A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler: "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Your libertarian propaganda of "Paying taxes = slavery" is not going to convince anybody here. Liberatianism has no modern example. Well there is the Libertarian paradise of Somalia, but I won't go there. Also, Obama doesn't think gay marriage should be banned, he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but does not believe it should be banned.
I am not opposed to opposing views which are built upon reason and logic. The arguments against gay marriage, gay abortion, euthanasia, Creationism in schools and much more are not built upon reasonable arguments and logic, but on religious dogma. At the moment there is no debate going on. If you think Christians in power are open for debate, you need a reality check. They will ignore any contradicting evidence or logical thoughts, stick to their bible or and use that to control how other people live. Perhaps if you spend more time looking at reality and less time cosplaying as Star Wars characters,you might see the real face of modern religion. If you give modern christians in power the option to enforce everybody to their religion,they'd do it.
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
Congratulations, you just posted somethat is completely irrelevant.
But ofcourse i'm the one that's intolerant for not saying "Hey, you make a perfectly fine point" to people who don't make a good point and "respecting" the views of people who wish to enforce religion on me. That doesn't make me intolerant.
Everybody can be as religious as they want, but there is no reason why it should be enforced on me. Rejecting that does not make me intolerant.
@olddaddy: all shops must be closed, but there are a few exceptions such as tourist spots and special sundays where shops are allowed to be open.
And I agree with you about the shops being closed. That is no excuse for your hate speech. Your hatred is rather sad for one who claims to be a "liberal."
A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler: "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Your libertarian propaganda of "Paying taxes = slavery" is not going to convince anybody here. Liberatianism has no modern example. Well there is the Libertarian paradise of Somalia, but I won't go there. Also, Obama doesn't think gay marriage should be banned, he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but does not believe it should be banned.
I am not opposed to opposing views which are built upon reason and logic. The arguments against gay marriage, gay abortion, euthanasia, Creationism in schools and much more are not built upon reasonable arguments and logic, but on religious dogma. At the moment there is no debate going on. If you think Christians in power are open for debate, you need a reality check. They will ignore any contradicting evidence or logical thoughts, stick to their bible or and use that to control how other people live. Perhaps if you spend more time looking at reality and less time cosplaying as Star Wars characters,you might see the real face of modern religion. If you give modern christians in power the option to enforce everybody to their religion,they'd do it.
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
Congratulations, you just posted somethat is completely irrelevant.
But ofcourse i'm the one that's intolerant for not saying "Hey, you make a perfectly fine point" to people who don't make a good point and "respecting" the views of people who wish to enforce religion on me. That doesn't make me intolerant.
Everybody can be as religious as they want, but there is no reason why it should be enforced on me. Rejecting that does not make me intolerant.
@olddaddy: all shops must be closed, but there are a few exceptions such as tourist spots and special sundays where shops are allowed to be open.
And I agree with you about the shops being closed. That is no excuse for your hate speech. Your hatred is rather sad for one who claims to be a "liberal."
But what I said here isn't "Hate speech". Speaking out against religious opression is not hate speech.
@Olddaddy, you just don't understand. It's all because of the goodness of religion, and the fact Germany declared war on the US and Japan attacked Pearl harbor had nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Gameloading @Olddaddy, you just don't understand. It's all because of the goodness of religion, and the fact Germany declared war on the US and Japan attacked Pearl harbor had nothing to do with it.
I took offense to his remarks attributing the defeat of Hitler to Christians. I personally know Jewish WW 2 veterans that fought for the US Army against Hitler, and I was offended that he fails to recognize their contribution.
Considering how many of divergent religious backgrounds fought against Hitler, I thought his was a rather callous, and insulting, comment.
Rather than acknowledge the contributiion of others, he chose to attribute it solely to Christians. Then, to recover he associated himself with Einstein, as a "fellow" Jew. Then he proceeded to push his "I win" button by telling me "thanks for trolling by".
At no point in time has he decided to give credit for the contributions of those from other religions. He calls himself a Jewish Christian, but at no point in time does he provide an act of acknowledgement that his statement was insensitive, there is no act of contrition on his part, nor is there an expectation of foregiveness.
Matter of fact, his posts consistently lack any acts of acknowledgement, or acts of contrition, and he consistently feels it is his obligation to impart foregiveness on posters that disagree with him, as though they do not meet God's moral standards. Perhaps God has seen fit to delegate to him the act of foregiveness?
A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler: "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler: "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
Your original statement should have been that Christians were part of the group that fought aginst Hitler.
However, you chose to ignore the contribution of others.
