0
   

I Say We Duke It Out!

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:33 pm
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:51 pm
In my personal opinion, Jesus, the flesh and blood version, did not exist. The Super Jesus that's been concocted for about two thousand years is very real, only in the sense that he touches so many lives. That he is a myth is beside the point. The religion built up around him bears little relation to anything down to Earth and real, but binds like minds in commiseration and reinforcement of the mythology. The religion only follows teachings attributed to Jesus when it's convenient.

Atheists are varied in their viewpoints. Many on a2k make points differently than mine, often sounding more agnostic. Most of us are not so bent on disproving G(g)od as stemming the tide of fundamentalism trying to take over control of everything in life. But for this one point, I think most atheists would as soon fade into the woodwork as exchange arguments like these.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:55 pm
It appears, sadly I admit, that a2k is being over-run with religionists. Probably a fault of google but so it goes.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:57 pm
Five is equal to 4 ....parts of 20

There was a funny Israelite, Seinfeld, a friend of Joseph, curator of Potipher's household in Egypt, who regularly entertained Egyptian royalty, with observations of the mundane, in a nasal voice.

It has just been discovered that the tsetse was accidentally transferred in the cargo hold of a ship in the 1890's, and colonized in a previously untouched area of the Okeefenokee Swamp.

Stranger things have happened.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:57 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
In my personal opinion, Jesus, the flesh and blood version, did not exist. The Super Jesus that's been concocted for about two thousand years is very real, only in the sense that he touches so many lives. That he is a myth is beside the point. The religion built up around him bears little relation to anything down to Earth and real, but binds like minds in commiseration and reinforcement of the mythology. The religion only follows teachings attributed to Jesus when it's convenient.

Atheists are varied in their viewpoints. Many on a2k make points differently than mine, often sounding more agnostic. Most of us are not so bent on disproving G(g)od as stemming the tide of fundamentalism trying to take over control of everything in life. But for this one point, I think most atheists would as soon fade into the woodwork as exchange arguments like these.

Well, edgar, forgive me if I am wrong here, but you don't seem to make too much of a distinction when it comes to Christians posting on A2K. Do you consider us all fundamentalists?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:00 pm
Only the ones like yourself, who are way too literal and a strident.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:01 pm
the difference between the KKK, methodists, mormons and baptists is the uniform they wear and their choice of scramental wines.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:03 pm
Strident = talking about what you believe.

the difference between the KKK, methodists, sports fans, Communists, atheists, intellectuals, mormons, liberals and baptists is the uniform they wear and their choice of scramental wines.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:06 pm
edgarblythe Wrote:

Quote:
Only the ones like yourself, who are way too literal and a strident.


I really hate it when I look up a word to find out that I have been insulted. But hey, I'll keep it in mind. :wink:
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:17 pm
Lash wrote:
Strident = talking about what you believe.

the difference between the KKK, methodists, sports fans, Communists, atheists, intellectuals, mormons, liberals and baptists is the uniform they wear and their choice of scramental wines.

actually liberals will drink most anything with most anybody, atheist/liberals are more particular. Anarchists like meself are downright hard to get along with.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:19 pm
I know you get the metaphor.

Everybody's got their own ****. Yours is just more popular.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:19 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America


Yeah, should have added negative in the sense that something exists or not.



You can't prove that aliens, gods, ghosts, succubi, witches, leprechauns, fauns, dryads, naiads, nereids, that dwarf that Craven has on his shoulder who tells him what to do and what not to do like gods do for some folk, etc don't exist.



BTW, you can't PROVE that ancient Egyptians didn't watch Seinfeld, though it is unlikely they did so...they might have had time machines.

And...tse tse flies MAY have been native to North America, but died out in an ice age or something.

Again, reason and empirical data suggests that they are not, but you cannot PROVE they were not.


Like gods.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:19 pm
I did not say what I did by way of insult, but only to describe what I know.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:21 pm
dyslexia wrote:
It appears, sadly I admit, that a2k is being over-run with religionists. Probably a fault of google but so it goes.


And Craven, with his cursed skill in Search Engine Optimisation.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:21 pm
dlowan wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America


Yeah, should have added negative in the sense that something exists or not.



You can't prove that aliens, gods, ghosts, succubi, witches, leprechauns, fauns, dryads, naiads, nereids, that dwarf that Craven has on his shoulder who tells him what to do and what not to do like gods do for some folk, etc don't exist.



BTW, you can't PROVE that ancient Egyptians didn't watch Seinfeld, though it is unlikely they did so...they might have had time machines.

And...tse tse flies MAY have been native to North America, but died out in an ice age or something.

Again, reason and empirical data suggests that they are not, but you cannot PROVE they were not.


Like gods.

pffffffffffffffffttttttttt
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:07 am
Before this goes further, let me say, I have vowed to avoid getting personal. My words describing a thought concerning Momma Angel refers to the belief she espouses herein and is not intended as an attack. Just as if she asked me to describe a chocolate eclair. I describe as fundamentalist anybody who wants to inject religion into the classroom, courts, or use religious founded reasoning to deny the legitemate effort or teaching of science.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:29 am
dyslexia wrote:
dlowan wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America


Yeah, should have added negative in the sense that something exists or not.



You can't prove that aliens, gods, ghosts, succubi, witches, leprechauns, fauns, dryads, naiads, nereids, that dwarf that Craven has on his shoulder who tells him what to do and what not to do like gods do for some folk, etc don't exist.



BTW, you can't PROVE that ancient Egyptians didn't watch Seinfeld, though it is unlikely they did so...they might have had time machines.

And...tse tse flies MAY have been native to North America, but died out in an ice age or something.

Again, reason and empirical data suggests that they are not, but you cannot PROVE they were not.


Like gods.

pffffffffffffffffttttttttt



Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttttttttttttttt.



Dusts off paws, stalks off.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:34 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Before this goes further, let me say, I have vowed to avoid getting personal. My words describing a thought concerning Momma Angel refers to the belief she espouses herein and is not intended as an attack. Just as if she asked me to describe a chocolate eclair. I describe as fundamentalist anybody who wants to inject religion into the classroom, courts, or use religious founded reasoning to deny the legitemate effort or teaching of science.


If you attack the persons believes.... you attack the person
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:43 am
Nonsense.

Sheerest arrantest nonsense.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:45 am
Define your terms, please.


So, you believe you are attacking the person every time you dispute a neo con's beliefs, for instance? Or disagree about economics, or how to cook rice?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 08:15:34