Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses

[Minor Axis]

My apologies to the OP for taking this thread completely off Subject.
​

The issue isn't whether Smith's position is true or false.......it's false beyond reasonable doubt. His crimes are documented.
There are no ways to address Christ's life other than the written history of 2000 years ago.
We call that scripture and his life is only chronicled in the New Testament.
It's up to the reader to discern the validity.
You want a trial ( in the legal sense) scenario, but even the concept of the topic ( a superior being that mostly resides out side our physical reality) evades scientific investigation, so forensics are out of the question automatically in regard to most of these ancient claims.
Essentially, it's an issue of considering the accounts of those involved.

It's my attempt to question the reasonable basis upon which to declare there is a deity, but not only a deity, but a deity that we know tons about (rules, regulations, emotions, reward, penalties, etc). It's my opinion that there is no reasonable basis to make such a commitment.

Consider, how can you even prove you have a 'spirit' with in you when medical science has problems defining 'conscious thought'. It's not the brain but it definitely has an association with it. Is it real or just an accumulation of interacting electrical impulses?
If it's only the latter, I should point out that after the brain turns off in death, those electrical interactions no longer exist.
So how would you prove the validity of your own belief in spirituality using science....a tool that only investigates this physical/material existence?

Spirits and God can't currently be proven. I don't believe, I hope. There is a difference. However, if anything, I am arguing for the Agnostic approach.

You ask for proofs statements where none can be generated because the topic is faith based.

Wrong, I simply ask if there is a reasonable basis. Yes, it is faith, but in comparison I have not set up rules, regulations, ceremonies, membership requirements, and methods of payment, to worship my "hopes"

So?
Why should I care what you believe......unless you are imposing it on me?
All you are doing is arguing why you reject certain beliefs.
Sincerely, I don't care what you believe or why beyond curiosity.
If you state a belief as fact, I might be interested on several levels.
First would be enlightenment, the second would be determining the validity of the claim.
I actually enjoy debating fundamentalists on evolution.
But let's face it......your posts do argue for the rejection of Christian faith. I see an agenda that keeps popping up,,,,,,,challenge the unknowable, challenge what can't be addressed, challenge faith as if it were an investigatable fact.

Yes, my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics because they have no reasonable basis especially the OT. The OT holds great weight in church teachings, otherwise it would not be there. People put there faith into these teachings based on what exactly? All it shows is that we are all susceptible to our favorite fantasy.

Really, what do you care what faith I embrace?

You've seen the Problem with Humans and Religion thread.

You are obviously not investigating for your personal benefit/enlightenment.
You've already rejected the concept of a superior being.
But, curiosity again, how are you able to embrace an unknowable on one hand and reject it on another?
You argue with me to prove my faith, but have constructed one for yourself with out a shred of basis.
Why can't you accept that I see my faith as the best explanation for the unprovable.
You do. You see your spirituality as the best explanation.
Should I argue that your beliefs are bogus?

So you are susceptible to jumping to conclusions, lol. I have rejected nothing, but the type of specifics I've all ready described. And it's not rejection, it's abeyance until more reliable info comes along. I have no beliefs in this regard, so knock yourself out.

'true'....again with the sophistry.
See how you constantly attack faith through context?

You always feel like you are being attacked? I'm so sorry for you. So when a subordinate asks "why are we doing it this way"? -are you being attacked?

The coming of Christ in the New Testament is the accepted fulfilling of Old Testament prophecies.
Of course, atheists don't feel the same as the believers
Gotta prove it scientifically

I see it's kinda like how the Two Towers came after the Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm not here representing a church or organized religion.
You are here to deny and rebut faith on a scientific level.....a major contradiction of concepts.
I have no idea why you keep explaining your position.
It's irrelevant to the discussion .
You argue essentially that religion/faith is foolish from a secular pov because you can't investigate a belief on a scientific level.
Well of course faith can't be investigated on a scientific level. It wouldn't be faith if it could, it would be evidence with proof statements.
Maybe you are used to arguing with fundamentalists that do consider faith (derivations of the Holy Bible ) as proof statements that can be scientifically studied.......but you aren't addressing one now .

I'm saying that believing in ancient moldy books written by superstitious men is a dubious manner of finding truth in our lives. However, I repeat I understand how faith works and if a written works provide comfort, I don't have an issue with that until a State like Louisiana tries to shove their religious beliefs down everyone's throats. I choose to have a very non-specific faith based on just a premise- if there is a purpose for this life, it would make sense that that purpose encompasses more than a human life time. Attack away.

