How is this let into schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Man some people just shouldn't post.

Poster1: "Everyone religious is crazy!!!!"
Poster2: "I would like you to prove this claim with evidence instead of opinion"
Poster1: "HOW DARE YOU HOLD ME TO A STANDARD HIGHER THAN YOU, YOU SHOW NO PROOF FOR YOUR BELIEF SO I'M ALSO ALLOWED TO JUST SAY SHIT WITHOUT EVIDENCE BUT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE AND YOU'RE WRONG."

It's getting pretty embarrassing.

Volf:

Redweaver:

Volf:
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.

Yeah, just like it's my opinion that 2+2=4.

Oh, dear. I didn't provide links or citations. There's no peer review. No screenshots. Therefore, it's just my opinion.

Yup. You sure pwnd me. You've totally won by presenting your counterargument in such a succinct fashion.

So, apparently, audio and visual hallucinations are not a sign of insanity, and even if they were, insanity is a good thing anyway so it doesn't matter.

Yeah, you so win. Congrats on your sound and logical counterargument.

Zekksta:
Man some people just shouldn't post.

Poster1: "Everyone religious is crazy!!!!"
Poster2: "I would like you to prove this claim with evidence instead of opinion"
Poster1: "HOW DARE YOU HOLD ME TO A STANDARD HIGHER THAN YOU, YOU SHOW NO PROOF FOR YOUR BELIEF SO I'M ALSO ALLOWED TO JUST SAY SHIT WITHOUT EVIDENCE BUT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE AND YOU'RE WRONG."

It's getting pretty embarrassing.

Another pile-on! Yay!

So, since you have better answers than the other guy, explain how audio and visual hallucinations aren't insanity.

I doubt you'll do better than the others, but let's hear it.

Embarrasing would be not giving a reply, just hiding behind "nuh-un" and "you have to prove it, not me!"

Redweaver:

Another pile-on! Yay!

What can I say? It's easy to kick someone when they're down.

Redweaver:

So, since you have better answers than the other guy, explain how audio and visual hallucinations aren't insanity.

How curious, I don't even remember making the claim that they weren't to begin with. It's almost as if you've just put words into my post.

Redweaver:
I doubt you'll do better than the others, but let's hear it.

Luckily I've made no claims, so I don't have much to back up.

You on the other hand should get cracking on proving that every religious person in the world is insane.

Redweaver:
Embarrasing would be not giving a reply, just hiding behind "nuh-un" and "you have to prove it, not me!"

Do you have any idea how ironic this is?

You rail on religion for having no proof supporting it.
Then you say every religious person is crazy, while having no evidence to support it.

Do you seriously not see this?

Zekksta:

Redweaver:

Another pile-on! Yay!

What can I say? It's easy to kick someone when they're down.

Redweaver:

So, since you have better answers than the other guy, explain how audio and visual hallucinations aren't insanity.

How curious, I don't even remember making the claim that they weren't to begin with. It's almost as if you've just put words into my post.

Redweaver:
I doubt you'll do better than the others, but let's hear it.

Luckily I've made no claims, so I don't have much to back up.

You on the other hand should get cracking on proving that every religious person in the world is insane.

Redweaver:
Embarrasing would be not giving a reply, just hiding behind "nuh-un" and "you have to prove it, not me!"

Do you have any idea how ironic this is?

You rail on religion for having no proof supporting it.
Then you say every religious person is crazy, while having no evidence to support it.

Do you seriously not see this?

Science is observation and logic.

Observation: A man praying. Talking to a being who isn't there. He expects that being to hear his pray and then intervene to change reality, ie. answer his prayer.

Logical conclusion: That man is insane. He's hearing things, talking to something not there and thinking reality will change based on this.

Please show me where links or proof are required?

I'm still waiting for any kind of counterargument.

"Give links." and "where's your source?" aren't counterarguments, they are obvious deflections. Hiding from having to think or try.

How about just using your brain and refuting me. If it's so obvious that I'm wrong, that should be easy.

But no one has managed it yet, it's all just deflections and avoidance.