Once again, in your example, you state that, "hey, without Pete WE never would have put out the fire".
In your example you have used the word "WE", indicating others participated. In your original statement regarding Hitler you attributed all the benefits solely to Christians.
You are restructuring reality again. Go back and read your post.
Perhaps you should consider an act of acknowledgement and an act of contrition when you are incorrect.
Rather than saying, "Thanks for trolling by", when you confuse the Presidential Seal and the seal of the United States.
You can acknowledge when you are wrong, and apologize, there's no sin in doing so.
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore. It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this. Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations. I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
Mercy killing is still killing. I've presented this argument in a technical manner and preserve the rationale as per the rules established by you. (Christians aren't rational)
I have nothing to add on the marriage front and stand by my statement.
(I respect your opposing opinion and will let free thought flow)
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world. However, it is sometimes not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory."
I somewhat remember you discussing the differences between scientific law and scientific theory with me on a global warming thread. You said nothing was 100% provable or some such and that there was "just enough" evidence.
"Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected."
under origins of the concept:
"In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer."
Well some opinions are there is just enough for them to come with a conclusion.
I'm sorry that happens where you live but that sounds like your country's law and not religion. Our grocery stores are open on Sunday. We are founded on a Judeo-Christian philosophies/morals/values.
I think I've presented that religion, nor irrationality, can't get in the way by dominating here.
In case no one remembers here I'm Catholic.
Perhaps I've continued arguing the thread topic as well.
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
A scientific theory is not a simple guess. Creationism has been unable to provide with enough evidence that it can be considered a reasonable scientific theory. This is also the reason creationism is rejected. According to studies, less than 0.15% of the scientific community believes in creationism.
It is indeed my nation's law, but that law was introduced because of religion. It's exactly what I have been talking about
A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler: "Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
Your original statement should have been that Christians were part of the group that fought aginst Hitler.
However, you chose to ignore the contribution of others.
Once again, in your example, you state that, "hey, without Pete WE never would have put out the fire".
In your example you have used the word "WE", indicating others participated. In your original statement regarding Hitler you attributed all the benefits solely to Christians.
You are restructuring reality again. Go back and read your post.
Perhaps you should consider an act of acknowledgement and an act of contrition when you are incorrect.
Rather than saying, "Thanks for trolling by", when you confuse the Presidential Seal and the seal of the United States.
You can acknowledge when you are wrong, and apologize, there's no sin in doing so.
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out."
Does that show you how bad your logic was?
I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department.
All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out." Does that show you how bad your logic was? I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department. All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out." Does that show you how bad your logic was? I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department. All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
I try to never attack the person, always attack the post. YOU however right here are attacking the person, and not any particular post. There is a small cadre of left wing bullies who attack anyone who criticizes any of their beloved sacred cows, and yes, I continue to call them on it.
I am "obsessed" with liberty, not any person. For me it's always about the issue, never about the person -- until I note that one person seems to take things VERY personally and launches personal attacks even when he is not commenting on the issue.
I find that the attacks do occurr on both sides; however the folks on the left are far, far worse, and flame as if they know that the rules of this site don't apply to them. In fact, they don't.
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out."
Does that show you how bad your logic was?
I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department.
All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
Originally posted by Faxxer Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Trizic
Originally posted by Fishermage My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out." Does that show you how bad your logic was? I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department. All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it. Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
Not sure what you're talking about Mr. Obama 100k.
His opinion reading over this thread is certainly fringe; most people don't agree.
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out."
Does that show you how bad your logic was?
I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department.
All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
Not sure what you're talking about Mr. Obama 100k.
His opinion reading over this thread is certainly fringe; most people don't agree.
I disagree 100k. (more like 600k actually) And I find your use of that very amusing. As I have said in the past, you would not admit the truth if it was starting you DIRECTLY in the face. So continue by all means...please.
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to. A scientific theory is not a simple guess. Creationism has been unable to provide with enough evidence that it can be considered a reasonable scientific theory. This is also the reason creationism is rejected. According to studies, less than 0.15% of the scientific community believes in creationism. It is indeed my nation's law, but that law was introduced because of religion. It's exactly what I have been talking about
Your statement would be fine if it read:
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
or
they have principles that say they should adhere to how they interpret the law.
(as I've demonstrated rationality and the emotion/loss of rationality is actually coming from the other side of the argument)
"Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school." Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)"
People back then were able to "observe" something and their "guess" was later accepted.
Enough "evidence" is subjective because not everyone is being "objective" enough to consider observation.
It is disappointing to see the history of intelligent design, from wikipedia, I listed was ignored considering it helped evolution along quite nicely.
