(October 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Thedetester Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Puke.  Spit, spit, spit!  How I despise the way Christians glory in being infantilized by their religion.  

Pro tip: don't leave your little bible turds laying around here without a point you wish to make with them.  Else wise you'll be joining Randy in the bad place.

Confirmed "God mocker"

Try "gullible idiot mocker". Most of the members here don't actually believe in your invisible friend.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Thedetester Wrote: Confirmed "God mocker"

Try "gullible idiot mocker". Most of the members here don't actually believe in your invisible friend.

And don't you think that recognizing and accepting each other's differences is prerequisite to civil, productive or even fun discussion?  

Pro tip #2: when I mock your imaginary friend, I can only really be mocking you.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Kitan Wrote: If god is so great and powerful, I am quite certain he can handle being mocked.  If he requires his followers to defend him, then clearly his greatness is over exaggerated.

Hasn't God given free will,think about it,and mocking God is sin.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Thedetester Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Kitan Wrote: If god is so great and powerful, I am quite certain he can handle being mocked.  If he requires his followers to defend him, then clearly his greatness is over exaggerated.

Hasn't God given free will,think about it,and mocking God is sin.

Maybe you should demonstrate that your god even exists before you start telling us what he does and dislikes. The cart goes behind the horse, dude.

And why should I demonstrate that to a person who doesn't care whether he exist's or not?

(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 12:13 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking Ronnie is going to bail out from this barrage of facts.

Though conducted with the blessing of the Catholic Church, the Crusades were carried out by governmental authorities: Dukes, Kings, and so on. So you can't refer to them as an inquisition directed by RCC. Unfortunately, RCC gets most of the credit from a flag.

The First Crusade famously slaughtered almost all the inhabitants of Jersusalem, most of whom were Christians and Jews. The Crusades were essentially a barbarian invasion of the civilized middle east and like many barbarian invasions they were quite brutal but succeeded in the end in civilizing the barbarians. And eventually recovering most of what was taken.

Here's what you wrote: "You strain over maybe 20,000 killed by Christians in the dark ages no less." You make no mention of official approval; you are saying that Christians in the Dark Ages killed around twenty thousand folks. And then above you not only contradict your own claim, you start backtracking without acknowledging it.

You're clearly dissimulating in order to avoid admitting that that number you cited was a matter of argumentum ex culo.

(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote: That said, those were barbaric times which called for drastic measures. aka WAR. Actually you could thank the Crusaders that you are not wearing a turban, and praying to Allah now!

Appeal to emotion, appeal to hypothetical, and special pleading. Who cares how many fallacies you can jam into one sentence? Crusaders were Christians. How did they so conspicuously miss the central message of the alleged "Prince of Peace"? "Drastic times"! The Crusades were glorified looting raids.

(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote: My reference was to innocents wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC.

No, it wasn't. You said "killed by Christians", not "wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC".

A simple "I stand corrected" is not only more accurate as a reply, it would prevent the erosion of credibility that happens when you lie so plainly to rescue a point.

wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC I actually have no idea what that number could be. Neither does anyone else; when estimates run from thousands to millions!

I'll have better numbers for you in the future.... if I feel like it.
[/quote]

It's obviously not the case that you're an informed student of the era, and it obviously is the case that you view the truth as a convenient fiction. Under thosae conditions, any numbers you present are suspect.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Thedetester Wrote: And why should I demonstrate that to a person who doesn't care whether he exist's or not?

How do you know I don't care? We've never met before, do try not to tell me what I think.

The answer to your question, though, is that you can change my mind with sufficient evidence. I can be made a believer, assuming you have a good enough justification for believing.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Thedetester Wrote: And why should I demonstrate that to a person who doesn't care whether he exist's or not?

Us not believing in your god hasn't stopped you speaking for it or quoting bible verses, has it?

Although it would be wonderful if it did.

(October 2, 2015 at 9:02 am)ronedee Wrote: I believe everyone is in for a surprise. Everyone.

You also believe that a dad guy got up after three days and floated away and a horde of zombies marched through the city. You also believe that a talking snake talked a woman into eating a forbidden fruit that conveyed moral knowledge.

It's not like your beliefs have heft. They're the silly, childish musings of someone afraid to look at the real world. Given that, your belief that we're in for a surprise is simply mental masturbation on your part. And believe me, brotha, masturbation should be done in private.

(October 2, 2015 at 10:50 am)Thedetester Wrote: [...] but never mind they'll learn in Hell.

What does it tell you about your allegedly loving god that he must resort to threats to compel belief?

What does it say about you that you're cowed by a superstition to such an extent that you've sold your soul?

Stockholm Syndrome. Go read up on it before you return to this conversation.