Redweaver:

So, apparently, audio and visual hallucinations are not a sign of insanity, and even if they were, insanity is a good thing anyway so it doesn't matter.

Do you even know what Deism is? You realize that the main part of Deism is the belief that the Divine doesn't interact in people lives, meaning there are no voices or instances where the Divine appears in front of people, right? You keep bringing up audio and visual as if it were part of Deism, which its not.

I'm not winning, your just digging yourself into a deeper hole by not being able to provide scientific evidence that every single Deism(and by extension Theist) is mentally insane.

Volf:

Redweaver:

So, apparently, audio and visual hallucinations are not a sign of insanity, and even if they were, insanity is a good thing anyway so it doesn't matter.

Do you even know what Deism is? You realize that the main part of Deism is the belief that the Divine doesn't interact in people lives, meaning there are no voices or instances where the Divine appears in front of people, right? You keep bringing up audio and visual as if it were part of Deism, which its not.

I'm not winning, your just digging yourself into a deeper hole by not being able to provide scientific evidence that every single Deism(and by extension Theist) is mentally insane.

Deism is a belief in a diety.

You're making a huge leap to say that all deist believe that their diety doesn't intervene.

So, no Christians pray and think their prayers are answered?

Their diety just not count.

Or maybe them praying and thinking their prayers are answered are inconvienient to your argument so you try to sweep it under the rug?

And you think I'm the one digging his hole deeper?

Redweaver:

Deism is a belief in a diety.

You're making a huge leap to say that all deist believe that their diety doesn't intervene.

-_- ......Did you seriously just try to refute a central part of Deism? Take a look...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

Redweaver:
So, no Christians pray and think their prayers are answered?

Their diety just not count.

That is Theism

Redweaver:
Or maybe them praying and thinking their prayers are answered are inconvienient to your argument so you try to sweep it under the rug?

And you think I'm the one digging his hole deeper?

Again that is Theism

You made a claim that all Theist and Deist are mentally insane, so I'm asking for the scientific evidence to back your claim.

Redweaver:
snip

What counter arguments are you expecting here? You don't even know my position on the matter.

I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to make definitive claims with no evidence, especially when you're claiming something as serious as insanity.

Volf:

Redweaver:

Deism is a belief in a diety.

You're making a huge leap to say that all deist believe that their diety doesn't intervene.

-_- ......Did you seriously just try to refute a central part of Deism? Take a look...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

Redweaver:
So, no Christians pray and think their prayers are answered?

Their diety just not count.

That is Theism

Redweaver:
Or maybe them praying and thinking their prayers are answered are inconvienient to your argument so you try to sweep it under the rug?

And you think I'm the one digging his hole deeper?

Again that is Theism

You made a claim that all Theist and Deist are mentally insane, so I'm asking for the scientific evidence to back your claim.

First definition right from your first link:

Deism is the belief in a god.

And I've shown quite clearly how belief in a diety is insane.

If something falls, do you require a quote from Newton proving gravity?
When I have two apples and you give me two more, do I need to spell out the mathematical proof that 2+2=4?
If you stub your toe and it hurts, is it time to pull out Grey's Anatomy?

How ridiculous.

You and I are both capable of observing, using our brains and drawing conclusions.
How about you give it a try.

Zekksta:

Redweaver:
snip

What counter arguments are you expecting here? You don't even know my position on the matter.

I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to make definitive claims with no evidence, especially when you're claiming something as serious as insanity.

Which bring us right back to:

So, auditory hallucinations aren't a symptom of insanity?

And Michelle Bachman didn't say god told her to run for office?

Are you now going to have the temerity to pretend you have some super secret insite to assert that Michelle was just talking methaphorically or didn't mean it?

The counterarguments I'm expecting are anything other than "LINKS!", "PEER REVIEW!", "RIGOROUS STANDARDS!". And Monty Python sketches also don't cut it, so "Nuh-uh" also is insufficient.

The counterargument would be showing either that auditory hallucinations AREN'T a symptom of insanity or showing that people don't think they hear the voice of god.

Redweaver:
.