Are you debating me or a church?
What part of 'the life and lessons of Christ' start in the New Testament didn't you understand?
What are you debating?
Attacking organized religion or the concept of faith?

Attack attack attack! I've all ready explained my issues with the OT and NT.

So?
I'm not a church.
I'm not a member of a church.
I've never been a member of a church.
What does that statement have to do with anything I've been discussing?
I've even posted my belief that the Holy Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God.

Are you just using this discussion with me to attack organized religion?
The more I discuss faith with you, the more I see that as your agenda.

Lol, my agenda is truth, dude! Come on, you are either a Christian or your are not. You a fair weather or hedge-your-bets Christian? What is your belief regarding the Holy Bible? If you tell my your an Atheist, I'll shove my combat boot right up your arse.

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions, not attacks. From now on, very time you accuse me of attacking your beliefs, I'm just going to ignore your comment because the discussion at that point is no longer productive. You are welcome to vacate the discussion with me any time you feel the same.

 

[Stone]

My apologies to the OP for taking this thread completely off Subject.
​

It's my attempt to question the reasonable basis upon which to declare there is a deity, but not only a deity, but a deity that we know tons about (rules, regulations, emotions, reward, penalties, etc). It's my opinion that there is no reasonable basis to make such a commitment.



Spirits and God can't currently be proven. I don't believe, I hope. There is a difference. However, if anything, I am arguing for the Agnostic approach.



Wrong, I simply ask if there is a reasonable basis. Yes, it is faith, but in comparison I have not set up rules, regulations, ceremonies, membership requirements, and methods of payment, to worship my "hopes"



Yes, my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics because they have no reasonable basis especially the OT. The OT holds great weight in church teachings, otherwise it would not be there. People put there faith into these teachings based on what exactly? All it shows is that we are all susceptible to our favorite fantasy.



You've seen the Problem with Humans and Religion thread.



So you are susceptible to jumping to conclusions, lol. I have rejected nothing, but the type of specifics I've all ready described. And it's not rejection, it's abeyance until more reliable info comes along. I have no beliefs in this regard, so knock yourself out.



You always feel like you are being attacked? I'm so sorry for you. So when a subordinate asks "why are we doing it this way"? -are you being attacked?



I see it's kinda like how the Two Towers came after the Fellowship of the Ring.



I'm saying that believing in ancient moldy books written by superstitious men is a dubious manner of finding truth in our lives. However, I repeat I understand how faith works and if a written works provide comfort, I don't have an issue with that until a State like Louisiana tries to shove their religious beliefs down everyone's throats. I choose to have a very non-specific faith based on just a premise- if there is a purpose for this life, it would make sense that that purpose encompasses more than a human life time. Attack away.




Attack attack attack! I've all ready explained my issues with the OT and NT.





Lol, my agenda is truth, dude! Come on, you are either a Christian or your are not. You a fair weather or hedge-your-bets Christian? What is your belief regarding the Holy Bible? If you tell my your an Atheist, I'll shove my combat boot right up your arse.

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions, not attacks. From now on, very time you accuse me of attacking your beliefs, I'm just going to ignore your comment because the discussion at that point is no longer productive. You are welcome to vacate the discussion with me any time you feel the same.

Some how I clicked on my browser improperly and I can't get back an almost finished reply.
I have an appointment I have to keep right now so I'll respond to the above Bullshit ( ) tonight or tomorrow morning.

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions, not attacks.

Yes, my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics because they have no reasonable basis

Sure.....


Back later

 

[Minor Axis]

Some how I clicked on my browser improperly and I can't get back an almost finished reply.
I have an appointment I have to keep right now so I'll respond to the above Bullshit ( ) tonight or tomorrow morning.

Don't bother. We disagree. I have not disparaged your views on religion, but you don't like being attacked. This is where you are most comfortable, not polite disagreement. The discussion has outlived its constructive qualities. Go back to dueling GIA, Joe, or John. It suits you.

PS- When making a longish reply copy your text before pushing the submit button. I've had this happen to me several times after putting a lot of work into a reply and it's very annoying.

 

[Stone]

Don't bother. We disagree. I have not disparaged your views on religion, but you don't like being attacked. This is where you are most comfortable, not polite disagreement. The discussion has outlived its constructive qualities. Go back to dueling GIA, Joe, or John. It suits you.

PS- When making a longish reply copy your text before pushing the submit button. I've had this happen to me several times after putting a lot of work into a reply and it's very annoying.

Oh...I intend to take you up on your Bullshit.

