A diety is typically anthropomophized. Ie. is a man.
Dieties are generally considered to live in a heaven or higher plane of existence. Ie. in the sky.

So, I feel I'm pretty spot on. Please explain how I'm completely wrong. I admit it's simplistic, but it's effective and relatively accurate, and is sufficient for this non-university setting.

No, invisible implies they CAN'T be seen. My general experience with modern and ancient deism is that deities aren't invisible, in fact the texts imply they are perfectly visible and simply take different forms. There's a difference between elusive and invisible, maybe keep that in mind.

So, elusive man in the sky. Or shapeshifting man in the sky.

Fundimental difference, please?

This is why I said parsing semantics isn't necessary. Nice try, though.

Fundamental difference?
The definitions. They're kind of TOTALLY FUCKING INCOMPATIBLE. If your argument was so solid random assholes like me wouldn't be able to punch holes in it. But, since we're on a role, elusive doesn't apply to Christianity since Christian's imply we see God in all creation. He's not elusive or invisible.
...we just wish he was. I mean look at the fucking platypus! God has a perverted sense of humor. And he couldn't create a source of light that wasn't also radioactive and toxic in certain conditions. You don't need to argue that God is hard to find, just argue that he's incompetent.
And i say "He" because if God exists, it's male. No woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly. I mean, penguins, platypus, Republicans, and the whole thing about the symbol of the religion being a man mid execution? Christianity has it's own problems without you bringing up arguments we could go all day on with how vague the texts can be.

Redweaver:

Auditory hallucinations are a symptom of insanity. That's accepted fact. Like 2 + 2 = 4. I don't need to site any sources or proof of that.

Hearing voices, ie. "god" speaking to you (like several repub candidates say god told them to run for office, or several murder cases where the perp claimed god told them to do it) is an auditory hallucination.

2 + 2 = 4.

Stop being obtuse, this doesn't require a source, it requires a couple brain cells.

Ah, but Redweaver, not all religious people claim to hear voices. I'd even wager to say not the majority. Some religions don't even have prayer. So, what about those people? I'm not trying to be obtuse here or give you a hard time.

I see what you're saying about the whole hearing voices thing, and you may certainly construe that as an insane act. However, doing something you may think is insane does not mean that person has a mental illness or deficiency. They may certainly have one, but I would imagine it would be diagnosed on a case-by-case basis, and I doubt any psychiatrist in the world would label all religious people insane, even those who engage in prayer, speaking in tounges, or whatever flavor of religiosity.

Pyramid Head:
No woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly

Hey, you ever been in a Women's public bathroom? Don't speak so soon! =)

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

No, invisible implies they CAN'T be seen. My general experience with modern and ancient deism is that deities aren't invisible, in fact the texts imply they are perfectly visible and simply take different forms. There's a difference between elusive and invisible, maybe keep that in mind.

So, elusive man in the sky. Or shapeshifting man in the sky.

Fundimental difference, please?

This is why I said parsing semantics isn't necessary. Nice try, though.

Fundamental difference?
The definitions. They're kind of TOTALLY FUCKING INCOMPATIBLE. If your argument was so solid random assholes like me wouldn't be able to punch holes in it. But, since we're on a role, elusive doesn't apply to Christianity since Christian's imply we see God in all creation. He's not elusive or invisible.
...we just wish he was. I mean look at the fucking platypus! God has a perverted sense of humor. And he couldn't create a source of light that wasn't also radioactive and toxic in certain conditions. You don't need to argue that God is hard to find, just argue that he's incompetent.
And i say "He" because if God exists, it's male. No woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly. I mean, penguins, platypus, Republicans, and the whole thing about the symbol of the religion being a man mid execution? Christianity has it's own problems without you bringing up arguments we could go all day on with how vague the texts can be.

Whatever your argument against me is, you've totally lost me in this rant.

Saying "you can see god in all things, so he isn't invisible" is a cop-out. It amounts to the same thing. Something special about god renders him unable to sense his existanse in any way we would call how we normal sense the existance of things.

