Something all theists should all keep in mind.

[catfish]

All Stue said was:

By mass sure, but it's 2 hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom...

And Pocaracas just clarified it as well in saying that it is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen but also by definition of mass it can be considered as sixteen to eight etc etc etc.

So no, they actually agreed with me, and the definition in the dictionary, which is to say that they agreed that Sam Harris' definition is correct.

By the way, the only thing I pounded was your mom's ass.

Bolded by myself...

Seriously man, look at the bolded words above and keep insisting that my simple, scientific fact was incorrect...

Look at what you did earlier! You went from an example the measured volume to an "ergo" that used mass! How fucking logical is that??? What you should have done is use the potato pancake example. 4 potatos to 1 onion...

Look Creed, just let it go. You'll only continue to make a fool of yourself and you really have nothing except lame insults that are old as my mom... But hey, you obviously like granny punani so have at it if you must.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Creed of Heresy]

Lol. The salt is strong with this one.

See, I would not have bothered had you not stated "actually..." as the opening word to your post. When you apply "actually" as the opening word of a sentence it typically means you are contradicting the information provided, and in later posts you continued to imply that saying that hydrogen is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is somehow wrong, when in fact, it is not. I am not stating that your post that the composition of the mass is wrong, it is rather true, what I AM saying is wrong is how you seemed to assume that the statement "two parts hydrogen one part oxygen" is wrong when by definition it is actually NOT, it is quite true. THAT is what I am taking issue with, not the numbers you provided.

Communication, it's very important.

Also, you will have to pardon me for my aggressive reactions, this month has not been the best and my tolerance and patience is razor-thin right now.

So yes. I will give you that your statement about the percentages was accurate if you admit that the definition of water as two parts hydrogen one part oxygen is ALSO accurate. Ball's in your court.

[catfish]

Lol. The salt is strong with this one.

See, I would not have bothered had you not stated "actually..." as the opening word to your post. When you apply "actually" as the opening word of a sentence it typically means you are contradicting the information provided, and in later posts you continued to imply that saying that hydrogen is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is somehow wrong, when in fact, it is not. I am not stating that your post that the composition of the mass is wrong, it is rather true, what I AM saying is wrong is how you seemed to assume that the statement "two parts hydrogen one part oxygen" is wrong when by definition it is actually NOT, it is quite true. THAT is what I am taking issue with, not the numbers you provided.

Communication, it's very important.

Also, you will have to pardon me for my aggressive reactions, this month has not been the best and my tolerance and patience is razor-thin right now.

So yes. I will give you that your statement about the percentages was accurate if you admit that the definition of water as two parts hydrogen one part oxygen is ALSO accurate. Ball's in your court.

Communication is important? So important that you would lie about what I actually said? Where exactly did I say "actually"?

I don't have to "admit" anything, I never said Harris' statement was wrong now did I? The potato pancake example should be proof of that...

[Brian37]

This image sums up, in entirety, the problem we atheists have when we try to have logical conversations with you:

You simply won't.

Which is why I have been arguing for rational Christianity, a religion that is stripped of its supernatural nonsense. And it's funny that atheists are opposing me like I have done something wrong.

You are doing something wrong. You are not applying the same logic you use to reject the fantastic claims in the bible and applying it to the naked assertion starting point of the claim that a non material being is even a possibility.

I call bullshit on your response. And I also would have said bullshit to Jefferson too when he put out his "Jefferson bible".

No "supernatural" at all really? Can I hold you to that claim?

Funny, if there is absoulutely nothing super natural about the bible what would you call a non material disembodied brain with no location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

Isn't your main character beyond nature? Because if he is merley natural, then he should be a physical human like us and would die like us. So in order for the god concept to work it has to be super natural, even before you get to word one of the bible, even if the bible itself is stripped of all the magic, it is still a book that people claim was handed to them from their tin foil hats from an invisible sky daddy.

If invisible sky daddys(incert name here) are not super natural then you really do have me stumpped.

You are merely doing psychological back peddling failing to realize back at the time when those books were written, people litterally believed the fantastic claims in them, and I can not think of a more fantastic claim than an invisible being(by any name).

You did what Jefferson did, you clung to the notion of a kind super hero, but knew the baggage of the fantastic claims wouldn't wash scientifically. So how does an invisible being, regardless of the book, any less fantastic a claim than the fantastic claims you water down and fool yourself that that is not what you are doing?

So if there is no magic in the bible and it is just a book of fairy tales then all you are peddling is a social club, not any real scientific reality.

[Creed of Heresy]

Communication is important? So important that you would lie about what I actually said? Where exactly did I say "actually"?

I don't have to "admit" anything, I never said Harris' statement was wrong now did I? The potato pancake example should be proof of that...

No, you are correct. My mistake. I must've misread the initial post and taken it to meaning that you were contradicting the point, then when told otherwise I think my brain tried to come up with a logical reason why the shortcoming existed (ergo, "you must have said 'actually'" when you never did). Behold the result of not being able to hear vocal inflections! What folly this has wrought. I deeply apologize for flying off the handle like that, then, it was very uncalled for.

[ThomM]

[/quote]

So, do you find it threatening if it's nothing? Why do people oppose me?


Because when YOU strip out the "supernatural nonsense'" - you assume that the only thing that is left is the basic morality - but if YOU actually READ THE BIBLE - that morality is the result taking lots of things out of context and ignoring lots of other basically sick and disgusting things.

The religion would favor slavery - it would favor women as possessions of the man - and would favor some really draconian laws that YOU forget are part of the bible.

Sorry - but you are not doing what you say

[kılıç_mehmet]

hydrogen peroxide!