I have not disparaged your views on religion

I suggest you reread your posts.
I saw it as being disingenuous in an attempt to attack people that hold beliefs and organized religion concurrently.

but you don't like being attacked.

Why, because I address your attacks?
MA.....this is what a debate forum is all about .

The discussion has outlived its constructive qualities

Well, let's see how it turns out.

Go back to dueling GIA, Joe, or John. It suits you.

I will......eventually.....

I'll have a reply tonight or tomorrow morning, I'd like to look around and see what else has been posted elsewhere.

 

[Minor Axis]

Oh...I intend to take you up on your Bullshit.

You can try. First I'd expect an apology for calling my views BS...then I'd think about it.

 

[Stone]

You can try. First I'd expect an apology for calling my views BS...then I'd think about it.

Try hard core disingenuous BULLSHIT


( no apology )
( and I will explain in my post )

 

[Minor Axis]

Try hard core disingenuous BULLSHIT


( no apology )
( and I will explain in my post )

Who says I'll read it? :blowme::urstupid::gives::booty::lala: Wow, and these emoticons are ok? I all most put this one up, but did not want to over do it. For illustrative purposes only-> :asshole:

 

[Stone]

My apologies to the OP for taking this thread completely off Subject.
​

edited for brevity and available space
.............................................

It's my attempt to question the reasonable basis upon which to declare there is a deity,

This is not how you started out your line of questioning.

This was your question to me:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...as-Witnesses&p=2208245&viewfull=1#post2208245

My point is what makes one story more fantastical than another?

You obviously didn't like my answer that addressed both this thread and your question.
I posted:

This is not a comparison of theologies nor their evolution..........these are the initiators of theologies.
At a minimum, Jesus existed in history as a teacher. He expanded that as rationale for acceptence.(edit:sp)
Smith and Moroni existed as an obvious con. He expanded his control for the purpose of personal power.
Jesus did nothing to enrich himself, he put himself in danger to teach us.
Smith enacted violence for personal wealth and power. That is relatively recently recorded history and easily searched out through news paper accounts.

Your post was disingenuous .

Christianity also had a dubious beginning with all the non-nonsensical scripture that is taken as...you heard it here first... gospel.

We were not discussing Christianity nor LDS.
Those are religions.
Your question was what makes one story of an individual more fantastical than another.
I responded with the character of the initiators of those beliefs.
But that's not the avenue you are seeking. You obviously had no intention of wanting to know why one story was more credible than another. You are only interested in the credibility of Christian theology/religion.

] It's my attempt to question the reasonable basis upon which to declare there is a deity,

Again, no. Your question is structured as an attack on Christianity and organized religion using the logic of an empiricist. I fully realize you project images of a belief in spirits, but also the logic of an empiricist . This is not a slur. Empiricism is a philosophy. It's a doctrine that knowledge is derived from experience and the sciences are tools that are applied for generating knowledge.
Your confusion continues to emanate from your inability/refusal to understand that elements of faith cannot be studied scientifically. Faith addresses that which cannot be answered empirically.
If you took the time to read what I post you'll find that I don't need the Bible to believe in a supreme being. No magic, no fantasies, no bullshit spirits. Just take science to the point where it can no longer explain reality and then contemplate why and how reality exists. Sure, it's still faith. But it's a different path of acceptance.
Descartes generated his own proof in a different manner whose logic I wish I could follow.

---------------------------------------------

but not only a deity, but a deity that we know tons about (rules, regulations, emotions, reward, penalties, etc). It's my opinion that there is no reasonable basis to make such a commitment.

Do you think your opinon matters to me?
Why should I care what your opinion is?
You brought it up, I haven't asked for it.



---------------------------------------

Spirits and God can't currently be proven.

So?
I agree.
How does that impact any thing I already believe in?

----------------------------------------------

I don't believe, I hope. There is a difference.

Sophistry.
You believe in hope. Hope is your faith.
So what?

Is that really agnostic?

However, if anything, I am arguing for the Agnostic approach.

So you want to make me an agnostic?
How do you intend to destroy my faith?
So far, all I see you as, is a person that knows nothing but has hope for faith...... Or is it faith in hope?
Why should I care what you think?

------------------------------------------------

I posted:
" You ask for proofs statements where none can be generated because the topic is faith based. "
Your response:

Wrong, I simply ask if there is a reasonable basis.