Invisible is shorthand and accurate.

The second half is a cute comedy routine, but kinda irrelavent.

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

So, elusive man in the sky. Or shapeshifting man in the sky.

Fundimental difference, please?

This is why I said parsing semantics isn't necessary. Nice try, though.

Fundamental difference?
The definitions. They're kind of TOTALLY FUCKING INCOMPATIBLE. If your argument was so solid random assholes like me wouldn't be able to punch holes in it. But, since we're on a role, elusive doesn't apply to Christianity since Christian's imply we see God in all creation. He's not elusive or invisible.
...we just wish he was. I mean look at the fucking platypus! God has a perverted sense of humor. And he couldn't create a source of light that wasn't also radioactive and toxic in certain conditions. You don't need to argue that God is hard to find, just argue that he's incompetent.
And i say "He" because if God exists, it's male. No woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly. I mean, penguins, platypus, Republicans, and the whole thing about the symbol of the religion being a man mid execution? Christianity has it's own problems without you bringing up arguments we could go all day on with how vague the texts can be.

Whatever your argument against me is, you've totally lost me in this rant.

Saying "you can see god in all things, so he isn't invisible" is a cop-out. It amounts to the same thing. Something special about god renders him unable to sense his existanse in any way we would call how we normal sense the existance of things.

Invisible is shorthand and accurate.

The second half is a cute comedy routine, but kinda irrelavent.

Except we just established invisible isn't accurate. Try to pay attention to what little progress we've made, would you please? My argument against you is that your tirade against religion really isn't that different from a religious tirade against homosexuality. While individuals in the cultures are phenomenal jackasses to put it mildly, in the end the matter of the history of our existence is something science will most likely never be able to prove, so while we can disprove certain aspects of religion and indeed many religions existed only as people assigning faces to forces of nature, in the end it's hard to conclusively disprove monotheistic entities. I say let them believe whatever they want and only harass the people who can't separate faith from established fact since in the end as far as we know all matter in the universe came from the explosion in a prehistoric meth lab.

chronobreak:

Redweaver:

Auditory hallucinations are a symptom of insanity. That's accepted fact. Like 2 + 2 = 4. I don't need to site any sources or proof of that.

Hearing voices, ie. "god" speaking to you (like several repub candidates say god told them to run for office, or several murder cases where the perp claimed god told them to do it) is an auditory hallucination.

2 + 2 = 4.

Stop being obtuse, this doesn't require a source, it requires a couple brain cells.

Ah, but Redweaver, not all religious people claim to hear voices. I'd even wager to say not the majority. Some religions don't even have prayer. So, what about those people? I'm not trying to be obtuse here or give you a hard time.

I see what you're saying about the whole hearing voices thing, and you may certainly construe that as an insane act. However, doing something you may think is insane does not mean that person has a mental illness or deficiency. They may certainly have one, but I would imagine it would be diagnosed on a case-by-case basis, and I doubt any psychiatrist in the world would label all religious people insane, even those who engage in prayer, speaking in tounges, or whatever flavor of religiosity.

If your metric is 100% of all "religeous" people, then, well, ya got me. Yup. Totally pwnd my argument.

How about the visual hallucinations? Or do you not know of the reported sightings of the virgin Mary or angels?

How about believing something exists without question or offer of proof? And if you're fine with faith like that, then why don't you believe in Santa Clause? Oh, yeah, that's a rediculous fairy tale. That one, that's a myth. God is true.

