Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

[mpjh]

There is a season for everything, and we are only young once. I find him inexperienced but sincere, and certainly in his appropriate season. He has no pretensions and is not arrogant or pompous, so I will listen with he talks.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Uh huh....

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.

It seems we have different ideas on the definitions of "arrogant" and "pompous".

[porkenbeans]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

I have not made any blank statements like that. Only in summation to a particular point do I throw in a sprig of garnish. But only after I have thoroughly backed the point.

[FabledIntegral]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

I've already responded saying that I have no problem responding to him with just as much immaturity as he has shown me. As said - I've already compiled a list of all the things I've said and posted them in another topic, yet I fear I'm derailing this topic. As it is your topic, if you don't mind I'd love to go in and show how after making a single neutral post he merely mocked me and called me a cool, and continued to do so in the topic. I've openly admitted I'm not above responding with as much childish behavior as shown to me in the first place.

[porkenbeans]

Uh huh....

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.

It seems we have different ideas on the definitions of "arrogant" and "pompous".

It is truth as I see it. Why don't you give your argument to the contrary, instead of throwing mud.
And oh by the way, I was probably in college when your mother was riding her tricycle.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

I have not made any blank statements like that. Only in summation to a particular point do I throw in a sprig of garnish. But only after I have thoroughly backed the point.

Your entire post was based on the assumption that I believe in a superstition. If I were to try to argue to you that God exists beginning with the assumption that God exists I wouldn't be very convincing. The "meat" of your argument seems to be "I'm right, you're wrong, so give up your superstitions so we can have world peace."

Or, if you'd rather approach this in a more logical manner, go ahead and make a thread and lay out why you do not believe in God. Please try not to generalize, say things that you can't back up with fact, or presume that people with a view different from yours are idiots. If said thread exists by the time I wake up tomorrow morning I'll go ahead and respond with my reasons for believing in God, you can rebut those, and we'll have a jolly old debate going.

But if you'd prefer to continue with your generalizing and ad hominems by all means go ahead. Irony is one of the greater forms of humor

[porkenbeans]

Uh huh....

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.

It seems we have different ideas on the definitions of "arrogant" and "pompous".

It is truth as I see it. Why don't you give your argument to the contrary, instead of throwing mud.
And oh by the way, I was probably in college when your mother was riding her tricycle.

Something else that you might find interesting, I was raised by a Marine drill Sargent from the old school.

[porkenbeans]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

I have not made any blank statements like that. Only in summation to a particular point do I throw in a sprig of garnish. But only after I have thoroughly backed the point.

Your entire post was based on the assumption that I believe in a superstition. If I were to try to argue to you that God exists beginning with the assumption that God exists I wouldn't be very convincing. The "meat" of your argument seems to be "I'm right, you're wrong, so give up your superstitions so we can have world peace."

Or, if you'd rather approach this in a more logical manner, go ahead and make a thread and lay out why you do not believe in God. Please try not to generalize, say things that you can't back up with fact, or presume that people with a view different from yours are idiots. If said thread exists by the time I wake up tomorrow morning I'll go ahead and respond with my reasons for believing in God, you can rebut those, and we'll have a jolly old debate going.

But if you'd prefer to continue with your generalizing and ad hominems by all means go ahead. Irony is one of the greater forms of humor

If you can not argue against my points, just say so. Yes, I believe that i am right and you are wrong. What part of "debate" do you not understand ?

[john9blue]

If you can not argue against my points, just say so. Yes, I believe that i am right and you are wrong. What part of "debate" do you not understand ?

Often I find that two people with two different systems of belief cannot possibly convince each other that they are right. And why should they? You can't logically refute someone's belief that God does/doesn't exist, because it's just a belief. This is meant for the atheists in particular, since they are usually the ones throwing the insults, calling believers stupid, and starting the arguments. I'm sure that if a believer wished harm upon you, they'd leave you alone and let you burn in hell.

[Napoleon Ier]

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.

Does it have much liturgical dogma?

