Heaven, I'm in heaven

[CrazyAnglican]

CA has been around for quite awhile too ( @ CA ).

Eh? what was that Sonny? Speak up! The old ears aren't what they used to be.

[mpjh]

I am not talking about a guy I know. I am talking about an entire order of missionaries in the Catholic church, and a widespread theological view terms liberation theology. One of them was recently elected president of the United Nations General Assembly.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I am not talking about a guy I know. I am talking about an entire order of missionaries in the Catholic church, and a widespread theological view terms liberation theology. One of them was recently elected president of the United Nations General Assembly.

Link, explain, elaborate, cite, reference, do SOMETHING to show me that the charitable work of the Catholic Church is not a good thing. Pardon me if I don't take your word that feeding the hungry doesn't have a positive impact on humanity.

[CrazyAnglican]

I am not talking about a guy I know. ..... One of them was recently elected president of the United Nations General Assembly.

Great, so cite his words. That would move the debate to a whole new level. He's probably published about the issue if he's in such a responsible position.

[mpjh]

I am not writing a thesis. If you don't believe that liberation theology exists on my statement -- goggle it yourself. If you don't believe my personal experience and observations of events, that is your loss.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I am not writing a thesis. If you don't believe that liberation theology exists on my statement -- goggle it yourself. If you don't believe my personal experience and observations of events, that is your loss.

So let me get this straight - you flood this forum with threads about religion asking for people's thoughts, but when those thoughts conflict with your own you respond with stories from your alleged "personal experiences" and can't be bothered to provide verifiable "facts," despite your constant demand that we do so?

[mpjh]

Nope, never did that. I have had numerous civil and interesting discussions with individuals in the threads I started. I hardly have a flood of threads up, but, regardless the number, they do attrack some participation that I enjoy.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Nope, never did that. I have had numerous civil and interesting discussions with individuals in the threads I started. I hardly have a flood of threads up, but, regardless the number, they do attrack some participation that I enjoy.

Great, so allow me to rephrase:


So let me get this straight - you post threads about religion asking for people's thoughts, but when those thoughts conflict with your own you respond with stories from your alleged "personal experiences" and can't be bothered to provide verifiable "facts," despite your constant demand that we do so?

[mpjh]

Not at all. I respect and value the civil comments of others, much as I would the comments of a friend in a neighborhood bar. I hope they reciprocate.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Not at all. I respect and value the civil comments of others, much as I would the comments of a friend in a neighborhood bar. I hope they reciprocate.

I'm sure I speak for CA and myself in saying that as much as we appreciate whatever respect and value you give to those civil comments that we make, I'm afraid that said respect and value does little to forward our discussion in the way that facts would, so I suggest we call this one quits and move on.

[mpjh]

You can move on anytime you want, no one is keeping you here.

[mpjh]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Just read what you just wrote, then read each of CA's responses in this thread, and bathe in the irony.

I must be stupid, Maybe you could spell it out in words that I can understand ?

What you just wrote is the dogmatic atheist response to the religious, and yet that dogmatic response condemns those who follow dogma unquestioningly. Meanwhile, CA has been making reasoned arguments this entire thread with sources to back up his claims.

The claim that believers are "brainwashed their whole lives" is a logical fallacy on so many levels. First of all it's a total generalization. Secondly it's an unprovable positive claim. Thirdly it's nothing but an ad hominem. And it's strikingly ironic given you are spewing this fallacious nonsense about how believers are brainwashed with fallacious nonsense.

Next, stating that it is impossible to have a "rational debate" with a believer is absolutely laughable given the helping upon helping of rational debate that CA has served up. Especially so when you compare said debate with the dogmatic garbage which you just posted.

Thirdly, as if it wasn't evident enough already, you have obviously not read any of CA's posts since he has not once used his faith as evidence of his claims.

So why is all this ironic?

Well, I'll spell it out for you now. In saying that believers are impossible to argue with, you just proved that YOU are impossible to argue with because:

1) Your post contained no facts, citations, or evidence.
2) You committed several logical fallacies in the process.
3) You did not answer any of the points CA made in this thread, and I doubt you even bothered reading them.
4) You make an "argument" based on false accusations (ie that you can't argue with CA because he uses "faith" as evidence).

That is irony wrapped up in a tortilla.

Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families ?
I know first hand this is so. My remarks about reasonable debate is also true. I put forth a proposition about where religion comes from, and I don't see you or anyone else refuting it with any reason or facts. My comment about "Faith" was not directed at anyone in particular, It is just that these arguments always boil down to that. Science has proven over and over again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Your extraordinary claim of the existence of a supernatural being has no proof what so ever, nada, zero, zilch.
Your side is ultimately cornered, And the only thing you have left to defend with, is FAITH. Well, I have faith too. But my faith is in reality, facts, and Science. If you ask me why I have faith in these things , I will tell you, It is because of reason and logic. Your faith has neither of these things. The only thing that your faith has to back it up is, wishful thinking that stems from fear. It has been drilled into the heads of millions sense the dawn of time. every religion that has come and gone, is rooted in the same superstitious poppycock.

Porkinbeans, just wanted to assure you that no one is required to present thesis-grade material here. Your personal opinion is valued, and you logical evaluation of information is appreciated.

[FabledIntegral]

I would say otherwise - such nonsense has no room in a debate. The entire premise of the debate is presenting evidence and forming arguments, not coming in and saying "You're completely wrong because you rely on faith entirely," when it's not relevant to the argument at hand. While that is a solid argument, the way it was presented was ultimately flawed surrounded by his other context, and at the same time it had nothing to do with what the conversation was even discussing.

[mpjh]

No, I don't think that is true. Porkenbeans is not into subtlety from what I can see, but he is expressing some frustration with those posts that simply post a verse from the bible or a tenet of faith as supposed facts to counter his argument. I think his frustration was appropriate if not the way he expressed it.

[FabledIntegral]

No, I don't think that is true. Porkenbeans is not into subtlety from what I can see, but he is expressing some frustration with those posts that simply post a verse from the bible or a tenet of faith as supposed facts to counter his argument. I think his frustration was appropriate if not the way he expressed it.

Really? You think it's appropriate to completely attempt to derail the conversation with something completely irrelevant, while at the same time inappropriately grouping hundreds of millions of people into a stubborn brainwashed group? If you want to partake in debating such nonsense - fine, I'll sit by and watch the ignorance flow. Maybe my antipathy towards the kid comes from the fact he's always degrading other people by using such quotes such as

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Nothing there was said except "There's no reason with debating with people of such inferior intellect, they were brainwashed from birth, and I, due to my superior upbringing, have been able to see the truth, or at least distinguish it from the false. They are so ignorant there's no reason to even try to help them, so instead I shall continue to ridicule them, producing nothing conducive to the debate."

As said the faith argument in my eyes IS a valid argument.... however the way this kid presented it is nothing short of childish, which is the manner of most of his recent posts on CC.

[porkenbeans]

[/quote]

More irony.

I have made no mention of my faith whatsoever. Nor has CA. There has not been a single argument from "faith" in this thread.

You on the other hand have made several unsubstantiated dogmatic and completely unrelated claims. Go back in this thread, and find me something that CA has posted which you think is unreasonable or shows some sort of logical fallacy. I picked apart a SINGLE PARAGRAPH of blather you posted and identified three logical fallacies. In the same sentence. So much for "reason and logic."

If you think that "Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families?" qualifies as an argument I suggest you peacefully leave this thread before you go about embarrassing atheists with your unsubstantiated opinions any further.

If you want to start a debate about philosophical arguments for/against the existence of a god, by all means start a thread for it and I will be happy to discuss it with you, provided you decide to back away from your stance of "because you are a theist you are a closed-minded moron." Oh the irony of such a line of thought KILLS me.

I could go about identifying the various blasphemies against logic you just committed, but the irony-meter of this thread just might blow its top if I did, so I'll leave it to the reader to find them for themselves. It's like "Where's Waldo," but easier.[/quote][/quote][/quote]




MY RESPONCE-
I suggest that you kiss my ass. Simper fidelis.
You have made no arguments against my observations. You quote a question that I put forth, but instead of agreeing or not , you tell me to leave before I embarrass Atheists. How about answering the question instead. Then you start name calling. This my friend, is what "morons" do when they don't have an argument to rebut with.
Also I have already told you that I attribute the faith argument with no one here in particular.
We can talk about all the garnish of who is the most charitable, or who killed the most people. We can dance all around the real issue till the cows come home. My last couple of posts were an attempt to set aside all the side-track issues, and get to the meat. If you can not think of an answer to the questions that I pose, then maybe it is YOU that should set this one out. Let C.A. carry the conversation. At least he can argue without resorting to name calling like a child. The mile of thread that you slung, did not address anything but, that you disagree with me. You repeat my observations, but do not rebut them. You repeat over and over about "logical fallacies". But you do not explain why you think this.
One more thing that I would like to clear up. I am not, nor do I claim to be an Atheist. I am in fact a Humanist. I do not believe in Santa Clause, or fairy tales, or some invisible man in the sky. The topic of this thread was addressed. Just open your mind and listen to my position. It is a position that is being adopted by more and more as we as humans evolve. This kind of thinking is even seen in the poll that this thread is about. Until we set aside our superstitions, This world will continue to birth new generations of wars between the different religions. Bush said that God told him to attack Iraq. Osama Binladen is fighting Gods war as well. As long as these superstitions are the authority, we will continue to fight and die in this Crusade. Why is it so easy for you to believe that the Islamic world is brainwashed, or just plain "Evil", But you, and your religion is correct ? They love their children just as much as you do. Their Kiran teaches the same virtues as the Bible.
Wake up and smell the coffee brother, Superstition is older than the wheel, It is about time that we grow up, and accept our mortality. And get on with the business of doing something about it. We will reach immortality. But, science will be our deliverer, not the invisible man in the sky.