For the existence of God?
Would you like to discuss science and see how far it goes until reality cannot be explained and then hypothesize from there?
You could try to follow the logic of Descartes in Meditations on First Philosophy... I couldn't. But it's there if you want to try. It's supposed to be fantastic logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
And then there's the Bible which I realize totally pisses you off.

Looks like a hell of a lot better basis for faith than starting with a convicted felon shot in a gunbattle during the jailbreak or the fantasy of a spirit world one might see on the Sci-Fi Channel

------------------------------------------

Yes, my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics because they have no reasonable basis especially the OT.

And there we have it.
Your agenda.
But make up your mind. Are you arguing for the rejection of faith in Christ or the rejection of the concept of a supreme being. Or is it both?
You've been given a reasonable basis for the existence of faith in a diety and Christ. You've been shown that empiricism is not a proper study for elements of faith.
You've been using sophistry and context in a battle to prove there is nothing.
Well....Bullshit, too.

Let's jump ahead in your post for a moment.

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions

Do you bother to review your arguments before you post them?

, my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions

The milestone marks you as disingenuous.

Lol, my agenda is truth, dude!

That's going to be a difficult sell from what you just posted.
Mildly, I don't believe your Bullshit.


-------------------------------------

The OT holds great weight in church teachings, otherwise it would not be there.

You're not debating a church with a specific belief structure. You're debating with me about my faith.
If you want to debate a church for their specific belief structure, you're going to have to start a new thread and invite one in.


----------------------------------

People put there faith into these teachings based on what exactly? All it shows is that we are all susceptible to our favorite fantasy.

Some people are, some people aren't. I'm not susceptible to your fantasy or your Bullshit. I'm not susceptible to much of the Old Testament as presented by fundamentalists. There are elements of the New Testament I don't understand.
What is the difference between the two of us? I'm honest about what I don't know. You apparently aren't. And I am demonstrating that.


----------------------------
I posted:
" Really, what do you care what faith I embrace? "
Your response was:

You've seen the Problem with Humans and Religion thread.

Yes I have. The issue is organized religion as an entity of its own making, is influencing the minds of others. That's not an issue of faith. That's an issue of the imposition of institutional propaganda in the form of religion. True, they are trying to influence people's faith. But my question was what do you care what faith I embrace. That's faith, not religion.
You haven't answered it.
Again you're being disingenuous.
Bullshit.


---------------------------------

So you are susceptible to jumping to conclusions, lol. I have rejected nothing,

my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics

( yeah, the entire Bible )
You're not very big on critical thinking, are you?
Looks like Bullshit to me

I have rejected nothing, but the type of specifics I've all ready described. And it's not rejection, it's abeyance until more reliable info comes along.

You do realize other people will be reading this?
More Bullshit.

You want badly to be an agnostic.
You badly want to be an empiricist.
With this position I suspect it's impossible for anybody to be able to formulate a belief of a religious nature in anything. The two combined are really more of an atheistic position. Being an agnostic positions you as waiting for evidence, and being of an empirical mentality would prohibit you from looking at anything other than evidence of a scientific nature.

I have no belief in this regard, so knock yourself out.

What about that fantasy spirit world you believe in? Isn't this a gigantic contradiction as an agnostic with an empirical mentality?
It's pretty obvious you just been bullshiting the forum.


-----------------

You always feel like you are being attacked?

Not always. In your posts, my beliefs, yes.
Pretty obvious.

-------------------

I'm so sorry for you

I doubt that.


--------------
Part 2 to follow

 

[Stone]

part 2

So when a subordinate asks "why are we doing it this way"? -are you being attacked?

You've never asked that question or anyone like it.
You deny you are attacking my faith and then admit to attacking my faith.
You clearly posted it.
This is your agenda:

my posts argue for the rejection of Christian specifics

-----------------------------

I see it's kinda like how the Two Towers came after the Fellowship of the Ring.

I suspect you see a lot of things as fantasy.


--------------------------

I'm saying that believing in ancient moldy books written by superstitious men is a dubious manner of finding truth in our lives.

You're definitely saying that you're attacking people that have faith and are out to destroy that faith because it doesn't agree with your position of knowing nothing.
It's all about your agenda as an agnostic empiricist........ whoops, I mean an atheist that pretends he believes in the spirit world, or is that a spiritualist pretending to be an agnostic empiricist?
I don't know what you are, and I don't really care. You don't seem to know much, mostly through rejection because it doesn't fit your demanding criteria, evidence and proof statements, for the formulation of faith/religious beliefs.