[mpjh]

Not that you would understand

[Napoleon Ier]

No, that's fair... I've yet to have this liturgical dogma you keep harping on about explained to me by anyone actually, maybe you'd oblige?

[mpjh]

No thanks, got other things to do. Look it up.

[Napoleon Ier]

No thanks, got other things to do. Look it up.

No thanks, you have other things to do?

Ahh... I see now... we've just hit on the rather embarrassing secret that when you were spouting off about liturgy-based dogma earlier in the thread, you were talking from the depths of your grotty, tapeworm-infested colon. There's no such thing, and anyone with a clue on this forum knows it.

Get a fucking book and start reading. Anything. Just get yourself an IQ. The, when you've matured intellectually enough to try to sensibly debate, maybe we'll talk to you seriously, until then, post some empty and pathetic attempt at a last word with some half-arsed comment about how you've reported me for flaming, and get on your way, little child...

[mpjh]

Flaming again, nappy, and so early in your participation today. Reported again.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

I have not made any blank statements like that. Only in summation to a particular point do I throw in a sprig of garnish. But only after I have thoroughly backed the point.

Your entire post was based on the assumption that I believe in a superstition. If I were to try to argue to you that God exists beginning with the assumption that God exists I wouldn't be very convincing. The "meat" of your argument seems to be "I'm right, you're wrong, so give up your superstitions so we can have world peace."

Or, if you'd rather approach this in a more logical manner, go ahead and make a thread and lay out why you do not believe in God. Please try not to generalize, say things that you can't back up with fact, or presume that people with a view different from yours are idiots. If said thread exists by the time I wake up tomorrow morning I'll go ahead and respond with my reasons for believing in God, you can rebut those, and we'll have a jolly old debate going.

But if you'd prefer to continue with your generalizing and ad hominems by all means go ahead. Irony is one of the greater forms of humor

If you can not argue against my points, just say so. Yes, I believe that i am right and you are wrong. What part of "debate" do you not understand ?

Did you just completely ignore my post? I gave you an open invitation to start a debate (three times) and my promises that I would participate provided you made a thread on the topic and addressed the matter in a rational manner (ie you can't make an argument where one of your premises is also the conclusion). That is NOT too much to ask.

I'm sure you think that you are right, but you can't have a "debate" using the assumption that you are right as a premise.

[CrazyAnglican]

I am not writing a thesis. If you don't believe that liberation theology exists on my statement -- goggle it yourself.

Okay, so I googled this one too.

The following quote was about the precursor movement the “Theology of development”. You’re still putting nails in the coffin of the, by now quite indisputably dead, theory that religions don’t have a positive influence in the world. You’ve even stated that “You can’t see their positive influences” but you yourself cite various religious adherents performing charitable works and now you cite an entire theology which was endorsed by the Second Vatican Council and supported by the Roman Catholic Church among many other Christian Churches which was/is centered around helping the poor.

Starting in the 1960s, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches. They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among the poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and national modernization. Various church organizations promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people: movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturalists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities.

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm

In terms of liberation theology as a movement, it has enjoyed support from the Roman Catholic Church and other churches.

As far back as 1971, the final document "Justice in the World," the topic of the second ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops, already showed traces of liberation theology. Its echoes had become much stronger by 1974, at the third assembly of the Synod, on "Evangelization of the Modern World." The following year, Paul VI devoted fifteen paragraphs of his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi to the relationship between evangelization and liberation (nos. 25-39). This discussion forms the central core of the document, and without attempting to summarize the Pope's position, we can just say that it is one of the most profound, balanced, and theological expositions yet made of the longing of the oppressed for liberation.

And

The magisterium of the church in Latin America has expressed itself primarily through the documents of two conferences. The second general conference of the episcopate of Latin America, held at Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, spoke of the church "listening to the cry of the poor and becoming the interpreter of their anguish"; this was the first flowering of the theme of liberation, which began to be worked out systematically only after Medellin. The third general conference, held at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, shows the theme of liberation running right through its final document. The liberation dimension is seen a an "integral put" (§§355, 1254, 1283) of the mission of the church, "indispensable" (§§562, 1270), "essential" (§1302). A large put of the document (§§470-506) is devoted to evangelization, liberation, and human promotion, and a whole chapter (§§1134-56) to the "preferential option for the poor," a central axis of liberation theology.