The counterargument would be showing either that auditory hallucinations AREN'T a symptom of insanity or showing that people don't think they hear the voice of god.

Okay.

My sister is religious, she claims she does not hear the voice of god.

Redweaver:

First definition right from your first link:

Deism is the belief in a god.

And I've shown quite clearly how belief in a diety is insane.

If something falls, do you require a quote from Newton proving gravity?
When I have two apples and you give me two more, do I need to spell out the mathematical proof that 2+2=4?
If you stub your toe and it hurts, is it time to pull out Grey's Anatomy?

How ridiculous.

You and I are both capable of observing, using our brains and drawing conclusions.
How about you give it a try.

A belief in a Deity in regards to Deism =/= a belief that people can interact with the Deity.

Here is what the links stated....

a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

It is right there, its impossible to miss.

Zekksta:

Redweaver:
.

The counterargument would be showing either that auditory hallucinations AREN'T a symptom of insanity or showing that people don't think they hear the voice of god.

Okay.

My sister is religious, she claims she does not hear the voice of god.

Michelle Bachman is religious. She claims she does hear the voice of god.

That all you got?

Redweaver:

Michelle Bachman is religious. She claims she does hear the voice of god.

That all you got?

I've already shown that there are religious people who don't think they hear the voice of god, something which you called into question.

All you've done is show me there are religious people that do think they hear the voice of god, something I never called into question.

Redweaver:

Volf:

Redweaver:

First definition right from your first link:

Deism is the belief in a god.

And I've shown quite clearly how belief in a diety is insane.

If something falls, do you require a quote from Newton proving gravity?
When I have two apples and you give me two more, do I need to spell out the mathematical proof that 2+2=4?
If you stub your toe and it hurts, is it time to pull out Grey's Anatomy?

How ridiculous.

You and I are both capable of observing, using our brains and drawing conclusions.
How about you give it a try.

A belief in a Deity in regards to Deism =/= a belief that people can interact with the Deity.

Here is what the links stated....

a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

It is right there, its impossible to miss.

What a convenient, self-serving little cop out.

So Christians aren't Deists apparently. And neither are Mormans. Or the followers of Islam. Those Hindus, yup, not deists.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

When did I claim that they were?

Zekksta:

Redweaver:

Michelle Bachman is religious. She claims she does hear the voice of god.

That all you got?

I've already shown that there are religious people who don't think they hear the voice of god, something which you called into question.

All you've done is show me there are religious people that do think they hear the voice of god, something I never called into question.

Awwwwp, ya got me.

You single example of your sister just demolished my argument.

We got a winner. Zekksta's sister.

Volf:

Redweaver:

Volf:
A belief in a Deity in regards to Deism =/= a belief that people can interact with the Deity.

Here is what the links stated....

It is right there, its impossible to miss.

What a convenient, self-serving little cop out.

So Christians aren't Deists apparently. And neither are Mormans. Or the followers of Islam. Those Hindus, yup, not deists.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

When did I claim that they were?

So you're the final arbiter of who is and isn't a deist?

You get to make that judgement?

Redweaver:

Zekksta:

Redweaver:

Michelle Bachman is religious. She claims she does hear the voice of god.

That all you got?

I've already shown that there are religious people who don't think they hear the voice of god, something which you called into question.

All you've done is show me there are religious people that do think they hear the voice of god, something I never called into question.

Awwwwp, ya got me.

You single example of your sister just demolished my argument.

We got a winner. Zekksta's sister.

I want my trophy to be gold, don't bitch out and go for the cheap option.

Zekksta:

Redweaver:

Zekksta:

I've already shown that there are religious people who don't think they hear the voice of god, something which you called into question.

All you've done is show me there are religious people that do think they hear the voice of god, something I never called into question.

Awwwwp, ya got me.

You single example of your sister just demolished my argument.

We got a winner. Zekksta's sister.

I want my trophy to be gold, don't bitch out and go for the cheap option.

(Sends back diamond encrusted platinum trophy)

Your downgrade is on back order.