Well you’ve shown there are even scientists that accept a Creationism alternative. Not a majority no but there weren’t always majorities for the earth being round either.
The point with the law debate was to point out the US has Christians here and there is no lockdown/shutdown of shops by the "evil Christians" being portrayed here.
(Which I think is quite unfair but yeah life isn't fair)
Your country interpreted that law differently in other words.
I'll let you have the last word but I've proven there is rationality and religion is not the oppressor here.
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to. A scientific theory is not a simple guess. Creationism has been unable to provide with enough evidence that it can be considered a reasonable scientific theory. This is also the reason creationism is rejected. According to studies, less than 0.15% of the scientific community believes in creationism. It is indeed my nation's law, but that law was introduced because of religion. It's exactly what I have been talking about
Your statement would be fine if it read:
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
or
they have principles that say they should adhere to how they interpret the law.
(as I've demonstrated rationality and the emotion/loss of rationality is actually coming from the other side of the argument)
"Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school." Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)"
People back then were able to "observe" something and their "guess" was later accepted.
Enough "evidence" is subjective because not everyone is being "objective" enough to consider observation.
It is disappointing to see the history of intelligent design, from wikipedia, I listed was ignored considering it helped evolution along quite nicely.
Well you’ve shown there are even scientists that accept a Creationism alternative. Not a majority no but there weren’t always majorities for the earth being round either.
The point with the law debate was to point out the US has Christians here and there is no lockdown/shutdown of shops by the "evil Christians" being portrayed here.
(Which I think is quite unfair but yeah life isn't fair)
Your country interpreted that law differently in other words.
I'll let you have the last word but I've proven there is rationality and religion is not the oppressor here.
adding principles doesn't change anything because I do not believe any decent person would let someone suffer like that, against their wishes because of a principle.
The flat earth concept was a concept based on assumption, not on scientific evidence. Thus it was also the scientific method that proved the earth was actually round. Just like Creationism is a common assumption, while the scientific method actually showed it was evolution.
most of the scientist that accept creationism do so out of religious belief.
There is no reason to teach it in schools just because it might have actual evidence in the future. First it needs to be proven as a scientific theory.
There is not a shutdown of shops in the US, I was just giving an example of what is going on in my country. Your country is also suffering from religious oppression. Gay marriage for instance, or gay adoption. In fact, the US had and still has quite a few numbers of so called "Blue laws".
Ok, so this thread is supposed to be about a Republican senator sex scandal. Starting from about page 15 to the end, I saw nothing of the kind. I have no idea when this thread got hijacked, but 20 pages is far more than enough of a hijack. Locking this one up folks!
Comments
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
Congratulations, you just posted somethat is completely irrelevant.
But ofcourse i'm the one that's intolerant for not saying "Hey, you make a perfectly fine point" to people who don't make a good point and "respecting" the views of people who wish to enforce religion on me. That doesn't make me intolerant.
Everybody can be as religious as they want, but there is no reason why it should be enforced on me. Rejecting that does not make me intolerant.
@olddaddy: all shops must be closed, but there are a few exceptions such as tourist spots and special sundays where shops are allowed to be open.
And I agree with you about the shops being closed. That is no excuse for your hate speech. Your hatred is rather sad for one who claims to be a "liberal."
fishermage.blogspot.com
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
Congratulations, you just posted somethat is completely irrelevant.
But ofcourse i'm the one that's intolerant for not saying "Hey, you make a perfectly fine point" to people who don't make a good point and "respecting" the views of people who wish to enforce religion on me. That doesn't make me intolerant.
Everybody can be as religious as they want, but there is no reason why it should be enforced on me. Rejecting that does not make me intolerant.
@olddaddy: all shops must be closed, but there are a few exceptions such as tourist spots and special sundays where shops are allowed to be open.
And I agree with you about the shops being closed. That is no excuse for your hate speech. Your hatred is rather sad for one who claims to be a "liberal."
But what I said here isn't "Hate speech". Speaking out against religious opression is not hate speech.
@Olddaddy, you just don't understand. It's all because of the goodness of religion, and the fact Germany declared war on the US and Japan attacked Pearl harbor had nothing to do with it.
I took offense to his remarks attributing the defeat of Hitler to Christians. I personally know Jewish WW 2 veterans that fought for the US Army against Hitler, and I was offended that he fails to recognize their contribution.
Considering how many of divergent religious backgrounds fought against Hitler, I thought his was a rather callous, and insulting, comment.
Rather than acknowledge the contributiion of others, he chose to attribute it solely to Christians. Then, to recover he associated himself with Einstein, as a "fellow" Jew. Then he proceeded to push his "I win" button by telling me "thanks for trolling by".