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm

In bringing up liberation theology, you’ve just shown to what an intense degree the Christian churches are committed to helping the poor throughout the world. You, I believe, offered this as evidence of a “neutral at best” track record by the Roman Catholic Church in this regard, but quite to the contrary, it shows an exemplary commitment. Firmly backing my point that Church institutions are leading the way in this area.

[porkenbeans]

Well, you called him juvenile multiple times; you've ridiculed his writing style as many times; you've repeated your calumny about him again and again, but you've added nothing to the discussion.

It is beginning to look like the pot calling the kettle.

To be fair his arguments are pretty juvenile. Come on now, mpjh, if I said something along the lines of "Just open your mind - atheists are going to hell," you'd find plenty of reason to call me juvenile too

I have not made any blank statements like that. Only in summation to a particular point do I throw in a sprig of garnish. But only after I have thoroughly backed the point.

Your entire post was based on the assumption that I believe in a superstition. If I were to try to argue to you that God exists beginning with the assumption that God exists I wouldn't be very convincing. The "meat" of your argument seems to be "I'm right, you're wrong, so give up your superstitions so we can have world peace."

Or, if you'd rather approach this in a more logical manner, go ahead and make a thread and lay out why you do not believe in God. Please try not to generalize, say things that you can't back up with fact, or presume that people with a view different from yours are idiots. If said thread exists by the time I wake up tomorrow morning I'll go ahead and respond with my reasons for believing in God, you can rebut those, and we'll have a jolly old debate going.

But if you'd prefer to continue with your generalizing and ad hominems by all means go ahead. Irony is one of the greater forms of humor

If you can not argue against my points, just say so. Yes, I believe that i am right and you are wrong. What part of "debate" do you not understand ?

Did you just completely ignore my post? I gave you an open invitation to start a debate (three times) and my promises that I would participate provided you made a thread on the topic and addressed the matter in a rational manner (ie you can't make an argument where one of your premises is also the conclusion). That is NOT too much to ask.

I'm sure you think that you are right, but you can't have a "debate" using the assumption that you are right as a premise.[/quote]





My response,


Are you really this stupid ? How long are you going to avoid answering just one of my points ?
Let me give you a very short lesson in debating.

One side puts forth a position on a given topic. He may use words in any way he sees fit to argue his case. He may use examples, he may use innuendos, he may whisper or shout, he may say anything that he feels will prove his contention.

Then the other side tries to rebut by arguing why each point might be flawed. He may use any words that he sees fit.
If he only criticizes the way in which the other has framed their argument, he is just admitting defeat.

Are you willing to admit defeat ?
If not, Please if you can, try to address the topic of my contention, not the way in which I have framed it.

If that is NOT too much to ask.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Then the other side tries to rebut by arguing why each point might be flawed. He may use any words that he sees fit.

Interesting, I believe I did just that. I picked out three logical fallacies in your "point" that believers are "brainwashed from birth".

You made the positive claim, it's up to you to back it up, or else you have no "points" for me to disagree with.

I'm getting rather tired of asking you to make a new thread for the debate on the existence of God. But you are still more than welcome to. Until then, I'd rather not derail this thread any further. I'm wondering WHY you have completely ignored my challenge four times.

Honestly, my friend, I would love to debate with you, unfortunately when your argument is "Religion is just superstition so no one should be religious" there is virtually nothing there to debate.

[porkenbeans]

Then the other side tries to rebut by arguing why each point might be flawed. He may use any words that he sees fit.

Interesting, I believe I did just that. I picked out three logical fallacies in your "point" that believers are "brainwashed from birth".

You made the positive claim, it's up to you to back it up, or else you have no "points" for me to disagree with.

I'm getting rather tired of asking you to make a new thread for the debate on the existence of God. But you are still more than welcome to. Until then, I'd rather not derail this thread any further. I'm wondering WHY you have completely ignored my challenge four times.