[FabledIntegral]

Way to go, come into a topic with completely irrelevant points (which I'm not saying aren't valid, but it's like entering an "How Old is the Earth in years?" debate and proclaiming, "well the Big Bang theory is valid because the universe is constantly expanding so..." Fine - think whatever you want about the Big Bang theory, but it's not relevant to what's being discussed.) And to top it off, by dismissing all opposing arguments and just saying "there is no debate, you're WRONG," is the exact same narrow-minded features you're trying to portray on the "believers."

The difference between us? We both believe they are wrong, yet you are not even willing to discuss it with them and instead of entering a formal debate, you get "right to the meat," with ridiculing them instead.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You have made no arguments against my observations.

Your observations are completely off topic. If you want to make a thread about the existence/nonexistence of God I will invite you a second time to be my guest. I have participated in such threads several times and I quite enjoy them when they are with individuals who will humor me with rational debate. vtamrick, Noeteny, heavycola, MeDeFe, and others are among those who are capable of holding such discussions in a civil manner.

Then you start name calling.

Where, pray, did I do that?

This my friend, is what "morons" do when they don't have an argument to rebut with.

You clearly haven't been around here long. I have several arguments for the existence of God which, unfortunately, have no place in this thread. Nor do the unsubstantiated fallacious comments you made.

The mile of thread that you slung, did not address anything but, that you disagree with me.

Actually I never once disagreed with you. I called you out on the various logical fallacies and ironies in your post.

This is not the thread for a philosophical debate on God's existence, it's about the more practical and political side of religion and religious beliefs in society.

Just open your mind and listen to my position.

I'm a student at UC Berkeley, trust me when I say I'm fairly familiar with your position, and again I am more than willing to discuss it elsewhere once we stop working under the assumption that what I believe is a superstition.

I'm not sure how you can POSSIBLY fail to see the irony in your telling me to open MY mind and then go on to tell me that there is no room for argument that my belief is a superstition.

I am not, nor do I claim to be an Atheist. I am in fact a Humanist.

Honestly, semantics bore me. You don't believe in God, hence "atheist" seems to fit fairly well. Most dictionaries would agree with me.

[mpjh]

No, I don't think that is true. Porkenbeans is not into subtlety from what I can see, but he is expressing some frustration with those posts that simply post a verse from the bible or a tenet of faith as supposed facts to counter his argument. I think his frustration was appropriate if not the way he expressed it.

Really? You think it's appropriate to completely attempt to derail the conversation with something completely irrelevant, while at the same time inappropriately grouping hundreds of millions of people into a stubborn brainwashed group? If you want to partake in debating such nonsense - fine, I'll sit by and watch the ignorance flow. Maybe my antipathy towards the kid comes from the fact he's always degrading other people by using such quotes such as

Really, you sure you are not talking about nappy? He is the only one I have seen purposefully trying to derail this thread.

[FabledIntegral]

No, I don't think that is true. Porkenbeans is not into subtlety from what I can see, but he is expressing some frustration with those posts that simply post a verse from the bible or a tenet of faith as supposed facts to counter his argument. I think his frustration was appropriate if not the way he expressed it.

Really? You think it's appropriate to completely attempt to derail the conversation with something completely irrelevant, while at the same time inappropriately grouping hundreds of millions of people into a stubborn brainwashed group? If you want to partake in debating such nonsense - fine, I'll sit by and watch the ignorance flow. Maybe my antipathy towards the kid comes from the fact he's always degrading other people by using such quotes such as

Really, you sure you are not talking about nappy? He is the only one I have seen purposefully trying to derail this thread.

Ha - well I don't think porkenbeans was smart enough to realize what he was even doing - I don't think it was his intention, rather he is just a little kid that can't realize it. . I don't think he was purposefully acting immature... if that's what you're suggesting hehe.