At no point in time has he decided to give credit for the contributions of those from other religions. He calls himself a Jewish Christian, but at no point in time does he provide an act of acknowledgement that his statement was insensitive, there is no act of contrition on his part, nor is there an expectation of foregiveness.
Matter of fact, his posts consistently lack any acts of acknowledgement, or acts of contrition, and he consistently feels it is his obligation to impart foregiveness on posters that disagree with him, as though they do not meet God's moral standards. Perhaps God has seen fit to delegate to him the act of foregiveness?
Or perhaps he is very un-Christian like.
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
Your original statement should have been that Christians were part of the group that fought aginst Hitler.
However, you chose to ignore the contribution of others.
Once again, in your example, you state that, "hey, without Pete WE never would have put out the fire".
In your example you have used the word "WE", indicating others participated. In your original statement regarding Hitler you attributed all the benefits solely to Christians.
You are restructuring reality again. Go back and read your post.
Perhaps you should consider an act of acknowledgement and an act of contrition when you are incorrect.
Rather than saying, "Thanks for trolling by", when you confuse the Presidential Seal and the seal of the United States.
You can acknowledge when you are wrong, and apologize, there's no sin in doing so.
kill⋅ing [kil-ing]
–noun 1. the act of a person or thing that kills.
Mercy killing is still killing. I've presented this argument in a technical manner and preserve the rationale as per the rules established by you. (Christians aren't rational)
I have nothing to add on the marriage front and stand by my statement.
(I respect your opposing opinion and will let free thought flow)
scientific theory
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world. However, it is sometimes not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory."
I somewhat remember you discussing the differences between scientific law and scientific theory with me on a global warming thread. You said nothing was 100% provable or some such and that there was "just enough" evidence.
intelligent design
"Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected."
under origins of the concept:
"In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer."
Well some opinions are there is just enough for them to come with a conclusion.
I'm sorry that happens where you live but that sounds like your country's law and not religion. Our grocery stores are open on Sunday. We are founded on a Judeo-Christian philosophies/morals/values.
I think I've presented that religion, nor irrationality, can't get in the way by dominating here.
In case no one remembers here I'm Catholic.
Perhaps I've continued arguing the thread topic as well.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
A scientific theory is not a simple guess. Creationism has been unable to provide with enough evidence that it can be considered a reasonable scientific theory. This is also the reason creationism is rejected. According to studies, less than 0.15% of the scientific community believes in creationism.
It is indeed my nation's law, but that law was introduced because of religion. It's exactly what I have been talking about
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christains, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
Thanks for trolling by.
As I've said before, not a problem, I enjoy trolling by and pointing out when you're making things up.
Things like giving Christians sole credit for toppling Hitler, and ignoring the sacrifices of countless others of different religions.
Like I say, you have a real narrow minded, perverted, view of history.
Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us, or is yours an alternate reality?
Not too good with logic or set theory are ya?
If Pete, Dave and Bill work together to put out a fire, and some time later, someone calls Pete a bad guy, and then someone says "hey, without Pete we never would have put out a fire," does that person mean that Dave and Bill did nothing?
Of course not.
Your attempt at trolling and baiting has failed. Epically.
Your original statement should have been that Christians were part of the group that fought aginst Hitler.
However, you chose to ignore the contribution of others.
Once again, in your example, you state that, "hey, without Pete WE never would have put out the fire".
In your example you have used the word "WE", indicating others participated. In your original statement regarding Hitler you attributed all the benefits solely to Christians.
You are restructuring reality again. Go back and read your post.
Perhaps you should consider an act of acknowledgement and an act of contrition when you are incorrect.
Rather than saying, "Thanks for trolling by", when you confuse the Presidential Seal and the seal of the United States.
You can acknowledge when you are wrong, and apologize, there's no sin in doing so.
My my, you continue to parce words and fail epically in your weak attempt to bait and troll. Okay, let's change the words slightly. "Without Pete, that fire wouldn't have been put out."
Does that show you how bad your logic was?
I WAS wrong about the presidential seal, and that was obviously a mistyping. I corrected myself almost immediately in that one, and I am now correcting my word choice that you childishly corrected -- but still failed in the logic department.
All due to some personal, childish agenda because I beat you in every debate we have ever had. Oy Vey.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
I try to never attack the person, always attack the post. YOU however right here are attacking the person, and not any particular post. There is a small cadre of left wing bullies who attack anyone who criticizes any of their beloved sacred cows, and yes, I continue to call them on it.