-----------------------------

finding truth in our lives

Ah....... the meaning of life. You do realize that's a question that's identical in concept to, why is there reality?
What do you know about it?
The manner in which you approach questions as an agnostic empiricist would lead me to believe you haven't gathered much knowledge on the subject.
Would you like to take a guess?

--------------------------------

. However, I repeat I understand how faith works and if a written works provide comfort, I don't have an issue with that until a State like Louisiana tries to shove their religious beliefs down everyone's throats.

Again, that's not an issue of faith , that's an issue of a religious institution imposing its will and its structured religion upon a public.
Big difference.
Faith is a confidence in and of a particular concept or person.
Religion is a belief structure specific to a particular religious denomination.
It's obvious you don't know the difference or you're intentionally being disingenuous, again.
I'll call Bullshit either way.


-------------------------------

I choose to have a very non-specific faith based on just a premise- if there is a purpose for this life, it would make sense that that purpose encompasses more than a human life time. Attack away.

You claimed you were an agnostic. You have no beliefs. And yet you believe in the spirit world .

] I choose to have a very non-specific faith.....

I think you're just babbling


--------------------------

Attack attack attack! I've all ready explained my issues with the OT and NT.

I don't care what your issues are with the Old Testament nor the New Testament.
You are agnostic and seem to know nothing of faith.


----------------------------------

Lol, my agenda is truth, dude!

You lost credibility a long time ago.

Come on, you are either a Christian or your are not.

this may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have to believe the Old Testament nor the New Testament in the same way as you or anybody else does in order to be a Christian.
I only need to believe in Christ.
And I do.
It certainly pisses off a lot of fundamentalists and apparently you too.
Ever wonder why there are so many Christian denominations? It's because somebody disagreed.


----------------------------

You a fair weather or hedge-your-bets Christian?

That's pretty funny after the shellacking I just gave you.
Looks like you're going to have to learn how to target those of faith that aren't fundamentalists.


----------------------------------

What is your belief regarding the Holy Bible?

Ah........ now you take the attack directly to my beliefs.
As posted before, I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe it was written by man and parts have been influenced.
As posted elsewhere, I don't need the Bible to have a belief in a supreme being. The Bible is an additional support for me on that ..... and a source of knowledge of what I think God wants of us. I favor the New Testament. Because it brings Christ to man to teach us more. I believe Christ carried the element of God in order to facilitate these lessons and bring us the hope of an afterlife.
I have a faith in God as a supreme being and Christ as his 'Son' but concepts like the Trinity I find difficult to understand.
I admit to what I don't understand.
Simply, that is what I believe......few bells or whistles.

Why does this faith offend you?


------------------------------------

You will achieve a milestone when you realize that my questions are questions, not attacks. From now on, very time you accuse me of attacking your beliefs, I'm just going to ignore your comment because the discussion at that point is no longer productive.

They are attacks on both me for having faith in a supreme being and attacks on organized religion.
The biggest error you make is treating faith and religion as equals.
They aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

You are welcome to vacate the discussion with me any time you feel the same.

I offer you the same



BTW......your challenge of an apology triggered off a lot of those 'Bullshit' comments.
It wasn't till I saw your challenge that I figured I shouldn't let those issues slide without comment.

 

[Stone]

Who says I'll read it? :blowme::urstupid::gives::booty::lala: Wow, and these emoticons are ok? I all most put this one up, but did not want to over do it. For illustrative purposes only-> :asshole:

Who says I'll read it?

Trust me on this, I didn't write it for your benefit....



I've been wondering about your intellectual capabilities......thank you for confirming my suspicions

 

[Stone]

These discussions are so limiting because one party thumps their Holy Guide Book as proof or decrees there is no God and another party responds by asking why/why not? ........................................

Or posts a continuous line of disingenuous BULLSHIT

 

[Panacea]

The USS Point of this Thread has sailed


*unsubscribe*

 

[Stone]

The USS Point of this Thread has sailed


*unsubscribe*

I fully understand......this is what often happens when agendas are introduced into a debate.

 

[Minor Axis]

The USS Point of this Thread has sailed


*unsubscribe*

Exactly....perfectly understandable. Again I apologize for my part in taking this tread off topic.

I fully understand......this is what often happens when agendas are introduced into a debate.

Heaven forbid anyone accuse of you having an agenda, lol. Let me see, my agenda is promoting my views and your agenda is... promoting your views? I was enjoying having a civil disagreement with you until your true colors came out, accusations and belittling. I've watched you launch into it with other members, and I'm not going to play your game, however I will apologize for my childish outburst. Calling my views BS was a slap in the face. The conversation with you about religion is over, at least in this thread.