[mpjh]

Nope, I think Porkenbeans frustration is legitimate and real. I was pointing out that the only person in this thread that has purposefully tried to derail the discussion is nappy. Porkenbeans never uses mean or cruel references to others, and certainly has never expressed any racist sentiments. I think his comments are worth the effort to sort out and respond to.

[porkenbeans]

Way to go, come into a topic with completely irrelevant points (which I'm not saying aren't valid, but it's like entering an "How Old is the Earth in years?" debate and proclaiming, "well the Big Bang theory is valid because the universe is constantly expanding so..." Fine - think whatever you want about the Big Bang theory, but it's not relevant to what's being discussed.) And to top it off, by dismissing all opposing arguments and just saying "there is no debate, you're WRONG," is the exact same narrow-minded features you're trying to portray on the "believers."

The difference between us? We both believe they are wrong, yet you are not even willing to discuss it with them and instead of entering a formal debate, you get "right to the meat," with ridiculing them instead.

You are coming into the topic with nothing but stalking on your mind. This thread is 20 pages long, and I have been here sense the start. You on the other hand have jumped in without reading the thread. You have followed me to every thread that I post in. And even when we are apparently on he same side of a debate, you do whatever you can to slander me at every turn. I don't know exactly why this vendetta of yours got started, but I wished that you would find someone else to stalk.

[mpjh]

Twenty pages, damn. Where is DM when you want to show him something?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Way to go, come into a topic with completely irrelevant points (which I'm not saying aren't valid, but it's like entering an "How Old is the Earth in years?" debate and proclaiming, "well the Big Bang theory is valid because the universe is constantly expanding so..." Fine - think whatever you want about the Big Bang theory, but it's not relevant to what's being discussed.) And to top it off, by dismissing all opposing arguments and just saying "there is no debate, you're WRONG," is the exact same narrow-minded features you're trying to portray on the "believers."

The difference between us? We both believe they are wrong, yet you are not even willing to discuss it with them and instead of entering a formal debate, you get "right to the meat," with ridiculing them instead.

You are coming into the topic with nothing but stalking on your mind. This thread is 20 pages long, and I have been here sense the start. You on the other hand have jumped in without reading the thread. You have followed me to every thread that I post in. And even when we are apparently on he same side of a debate, you do whatever you can to slander me at every turn. I don't know exactly why this vendetta of yours got started, but I wished that you would find someone else to stalk.

FabledIntegral actually used to be a regular in religion debates back in the day. He was one of those chaps who would use logic and reason to prove a point instead of broad, sweeping generalizations and inflammatory dogmatic statements with no real substance behind them. And he'd do it in the appropriate thread.

[FabledIntegral]

Way to go, come into a topic with completely irrelevant points (which I'm not saying aren't valid, but it's like entering an "How Old is the Earth in years?" debate and proclaiming, "well the Big Bang theory is valid because the universe is constantly expanding so..." Fine - think whatever you want about the Big Bang theory, but it's not relevant to what's being discussed.) And to top it off, by dismissing all opposing arguments and just saying "there is no debate, you're WRONG," is the exact same narrow-minded features you're trying to portray on the "believers."

The difference between us? We both believe they are wrong, yet you are not even willing to discuss it with them and instead of entering a formal debate, you get "right to the meat," with ridiculing them instead.

You are coming into the topic with nothing but stalking on your mind. This thread is 20 pages long, and I have been here sense the start. You on the other hand have jumped in without reading the thread. You have followed me to every thread that I post in. And even when we are apparently on he same side of a debate, you do whatever you can to slander me at every turn. I don't know exactly why this vendetta of yours got started, but I wished that you would find someone else to stalk.

You'll find rather that I come in and out of such religious threads frequently - my inconsistency is due to nothing more than my not visiting the site regularly anymore, especially with my premium about to expire (oh lucky you!).

I wouldn't have said anything if your post didn't stand out to me as the current debate going on, which I was indeed following with interest, did not call for my particular thoughts - however, once again you continue to ignore other people's posts and go on an attack of your own. You've lied in your posts, lied about what I've said, and when called out - you refuse to acknowledge any of it.

But don't worry - I, as well as the general population I suspect, is starting to give up. The points you bring up may be valid, but they way in which you present your information is immature and childish - I have responded with the same sort of juvenile tone you've started with - yet I continue to back my claims with facts rather than talking up more BS. I would gladly post many quotes of yours if you want backing it up, but I've already done it numerous times before, and I fear anymore publicity concerning you will derail the topic. I suggest merely you stop ridiculing others, as after the very first post I made you called me a fool and alluded to be similar to someone living in ignorance.