;)

Sometimes it's useful to revisit previously learned lessons in internet conversations, like "how a thread about one guy on the extreme side of his religion can turn into an embarrassment for everyone in the message board community regardless of if they're religious or what kind of religion they follow."

Redweaver:
So Christians aren't Deists apparently. And neither are Mormans. Or the followers of Islam. Those Hindus, yup, not deists.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Well, no. Those groups aren't Deists. They're Theists. They believe in a personal, interventionist god to varying degrees (or multiple for Hindus).
Deists believe in various types of non-interventionist gods that set things in motions but don't deal with prayers or human affairs in general. A Deistic god might not even be a conscious being or a being at all.
There is some overlap here and there (for instance, many Theists believe that their god kickstarted evolution or the Big Bang or similar), but in general there are massive differences, especially when it comes to human interaction.
That's not a cop-out, that's just an issue of definitions, though I'm guessing you might just have mixed those up and meant to write "Theists" in the post I quoted above.

Skeleon:

Redweaver:
So Christians aren't Deists apparently. And neither are Mormans. Or the followers of Islam. Those Hindus, yup, not deists.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Well, no. Those groups aren't Deists. They're Theists. They believe in a personal, interventionist god to varying degrees (or multiple for Hindus).
Deists believe in various types of non-interventionist gods that set things in motions but don't deal with prayers or human affairs in general. A Deistic god might not even be a conscious being or a being at all.
There is some overlap here and there (for instance, many Theists believe that their god kickstarted evolution or the Big Bang or similar), but in general there are massive differences, especially when it comes to human interaction.
That's not a cop-out, that's just an issue of definitions, though I'm guessing you might just have mixed those up and meant to write "Theists" in the post I quoted above.

Two things:

1. No true Scotsman, errr, sorry, Deist. Weaksauce

2. You're arguing a theoretical case based on hypothetical people about an intellectual definition. I'm talking much more about actual human beings.

This is the cutesy little pedantic parsing of semantics that's really just a deflection from having to give a real argument.

Redweaver, I will concede a bit here, because there are psychologists who have linked mental illness and religious belief. For note:

"This tendency, representing a form of cultural insensitivity, can be traced back to the roots of psychoanalysis as well as behaviorism and cognitive therapy. Freud saw religion as "a universal obsessional neurosis," Skinner ignored religious experience, and Ellis viewed religion as equivalent to irrational thinking and emotional disturbance. Similarly, spiritual experiences have been viewed as evidence of psychopathology"

-http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/20/why-is-religion-important-to-mental-health/

However, that was a long time ago. Recent research shows that religion is quite helpful to a patient, and certainly does not qualify one for being insane, as follows:

"Recently, there has been a burgeoning of systematic research into religion, spirituality, and mental health. A literature search before 2000 identified 724 quantitative studies, and since that time, research in this area has increased dramatically.8 The evidence suggests that, on balance, religious involvement is generally conducive to better mental health. In addition, patients with psychiatric disorders frequently use religion to cope with their distress."

-http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1508320

In true mental illness, a patient CANNOT, or is physically UNABLE to make clear distinctions/observations in their mind. However, in the case of a religious person, they may CHOOSE not to make distinctions/observations. This is the key difference, in a nutshell. You are using an outdated definition of mental illness.

Redweaver:
1. No true Scotsman, errr, sorry, Deist. Weaksauce

I guess you didn't get the two mixed up, you really don't know the difference.

From Wiki: "Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own."

The thing is: This is not enough for Theists like Christians, Muslims and so on. They don't just believe in a clockmaker deity, they believe in a god that will listen to prayers, perform miracles, dish out salvation or punishment, bless people etc..
That's a pretty big difference.

Einstein, for instance, talked a lot about a god, but when he used the term, he used it in a Deistic sense to refer to the laws of nature. He didn't mean a god like the one Christians believe in that you could pray to and that would do things for you or help you.

2. You're arguing a theoretical case based on hypothetical people about an intellectual definition. I'm talking much more about actual human beings.

False. I didn't actually get into the discussion you're having and I have no intention to do so. I'm not arguing any "case". I just want you to get your definitions in order.

