(October 23, 2015 at 4:28 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well I've never been a sock for someone before, but I really could see no other possible reaction to that response but to point and laugh, so if that makes me a likely candidate for being Dyre's sock, then I guess I'll wear that fitted shoe.

Seriously, Drich, I wish you could understand how crazy you sound when you start talking like that.

I was making a joke, because when dry sand finally gets to the point where he fully understand an argument, his whole debate tactic moves from name calling and blind uninformed rants to posting memes, gifs and youtube videos rather than trying to keep up topically.

You were caught in a similar situation when I shone some light on your "3000 year old strawman" and further explained my point. Your gif was a sad attempt to misdirect and appeal to popularity, (all the monkey see/monkey doers who in like fashion jumped on the gif bandwagon is proof of that) in the same way Dry sand does when he is caught. You both look to trivialize rather than engage.

I was just pointing out the similarities of the two opposite ends of atheistic debate the two of you repersent. You may see yourself as being miles above another member here (which would make me "crazy" for compareing you two) but truly you only seem to be the opposite sides of the same coin.

So by the looks of things you all are done?
(I did just read everyones posts)
Everyone seems to be at that point where you've all just ignore the last 38 pages of content and circle back around to what has already been proven to be your support of pop morality and what society dictates as being right and wrong.

I mean I could pick all that apart again and showing you the hyprocrisy in all of that, but if you wanted to acknoweledge any of that you would have the first time around... Someone PM me if one of you says something new here. I have a few promises to keep.

(October 23, 2015 at 8:52 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 4:28 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well I've never been a sock for someone before, but I really could see no other possible reaction to that response but to point and laugh, so if that makes me a likely candidate for being Dyre's sock, then I guess I'll wear that fitted shoe.

Seriously, Drich, I wish you could understand how crazy you sound when you start talking like that.

I was making a joke, because when dry sand finally gets to the point where he fully understand an argument, his whole debate tactic moves from name calling and blind uninformed rants to posting memes, gifs and youtube videos rather than trying to keep up topically.

You were caught in a similar situation when I shone some light on your "3000 year old strawman" and further explained my point. Your gif was a sad attempt to misdirect and appeal to popularity, (all the monkey see/monkey doers who in like fashion jumped on the gif bandwagon is proof of that) in the same way Dry sand does when he is caught. You both look to trivialize rather than engage.

I was just pointing out the similarities of the two opposite ends of atheistic debate the two of you repersent. You may see yourself as being miles above another member here (which would make me "crazy" for compareing you two) but truly you only seem to be the opposite sides of the same coin.

No, genius, it was not a strawman, despite your attempts to "illuminate" the situation.  It is trivial that you think that the age of your religion, and all the things you think it accomplishes (while ignoring all the things it has clearly failed to accomplish-- including several of the things you mistakenly believe are fulfilled prophecies, even though the basic definition-of-the-word-for-virgin and simialar issues are staring you in the face, as told to you by experts in the Hebrew language who know more than the writers of the New Testament clearly did when reading Isaiah and trying to connect the Jesus-figure to anything they could scrounge up in the OT to justify their tentative claim) have any weight. You deny the very basic nature of what makes humanity, you ignore major scientific findings in favor of your fantasy-delusion about sin-nature and choices, and you try to claim that we should take you seriously when we mock you for talking about magic here in the world of reality.

Only the fact that your religion is so popular allows you to even make those claims without stopping to say, "Damn, this shit I'm saying really is wacky, isn't it?"

I cannot trivialize what is already trivial.

(October 23, 2015 at 8:57 am)Drich Wrote: So by the looks of things you all are done?
(I did just read everyones posts)
Everyone seems to be at that point where you've all just ignore the last 38 pages of content and circle back around to what has already been proven to be your support of pop morality and what society dictates as being right and wrong.

I mean I could pick all that apart again and showing you the hyprocrisy in all of that, but if you wanted to acknoweledge any of that you would have the first time around... Someone PM me if one of you says something new here. I have a few promises to keep.

Excuse you. You are not even going to attempt to back up your assertions? How shocking.

Christianity has survived for so long because it's not all about the Bible. If it were, it would have died out a long time ago.

Just consider how much of that stupid fucking text has to be 'read in the context of the time' and how many times you have to pick out if something is a goddman metaphor or not. Consider how many Catholics just toss out the old testament and say "Yeah, just a bunch of stories really. The new testament is where it's at." If people didn't cherry pick to justify their holy book, Christianity would have died a long time ago.

My daughter said it very well when she said: "If the bible was inspired by god, then you would never have to take into account the historical context of the time. Because God would have to be timeless."

Honestly if God is anything like that of the bible, then fuck him. Fuck him if he considers homosexuality something worth sending people to hell over, and he should be the one sent to hell instead of all the people he's considering sending to hell. That's not a good god. He doesn't get to be the motherfucking good guy just because he created the whole damn universe. You have to earn your good guy status.

(October 23, 2015 at 11:12 am)Divinity Wrote: Christianity has survived for so long because it's not all about the Bible.  If it were, it would have died out a long time ago.  

Just consider how much of that stupid fucking text has to be 'read in the context of the time' and how many times you have to pick out if something is a goddman metaphor or not.  Consider how many Catholics just toss out the old testament and say "Yeah, just a bunch of stories really.  The new testament is where it's at."  If people didn't cherry pick to justify their holy book, Christianity would have died a long time ago.  

My daughter said it very well when she said:  "If the bible was inspired by god, then you would never have to take into account the historical context of the time.  Because God would have to be timeless."

Honestly if God is anything like that of the bible, then fuck him.  Fuck him if he considers homosexuality something worth sending people to hell over, and he should be the one sent to hell instead of all the people he's considering sending to hell.  That's not a good god.  He doesn't get to be the motherfucking good guy just because he created the whole damn universe.  You have to earn your good guy status.

Here is the thing the bible written by man not really inspired by any sort of god. Considering  god of the  bible is pretty much a self indulgent 
arrogant, racist, homophobic, misogynist, slavery accepting prick. god of the bible is a literally a god of the middle eastern culture. All in all christianity is  dying as of now only really surviving because people just had the mindset of just the good bits and fuck everything else. No one really literally will follow what jesus says when it is inconvenient

(October 22, 2015 at 11:22 am)Drich Wrote: Now, how would you go about validating your version of God? Now what if again, you were 100% wrong about everything? Woould you continue down your path of a god of your own making so you could (in your own mind win arguments) or would you IDK maybe ask a question or 2 about the vast difference between your version of God and the God of the bible your version keeps fall short of?

For that to be the case, I'd have to assume the bible was in some sense "true". Then you have to go forward and decide in what sense you mean that. You can't get around those two steps, and you have no basis for either that is sound.

(October 22, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Drich Wrote: The same is true here. The proof of the bible is not found in debate or speculation but in the full fillment of the promises contain with in.

Ah yes. We're back to "feelies". It's all in your mind, Drich.

(October 22, 2015 at 10:01 pm)Drich Wrote: So again whether in False religion or under the care of God, it all boils down to what you are looking for.

QFT.

(October 23, 2015 at 8:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Sorry about that! I'll shut up now. I get passionate about issues like this.

No, not you! I meant Drich.