These are all symptoms of serious mental problems. But psychiatrists, like most reasonable people, are afraid of the concequences of the perception of an attack against unreasonable people. Bill Maher's movie Religulous showed him talking to a psychiatrist while walking through what looked to be a train station who is agreeing with the assertion that "having religion" is a form of insanity (THIS IS A PARAPHRASE, COULD BE SLIGHTLY INACCURATE IN EXACT WORDING, AND IS A LITTLE OUT OF CONTEXT, you don't need to point this out to me)

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

Fundamental difference?
The definitions. They're kind of TOTALLY FUCKING INCOMPATIBLE. If your argument was so solid random assholes like me wouldn't be able to punch holes in it. But, since we're on a role, elusive doesn't apply to Christianity since Christian's imply we see God in all creation. He's not elusive or invisible.
...we just wish he was. I mean look at the fucking platypus! God has a perverted sense of humor. And he couldn't create a source of light that wasn't also radioactive and toxic in certain conditions. You don't need to argue that God is hard to find, just argue that he's incompetent.
And i say "He" because if God exists, it's male. No woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly. I mean, penguins, platypus, Republicans, and the whole thing about the symbol of the religion being a man mid execution? Christianity has it's own problems without you bringing up arguments we could go all day on with how vague the texts can be.

Whatever your argument against me is, you've totally lost me in this rant.

Saying "you can see god in all things, so he isn't invisible" is a cop-out. It amounts to the same thing. Something special about god renders him unable to sense his existanse in any way we would call how we normal sense the existance of things.

Invisible is shorthand and accurate.

The second half is a cute comedy routine, but kinda irrelavent.

Except we just established invisible isn't accurate. Try to pay attention to what little progress we've made, would you please? My argument against you is that your tirade against religion really isn't that different from a religious tirade against homosexuality. While individuals in the cultures are phenomenal jackasses to put it mildly, in the end the matter of the history of our existence is something science will most likely never be able to prove, so while we can disprove certain aspects of religion and indeed many religions existed only as people assigning faces to forces of nature, in the end it's hard to conclusively disprove monotheistic entities. I say let them believe whatever they want and only harass the people who can't separate faith from established fact since in the end as far as we know all matter in the universe came from the explosion in a prehistoric meth lab.

Except these people that believe these rediculous things hold positions of authority.

So fighting them is kinda important.

And invisible is entirely accurate for the shorthand definition I'm using. Try to keep up yourself, please.

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

Whatever your argument against me is, you've totally lost me in this rant.

Saying "you can see god in all things, so he isn't invisible" is a cop-out. It amounts to the same thing. Something special about god renders him unable to sense his existanse in any way we would call how we normal sense the existance of things.

Invisible is shorthand and accurate.

The second half is a cute comedy routine, but kinda irrelavent.

Except we just established invisible isn't accurate. Try to pay attention to what little progress we've made, would you please? My argument against you is that your tirade against religion really isn't that different from a religious tirade against homosexuality. While individuals in the cultures are phenomenal jackasses to put it mildly, in the end the matter of the history of our existence is something science will most likely never be able to prove, so while we can disprove certain aspects of religion and indeed many religions existed only as people assigning faces to forces of nature, in the end it's hard to conclusively disprove monotheistic entities. I say let them believe whatever they want and only harass the people who can't separate faith from established fact since in the end as far as we know all matter in the universe came from the explosion in a prehistoric meth lab.

Except these people that believe these rediculous things hold positions of authority.

So fighting them is kinda important.

And invisible is entirely accurate for the shorthand definition I'm using. Try to keep up yourself, please.

Define the specific group you're drawing your interpretation of "Those people" please, because my general experience is that the whackjob Christians are actually a minority.

Pyramid Head:

Redweaver:

Pyramid Head:

Except we just established invisible isn't accurate. Try to pay attention to what little progress we've made, would you please? My argument against you is that your tirade against religion really isn't that different from a religious tirade against homosexuality. While individuals in the cultures are phenomenal jackasses to put it mildly, in the end the matter of the history of our existence is something science will most likely never be able to prove, so while we can disprove certain aspects of religion and indeed many religions existed only as people assigning faces to forces of nature, in the end it's hard to conclusively disprove monotheistic entities. I say let them believe whatever they want and only harass the people who can't separate faith from established fact since in the end as far as we know all matter in the universe came from the explosion in a prehistoric meth lab.

Except these people that believe these rediculous things hold positions of authority.

So fighting them is kinda important.

And invisible is entirely accurate for the shorthand definition I'm using. Try to keep up yourself, please.