I am "obsessed" with liberty, not any person. For me it's always about the issue, never about the person -- until I note that one person seems to take things VERY personally and launches personal attacks even when he is not commenting on the issue.
I find that the attacks do occurr on both sides; however the folks on the left are far, far worse, and flame as if they know that the rules of this site don't apply to them. In fact, they don't.
fishermage.blogspot.com
How many times have you said one thing and done another?
Its called being human.
People just like to poke at people in high places and bring out irrelavent things like "republican" and "religion".
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
Not sure what you're talking about Mr. Obama 100k.
His opinion reading over this thread is certainly fringe; most people don't agree.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You have a way of always thinking you win debates and also are always right. You also claim personal attacks In almost every thread I see, even when it's you who is usually doing so. You my good sir need a reality check and yes this is a personal attack because you seem so overly obsessed with yourself there is not another possible topic that someone can talk about without you somehow at least putting your own slightly into it.
Also with the "winning of debates" all i ever see is your own viewpoint promoting your own values and saying everyone elses values are either; evil, idiotic. or of course wrong.
MMOFringe... the most aptly named viewpoint I've ever seen. Well deserved and earned.
Kudos.
You must be trying to get another of your threads locked since all yours do is devolve into hate and garbage.
Not sure what you're talking about Mr. Obama 100k.
His opinion reading over this thread is certainly fringe; most people don't agree.
I disagree 100k. (more like 600k actually) And I find your use of that very amusing. As I have said in the past, you would not admit the truth if it was starting you DIRECTLY in the face. So continue by all means...please.
Your statement would be fine if it read:
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
or
they have principles that say they should adhere to how they interpret the law.
(as I've demonstrated rationality and the emotion/loss of rationality is actually coming from the other side of the argument)
This all reminds me of the Flat Earth and Spherical Earth debate.
"Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school." Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)"
People back then were able to "observe" something and their "guess" was later accepted.
Enough "evidence" is subjective because not everyone is being "objective" enough to consider observation.
It is disappointing to see the history of intelligent design, from wikipedia, I listed was ignored considering it helped evolution along quite nicely.
Well you’ve shown there are even scientists that accept a Creationism alternative. Not a majority no but there weren’t always majorities for the earth being round either.
The point with the law debate was to point out the US has Christians here and there is no lockdown/shutdown of shops by the "evil Christians" being portrayed here.
(Which I think is quite unfair but yeah life isn't fair)
Your country interpreted that law differently in other words.
I'll let you have the last word but I've proven there is rationality and religion is not the oppressor here.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Your statement would be fine if it read:
I stand by my previous claim that no decent human being would ever let a person live a life of unbearable suffering against their wishes unless they believe in a supreme being who says they are not allowed to.
or
they have principles that say they should adhere to how they interpret the law.
(as I've demonstrated rationality and the emotion/loss of rationality is actually coming from the other side of the argument)
This all reminds me of the Flat Earth and Spherical Earth debate.
"Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school." Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)"
People back then were able to "observe" something and their "guess" was later accepted.
Enough "evidence" is subjective because not everyone is being "objective" enough to consider observation.
It is disappointing to see the history of intelligent design, from wikipedia, I listed was ignored considering it helped evolution along quite nicely.
Well you’ve shown there are even scientists that accept a Creationism alternative. Not a majority no but there weren’t always majorities for the earth being round either.
The point with the law debate was to point out the US has Christians here and there is no lockdown/shutdown of shops by the "evil Christians" being portrayed here.
(Which I think is quite unfair but yeah life isn't fair)
Your country interpreted that law differently in other words.
I'll let you have the last word but I've proven there is rationality and religion is not the oppressor here.
adding principles doesn't change anything because I do not believe any decent person would let someone suffer like that, against their wishes because of a principle.
The flat earth concept was a concept based on assumption, not on scientific evidence. Thus it was also the scientific method that proved the earth was actually round. Just like Creationism is a common assumption, while the scientific method actually showed it was evolution.
most of the scientist that accept creationism do so out of religious belief.
There is no reason to teach it in schools just because it might have actual evidence in the future. First it needs to be proven as a scientific theory.
There is not a shutdown of shops in the US, I was just giving an example of what is going on in my country. Your country is also suffering from religious oppression. Gay marriage for instance, or gay adoption. In fact, the US had and still has quite a few numbers of so called "Blue laws".
Ok, so this thread is supposed to be about a Republican senator sex scandal. Starting from about page 15 to the end, I saw nothing of the kind. I have no idea when this thread got hijacked, but 20 pages is far more than enough of a hijack. Locking this one up folks!
MMORPG.com Staff
Derek Gordon