Redweaver:

Volf:

Redweaver:

What a convenient, self-serving little cop out.

So Christians aren't Deists apparently. And neither are Mormans. Or the followers of Islam. Those Hindus, yup, not deists.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

When did I claim that they were?

So you're the final arbiter of who is and isn't a deist?

You get to make that judgement?

Theist are not Deist anymore than Agnostic are positive-Athiest.

Theism and Deism are two completely different things.

Zekksta:
Okay.

My sister is religious, she claims she does not hear the voice of god.

Actually, this makes me think a bit.

Does your sister pray? Does she expect any response to her prayer, whether it's literally a voice or just god interfering with reality on her behalf?

If she doesn't pray, are you sure she's religious? Are you sure she's telling you the total truth about what she does and doesn't believe? Is it possible she tells you she doesn't hear the voice of god because she's scared of what you or others will think of that?

Just something to chew on.

Skeleon:

Redweaver:
1. No true Scotsman, errr, sorry, Deist. Weaksauce

I guess you didn't get the two mixed up, you really don't know the difference.

From Wiki: "Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own."

The thing is: This is not enough for Theists like Christians, Muslims and so on. They don't just believe in a clockmaker deity, they believe in a god that will listen to prayers, perform miracles, dish out salvation or punishment, bless people etc..
That's a pretty big difference.

Einstein, for instance, talked a lot about a god, but when he used the term, he used it in a Deistic sense to refer to the laws of nature. He didn't mean a god like the one Christians believe in that you could pray to and that would do things for you or help you.

2. You're arguing a theoretical case based on hypothetical people about an intellectual definition. I'm talking much more about actual human beings.

False. I didn't actually get into the discussion you're having and I have no intention to do so. I'm not arguing any "case". I just want you to get your definitions in order.

Ahhh...so deists are a special case scenario where they're religious but don't believe what religion believes. They have rules written just for them so they can believe in god, but not have to deal with all the trappings and problems that entails.

Deists believe in god. A being who can't be proved to exist. Like the flying spaghetti monster.

All the rest is, as I said, pendantic semantic parsing to obfuscate and avoid the real argument.

Cute, but worthless.

Volf:

Redweaver:

Volf:
When did I claim that they were?

So you're the final arbiter of who is and isn't a deist?

You get to make that judgement?

Theist are not Deist anymore than Agnostic are positive-Athiest.

Theism and Deism are two completely different things.

Deists and Theists are fundimentally the same, they both believe in god. So are Agnostics and Athiests, they both don't believe in god.

Convienient word-parsing aside, there's no differnce.

Your definition basically says, they believe in god, but they don't really believe in god as anyone else defines it. What a useful cop-out.

Keep hiding behind your claim that I'm just ignorant, it's sure helping your case.

Redweaver:
Ahhh...so deists are a special case scenario where they're religious but don't believe what religion believes. They have rules written just for them so they can believe in god, but not have to deal with all the trappings and problems that entails.

They don't believe "in god". They believe in some sort of creator deity. You make it sound like they are Monotheists.

Deists believe in god. A being who can't be proved to exist. Like the flying spaghetti monster.

Well, no. The FSM provides a heaven and a hell, has rules for letting people taste that beer volcano and enjoy the stripper factory. A Deistic god doesn't give a shit about humans and doesn't create a heaven, a hell, rules etc.. Maybe that Deistic god is already dead. Maybe it died during the Big Bang. Maybe it is off to create other universes. It's completely vague and completely disassociated from Theism.

All the rest is, as I said, pendantic semantic parsing to obfuscate and avoid the real argument.

Cute, but worthless.

Well, you keep on doing that. I won't waste my time if you can't even be bothered to read up on the issues you're debating at all.
Let me just tell you now that I'm probably not going to be the last person to call you out on misusing definitions unless you get some more info on it first and start using them correctly.

Hell, I don't even see what the problem is. Just call Christians, Muslims and Hindus what they are when you're talking about them: Theists. What's the big problem with that?