Honestly, my friend, I would love to debate with you, unfortunately when your argument is "Religion is just superstition so no one should be religious" there is virtually nothing there to debate.

You still do not understand how a debate works. You don't just claim that you disagree with a statement of mine. YOU must explain why you disagree. Use your logic to shoot it down. I would be happy to show you how this is done. Give me your views on this topic. Use what ever words that you can put together to do it. I will either agree with your premise, or If I don't, I will rebut it. It is not a difficult thing to comprehend.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Then the other side tries to rebut by arguing why each point might be flawed. He may use any words that he sees fit.

Interesting, I believe I did just that. I picked out three logical fallacies in your "point" that believers are "brainwashed from birth".

You made the positive claim, it's up to you to back it up, or else you have no "points" for me to disagree with.

I'm getting rather tired of asking you to make a new thread for the debate on the existence of God. But you are still more than welcome to. Until then, I'd rather not derail this thread any further. I'm wondering WHY you have completely ignored my challenge four times.

Honestly, my friend, I would love to debate with you, unfortunately when your argument is "Religion is just superstition so no one should be religious" there is virtually nothing there to debate.

You still do not understand how a debate works. You don't just claim that you disagree with a statement of mine. YOU must explain why you disagree. Use your logic to shoot it down. I would be happy to show you how this is done. Give me your views on this topic. Use what ever words that you can put together to do it. I will either agree with your premise, or If I don't, I will rebut it. It is not a difficult thing to comprehend.

I'm not sure what to make of you. I will post this one more time:

1) You comments are not on topic. I challenge you to make a new thread for them, and I will discuss the matter with you there.

2) I can't use logic to explain why a logically fallacious argument is wrong. I can, however, point out the logical fallacies and hope that you will amend your argument to one which can be logically considered. I did just that on page 16:

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.

SO for a fifth time I will offer you to post a new thread entitled something like "Does God exist?" and to post your point sans logical fallacies. Then I will post a counter point, then you can counter my counter point, and, once again, we'll have a jolly old debate rolling along.

[porkenbeans]

Then the other side tries to rebut by arguing why each point might be flawed. He may use any words that he sees fit.

Interesting, I believe I did just that. I picked out three logical fallacies in your "point" that believers are "brainwashed from birth".

You made the positive claim, it's up to you to back it up, or else you have no "points" for me to disagree with.

I'm getting rather tired of asking you to make a new thread for the debate on the existence of God. But you are still more than welcome to. Until then, I'd rather not derail this thread any further. I'm wondering WHY you have completely ignored my challenge four times.

Honestly, my friend, I would love to debate with you, unfortunately when your argument is "Religion is just superstition so no one should be religious" there is virtually nothing there to debate.

You still do not understand how a debate works. You don't just claim that you disagree with a statement of mine. YOU must explain why you disagree. Use your logic to shoot it down. I would be happy to show you how this is done. Give me your views on this topic. Use what ever words that you can put together to do it. I will either agree with your premise, or If I don't, I will rebut it. It is not a difficult thing to comprehend.

I'm not sure what to make of you. I will post this one more time:

1) You comments are not on topic. I challenge you to make a new thread for them, and I will discuss the matter with you there.

2) I can't use logic to explain why a logically fallacious argument is wrong. I can, however, point out the logical fallacies and hope that you will amend your argument to one which can be logically considered. I did just that on page 16:

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.

SO for a fifth time I will offer you to post a new thread entitled something like "Does God exist?" and to post your point sans logical fallacies. Then I will post a counter point, then you can counter my counter point, and, once again, we'll have a jolly old debate rolling along.

Why didn't you just say so ? Someone has to loose. Dont feel too bad, we all loose from time to time.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I guess I'll have to take that as a "No, Ambrose, I'd rather not go through the effort at starting a new thread and do the mental gymnastics necessary to formulate an intelligent argument." That's fine.

Are you really this stupid ?

Oh, this is rich.

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

You said it, I didn't.