 

[Stone]

Exactly....perfectly understandable. Again I apologize for my part in taking this tread off topic.



Heaven forbid anyone accuse of you having an agenda, lol. Let me see, my agenda is promoting my views and your agenda is... promoting your views? I was enjoying having a civil disagreement with you until your true colors came out, accusations and belittling. I've watched you launch into it with other members, and I'm not going to play your game, however I will apologize for my childish outburst. Calling my views BS was a slap in the face. The conversation with you about religion is over, at least in this thread.

This is merely more disingenuous bullshit from contextual abuse.
You are just too obvious.
My post:

I fully understand......this is what often happens when agendas are introduced into a debate.

Do you understand the words I used and the context?
Focus-------> 'agendas are introduced into a debate'.
You admitted introducing arguments into this thread that had nothing to do with the thread topic. You even apologized for doing it!

I was enjoying having a civil disagreement with you until your true colors came out

And you were being disingenuous in the manner you initiated that exchange, which, as you admitted .....was to ".......... argue for the rejection of Christian specifics because they have no reasonable basis especially the OT. "

That was your agenda and for some stupid reason that I can't fathom, you approached me as if I was a fundamentalist and thought the typical atheist attack on my faith would be a winner.
Well.....you FUCKED UP.
I'm not a fundamentalist and your blather and babbling about a spirit world at the same time arguing from the agnostic- empiricist position made your arguments looks silly and your character horribly flawed as you continually attacked my beliefs, which I hadn't posted till you started your rant/agenda.
If you don't want a belief in a deity and or Christ.......don't. I'm not making you believe ( faith wise ) any concept. Go back and reread the thread. You have, however, been trying to impose upon me using fallacious logic, disingenuous manipulation of addressing me, and a line of BULLSHIT that I chronicled in my two part post.

Calling my views BS was a slap in the face.

Dude, it was a knockout punch on your logic and character.
I'm surprised you are even addressing me with out first apologizing to both me and the forum for the intellectual dishonesty you've been displaying!!

The conversation with you about religion is over

Your discussion wasn't focused on religion......did you even bother to read the links I posted that explain the differences in the concepts?
You were attacking the concept of faith with an argument designed for a debate on structured religion and the religious institutions ( churches ) that promote themselves.

at least in this thread.

As far as religion goes, probably not with me.
Maybe you can sucker a fundamentalist into a debate. Make sure he hasn't read this thread first ....

 

[Johnfromokc]

I fully understand......this is what often happens when agendas are introduced into a debate.

Actually, it happens when you're involved. You're not as clever as you think.

 

[Stone]

Actually, it happens when you're involved. You're not as clever as you think.

More clever than you

 

[Minor Axis]

Stone, I skipped right over your last couple of posts. Learn some manners and try again in the future. We're done, dude... for now.

 

[Stone]

Stone, I skipped right over your last couple of posts. Learn some manners and try again in the future. We're done, dude... for now.

I skipped right over your last couple of posts.

I suspected you would.
That you skipped over my rebuttal is irrelevant.
I wrote with the intention of addressing an audience....the readers of this thread.
If this was communication that had been private, I would have simply told you to go piss up a rope.
But this is public debate, after all, so an appropriate response was necessary, imho.

Learn some manners and try again in the future.

You mean like this?

Who says I'll read it? :blowme::urstupid::gives::booty::lala: Wow, and these emoticons are ok? I all most put this one up, but did not want to over do it. For illustrative purposes only-> :asshole:

With manners like that.......were you by any chance raised in a barn?


Hypocrite

We're done, dude... for now.

Of course you are, I see nothing you could add to save face .

[FONT=&amp]
I will say this has been a learning experience. I know you better now.[/FONT] A lot better.

 

[The Doc]

My bad guys, i was gone for a while. But anyways, i tried to skim through the replies. I wasnt trying to start a mormon/jehovas witness bashing thread. I wanted to discuss the theological aspect of it, like how the Jehovas Witness have their own translation of the bible not based on the original scriptures or how Mormons have their whole Book of Mormon with the native americans actually being jews that came to america on a raft and forgot they were jews...

As a whole though, I have noticed that being "Aethiest" is the cool new thing. Its like rebelling. So you have people being aethiests to 'rebel'. In my oppinion though, Aethiests are always angry people. They spend a lot of time trying to disprove God, but to me it seems like they have to continuously convince themselvs. In my life so far, I havent seen anyone bash an aethiest for not believing in God but I see plenty of Aethiests bashing others for their beliefs.