Define the specific group you're drawing your interpretation of "Those people" please, because my general experience is that the whackjob Christians are actually a minority.

Then please give the names of some elected officials who aren't religious. You'll come up with a handful maybe. Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum who wants to vomit at the idea of separation of church and state and Kennedy's speech about it. Michelle Backman, who claimed god told her to run for office. John Boener. Governers across the country, like Scott Walker and Chris Christie. Our president claims religion.

There is no overt religious test for office, that's illegal.

But there is, without a doubt, an unspoken one.

These people hold office. They have power and authority. And they get thier life lessons and make huge decisions that effect you everyday based on what they've learned from their religion and take their cues from religious leaders.

Redweaver:

Volf:

TizzytheTormentor:

Religion itself should never of been allowed in politics in the first place.

Why not? Why should only people who don't have religion in their life be given a voice?

Because insanity should disqualify you for public office.

See a guy on a park bench talking to himself = crazy man.

See a guy in a church talking to himself = religious man.

Mind explaining why Rick Sanctorum is still allowed to run then?

BOOM.

Angelblaze:

Redweaver:

Volf:
Why not? Why should only people who don't have religion in their life be given a voice?

Because insanity should disqualify you for public office.

See a guy on a park bench talking to himself = crazy man.

See a guy in a church talking to himself = religious man.

Mind explaining why Rick Sanctorum is still allowed to run then?

BOOM.

Lolwut? Because anyone can run that meets the legal requirements, and Rick Santorum does. That's the law.

Anyone able to explain how that earned a BOOM?

For what's been going on for the past two to three pages can we get back on track?

Redweaver:

Volf:

Redweaver:

I've said enough. It's your turn.

Refute my claims or defend deism.

You have made the claim with no evidence to back it up. Until you provide evidence, you are merely stating your opinion.

That's not how a debate works.

I've stated my side.

All you have done is tried to present you opinion as fact. You have yet to provide any credible evidence that Deist are insane.

Redweaver:
Now you state yours or refute mine.

But you won't.

You haven't presented any evidence, just your opinion(which you seem to thing is factual without evidence.)

Redweaver:
And neither will your little pile-on friends.

I can't help if other people see the holes in what you are saying.

Redweaver:
So what's the point again of me putting forth all this effort on demand when you won't?

And the best part. If I say I'm done with this conversation because it's pointless to argue with a brick wall, you'll call it a win because I gave up.

Not a win, because you never had anything to challenge what I said. You kept presenting your opinion as fact, and failed because of it.

Hazy992:
I think what he means is that it shouldn't be a direct reason for policy making. A politician shouldn't be saying 'abortion should be banned because God wants me to ban it'. In a secular country you need a better reason than that.

Here in the US, a precedent has already been established that purely blue laws cannot be upheld. Of course this is dependent on someone violating and then challenging the law, and then the judge in question respecting the precedent, but it's there and fairly steadfast.

Regarding the video: This guy is part of Junkyard Prophet a musical group that is a youth-outreach mouthpiece for You Can Run, International, an extremist Christian[1] activist group declared an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC just this month. On the YCRI website they have a letter of commendation from the administration of Dunkerton High from 2003, so the school has done business with YCRI before. I have no idea if their message has changed significantly in the last decade, but I'd suspect not.

These guys are a shinier version of the Klan, or of the Silver Ring Thing, or of True Love Waits, in that they're paid to do informational assemblies for schools under the guise of safe secular messages in order to proselytize Evangelism and push their political agenda on young people who are legally forced to attend (and according to the news, emotionally traumatizing no small portion of their audience). If you don't think this is right, or you don't want them representing the kind of Christianity you practice, it's time to write some crabby letters.

238U[2]

[1] Its website doesn't specify which denomination of Christian, meaning they're pretending they represent your church as well.
[2] PS: When you see pictures of fetus gore that look kinda like a chewed-up baby, you're not looking at the end result of an abortion. You're looking at the end result of a spontaneous miscarriage. According to the OBGYNs I've asked, Every last one of those anti-abortion pictures are lies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked