Infallible proof of god

that's because santa's love is REAL

[i am going to the north pole when i die--have you been regifted?]

 

Dude, when did I try to change the laws of the u$ to suit my own morals. Well, I guess you could say that by voting for Gore and Kerry I did that, but it didn't work; G.W. won. I don't recall contacting you by phone or showing up at your door (I'm not a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon), and I'm certainly not interested in converting anybody. I have enough on my plate dealing with my own life and beliefs. So what's your beef?

 

i was not speaking to you personally

you are just some kid with lots of time to waste

[as much as me]

but your religion's representatives are trying to run everyone into church and everything into the ground

or had you not noticed?

btw sorry you voted for the phony liberals gore and kerry

i voted for gus hall

[again]

 

Who would they be?

Limited choices, I admit, but it would have made a difference. (And I didn't actually vote for them, but I would have, if I could have). A vote for Gus Hall might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse.

 

i would vote for mickey mouse

except i despise disney

this time i am voting for an unnamed dust bunny

[gus hall has been dead for years]

 

That is neither "critical thinking" nor "humor".

It is typical of your inconsistent, self-absorbed mentality which you pathetically pass for "intellectual prowess." In other words, you merely type and post whatever pops up in your deluded and confused mind as a result of having had the misfortune of growing up with a christian background.

One time you attack Christianity, a couple of posts later, you defend it.
So which is which?
Your inconsistency is merely a reflection of the delusion, confusion and a desperate need for attention brought about by your sad christian upbringing. Like I said, earlier, perhaps, a thorough medical checkup is in order, for your own good.

Just a suggestion. Perhaps, you could even change your name from Self-Control to Self-Absorbed.

 

Is there a topic here?

 

Wow, it finally registers with you that I'm not a Christian. Just WARPED BY MY CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND... which I don't actually particularly have. I want to a christian school but my father is a staunch and fairly zealous atheist so...

See, I haven't "attacked" Christianity. I may have criticised aspects of it, but that does not mean that I am against the religion. It is not the zero sum situation that you wish it to be. One can, for example, be critical of the church for assisting in the cover up of child molestation by priests, but still be in favour of the message that the Bible has. I can do both and not contradict myself. Do you honestly not understand how someone can defend something while still being critical of it? You are trying to make a zero sum issue where there is simply not one to be made, and if you seriously don't see that, I don't see how I'm the delusional one.

(part in bold highlighted for irony, as if you post for any other reason)

See above. You only know what I've told you about me, and yet you feel quite happy to attribute anything you dislike about my posts to an upbringing you know absolutely nothing about. And why? Because you are irrational. This is not merely an ad hominem; you simply have no evidence to believe that I am delusional, or that I have become so as a result of a "sad christian upbringing".

Are we believing things without proof now? You're the one failing here. You are using people's Christianity - or their Christian upbringing - as a basis to say anything you like, to dismiss any argument as delusion rather than actually indicate why you think it is so. Why are you willing to side with FedUp? Didn't he have a Christian upbringing? He talked about his "mindvirus". Clearly you don't regard him as delusional? Or is it okay for him to be delusional as long as he agrees with you? Please answer these questions, do not just avoid them.

That is neither "critical thinking" nor "humor".

 

Well, since the bible is admittedly a book of fairy tales, it goes that if there wasn't that "message" based on a book of fairy tales, then the child molestation by the pedophile priests wouldn't not have happened. LOL.

You're trying to cover up christian blind faith and stupidity with your own silly arguments, imagining it as your own version of "critical thinking". LOL.

You christians are a joke. Come back when you have figured out a way to sell your religion based on blind faith and fairy tales make any sense of logic, rationality and plain old common sense.

 

When you've demonstrated some "logic, rationality, and plain old common sense", maybe somebody would take you seriously. Do you think the Bible contains a message that would justify pedophile priests? Or are you saying something else that nobody but you can understand?

 

No, that doesn't follow at all. You're implying that one can only read into a text that which is in there to begin with. Does the Bible need to specifically say "Hey, priests: no fucking small boys. This means YOU!" to be exempt from blame if a priest acts on paedophile urges? I'm not even aware that any priest has claimed "The Bible made me do it" after having sex with an altarboy. Maybe you're privy to documents I am not.

It is not "my own version of critical thinking". I'm not stupid enough to think that critical thinking leads one to a Right Answer, so the idea that I would have "my own version" is pretty absurd in and of itself. I am, for some reason, attempting to engage in a dialectic, to reach a mutual understanding from which we can then discuss. This is something you seem entirely unwilling to do. If you are opposed to Christianity or Christian belief, you are free to talk about it, but if you're entirely opposed to discussing said beliefs with Christians or anyone with any "insider knowledge" of Christianity (unless they agree with you) on the grounds that they have been somehow infected with delusions that absolve you from even having to respond to their posts, I fail to see the point in you posting here at all. Wouldn't you be a lot happier just choking on FedUp's cock over PMs or something?

 

Check out Luke 17:2. It's perfectly clear what Jesus thought about child molesters: that it would be better for them to be cast into the sea with a millstone around their neck. That applies all the more to pedophile priests, since they're bringing scandal to the church in addition to harming children. (Also, having sex out of wedlock). The Catholic hierarchy can rightly be blamed for not responding to this crisis earlier, and for brushing it off. Pedophilia is a disease, however, that's certainly not confined to the ranks of Christians or even religious people. Are you claiming there are no atheist pedophiles? Just as
Ahmadinejad tells us there are no gays in Iran? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

Point being, one cannot blame the Bible or Christianity as a religion for the actions of individuals unless one can actually find some consequent basis for that. It would be as ridiculous as blaming Ikea for the fact that someone can't assemble a flat-pack wall unit. If the instructions are there, and someone doesn't follow them, whose fault is that?

 

This is what I meant by proving it's consequent, rather than coincident. What you're arguing is not far removed from, say:

Most people wear shoes.
Most murderers are people.
Therefore, shoes cause murder.

If a man claims that his shoes told him to murder someone, would you assume that there was a problem with his shoes, or with him? What if a hundred men did it? Would you think "hmmm, well, if there's a hundred men saying this, it must be true"? Of course you wouldn't. For the same reason, even if a thousand men say that the Bible told them to kill someone, that won't prove a thing.

There is other stuff I could argue. I mean, Barthes wrote about the death of the author, that a writer never has control over what the reader reads from his text. It's glaringly obvious from your statement:

"When the christians get their guidance from the bible AND commit attrocities based on their beliefs, one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to make that accurate comparison."

Do you seriously not understand the flaw in your argument? As you so constantly assert, people are STUPID. They'll read meaning into anything, right? I mean, you've been arguing that for pretty much the whole time you've been here. So why are you now saying that anything that someone believes as a result of reading the Bible must be in there? Before you MOAR LOL, I want you to explain why you think that. The Bible's fairly clear about whether you should murder people or not, so so what if some twat decides that the Bible told them to do the opposite? How does that prove a thing? How does that go any way to explain the millions of Christians who never murder anyone?

This is what I mean by the consequent. You cannot simply cite a Christian who commits a crime as proof that there's something wrong with the religion, because I can just as easily cite a million other Christians who read the same book and didn't commit that crime. I don't really care if you think that makes me deaf, dumb and blind, it's obviously true and for someone who thinks they're in the smart critical thinkers' camp not to realise that would be pretty fucking tragic.

No, fairly obviously I was referring to people's tendency to blame the product for their own failure to read the fucking manual while assembling it. Please tell me you're deliberately misinterpreting this very simply analogy, and that you're not just a total fucking moron.

Is it as hysterical as everything else you've completely failed to respond to actually refute throughout this thread? It's lamentable that you're wasting this opportunity to make a point and cure us of our mindviruses, rather just respond to everything put to you with "LOL" and mock disbelief. For one who believes we're all delusional idiots, you seem surprisingly loathe to actually show off your superior clarity of thought and intellect. Maybe you just don't want the attention.

 

And how much intelligence does it take to launch into a personal attack?
You are exhibiting the same qualities of being a moron, in case you didn't know.

 

In post 217, Self-Control launched into a personal attack on FedUp.
Clearly, a violation of forum rules.

 

Is that how you got your masters? Given that you've called others delusional for their "bullshit", I fail to see how responding with similar bullshit justifies your attitude of superiority. Please demonstrate your superiority. I want to love you. I want to worship your radiant smarts.

How is it a personal attack to say this?

"Please tell me you're deliberately misinterpreting this very simply analogy, and that you're not just a total fucking moron."

I have merely asked FedUp to tell me something, and specified how I will feel about him if he does not do so. He has the option to do as I have asked him, or to further evidence my view of him. If I had simply said "You are exhibiting [...] qualities of being a moron", that could be seen as an attack; instead, what I have said is simply a two-tailed hypothesis.

 

Teacher! Teacher! He broke the rules again! (As opposed to:"Yes, it is those people like you who afflicted with this mind disease called christianity, and they won't even acknowledge it. LOL." wbld) Getting hypocritical in our old age?

 

It's really messed up to think that these people are of the sort of age where they'd be governing our countries.

 

See, as attacks go, this one's more personal than anything I've ever leveled at you. Do I care? No. Do I, as an atheist, have a problem with those who outright lie? Yes.