We tend to be a "pedantic" bunch here, considering definitions are so important when discussing this kind of stuff. Just you wait until you see one of our Agnostic/Atheist/Agnostic Atheist debates, they come up every other week or so.

Redweaver:

Zekksta:
Okay.

My sister is religious, she claims she does not hear the voice of god.

Actually, this makes me think a bit.

Does your sister pray? Does she expect any response to her prayer, whether it's literally a voice or just god interfering with reality on her behalf?

I think my sister prays to god in the same way I yell at my car for stopping on the freeway. She doesn't believe reality will change from doing it, it's just a thing you do.

Redweaver:
Are you sure she's telling you the total truth about what she does and doesn't believe?

Eh, I'm not a mind reader, but she seems secure enough in herself and her beliefs that I'm ready to take her word for it. If she ever breaks down yelling "it was all a lie" you'll be the first person I contact.

Redweaver:
Is it possible she tells you she doesn't hear the voice of god because she's scared of what you or others will think of that?

I doubt it, considering I personally have the privilege of bearing the label "insane". I don't think she'd be too worried about what I thought about it.

Then again maybe it'd be even harder to admit to it when the family has history of mental illness, because you wouldn't want it to be written off as mental illness.

That's just fun speculation though, sure it could be possible, but I highly doubt it is.

Redweaver:
Just something to chew on.

In future, I prefer dried apples.

Skeleon:

Redweaver:
Ahhh...so deists are a special case scenario where they're religious but don't believe what religion believes. They have rules written just for them so they can believe in god, but not have to deal with all the trappings and problems that entails.

They don't believe "in god". They believe in some sort of creator deity. You make it sound like they are Monotheists.

Deists believe in god. A being who can't be proved to exist. Like the flying spaghetti monster.

Well, no. The FSM provides a heaven and a hell, has rules for letting people taste that beer volcano and enjoy the stripper factory. A Deistic god doesn't give a shit about humans and doesn't create a heaven, a hell, rules etc.. Maybe that Deistic god is already dead. Maybe it died during the Big Bang. Maybe it is off to create other universes. It's completely vague and completely disassociated from Theism.

All the rest is, as I said, pendantic semantic parsing to obfuscate and avoid the real argument.

Cute, but worthless.

Well, you keep on doing that. I won't waste my time if you can't even be bothered to read up on the issues you're debating at all.
Let me just tell you now that I'm probably not going to be the last person to call you out on misusing definitions unless you get some more info on it first and start using them correctly.

Hell, I don't even see what the problem is. Just call Christians, Muslims and Hindus what they are when you're talking about them: Theists. What's the big problem with that?

We tend to be a "pedantic" bunch here, considering definitions are so important when discussing this kind of stuff. Just you wait until you see one of our Agnostic/Atheist/Agnostic Atheist debates, they come up every other week or so.

I believe in Santa Claus.

Not the Santa that delivers present to every person in a single night, THAT would be silly.

But I believe in Santa.

Ummmm, yeah. Pedantic nonsense.

Fine, change every mention of the word deist and deism with theist and theism.

Now explain how that fundamentally undermines or refutes my argument.

It doesnt', because that change is worthless semantics meant to obfuscate. Give a select group an "out" so they can believe, but not have to worry about all the little trappings, issues, and difficulties that belief brings.

Belief in a diety, theist or deist, is, at BEST, simple curable ignorance. A rancid left over from the time when we lived in cave, hadn't yet mastered fire, and took our mates forcably with a club. A time when we didn't know the Earth is spherical. A time when we didn't know that germs were the cause of disease and not curses or gods.

Continuing to believe in a stone age superstition just because it's comforting to do so in the year 2012 is worthy of the very, very least of education. But persistant ignorance is worthy of derision and ridicule.

Redweaver:
Fine, change every mention of the word deist and deism with theist and theism.

Now explain how that fundamentally undermines or refutes my argument.

It doesn't. It doesn't need to. As I said before, I wasn't getting into your argument. I never tried to refute it. But you seem not to have understood that.

It doesnt', because that change is worthless semantics meant to obfuscate.

Stop claiming this is about obfuscating, when it is literally about clearing up definitions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked