Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Creationist Ken Ham says that "God is a God of grace and mercy" and will demonstrate this by roasting Bill Maher in a "lake which burns with fire and brimstone" for eternity   (rawstory.com) divider line 515
    More: Amusing, Ken Ham, Bill Maher, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, roasts, mercy, PZ Myers, righteousness, lakes  
•       •       •

6811 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:01 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



515 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 06:33:56 PM  

CanisNoir: No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone


I hate it when people I disagree with make sense.

The argument about pro-choice vs pro-life (anti-choice actually) cannot be resolved this way and he let you guys walk into it.  A better way to settle the debate is this;

Why do anti-abortion people defer all medical judgement to doctors and scientists except for this particular case?  You chuckleheads don't listen to your mechanic about every part of your car except for the transmission.  You don't let engineers design every piece of technology you use but ask your cousin the dentist to design a new train bridge.  Why do doctors and scientists in your opinion get overridden by old white men, some of whom are supposed to completely abstain from sex for their entire lives, in matters of human reproduction?
 
2014-03-24 06:51:22 PM  

Egoy3k: CanisNoir: No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone

I hate it when people I disagree with make sense.

The argument about pro-choice vs pro-life (anti-choice actually) cannot be resolved this way and he let you guys walk into it.  A better way to settle the debate is this;

Why do anti-abortion people defer all medical judgement to doctors and scientists except for this particular case?  You chuckleheads don't listen to your mechanic about every part of your car except for the transmission.  You don't let engineers design every piece of technology you use but ask your cousin the dentist to design a new train bridge.  Why do doctors and scientists in your opinion get overridden by old white men, some of whom are supposed to completely abstain from sex for their entire lives, in matters of human reproduction?


Because this particular argument falls to "when" the fetus is in possession of a soul therefore becomes an innocent human capable of being human. When it comes to issues of a soul, a doctor is not the authority, a spiritual teacher is. Now if you believe life begins at conception based on something other than the soul, I don't have an answer. Every pro-life person I've spoken to believes in a soul.
 
2014-03-24 06:58:19 PM  

Deucednuisance: allylloyd: You don't have to believe in God for God to believe in you.

Is anyone else as tired as I am of the "reasonable" christians who come to Fark to lecture everyone and post limp doggerel while imagining it to be profound?


I think at this point we're all pretty damn tired of each other, frankly.
 
2014-03-24 07:00:27 PM  

CanisNoir: UncomfortableSilence: CanisNoir: Gecko Gingrich: CanisNoir: Trivia Jockey: The person responding to this comment pointed out a number of ways that Christianity (or at least certain aspects of it) IS forced upon all of us. In what we believe are very negative ways. Your particular religious beliefs or lack thereof are totally irrelevant.

Everyone's moral beliefs are forced on someone else; Christianity is not being forced upon people by the application of Blue Laws, but rather the collective "moral" attitude of that location. Kind of like how Abortion is legal because a preponderance of people felt it the "moral" thing to do, while others believe banning it is moral. Each side is attempting to force their "morals" on the other.

The original statement that nobody is forcing their "Religion" on anyone else is correct based upon the submitted counter argument.

Now when someone holds him down and forces a Eucharist down his throat, they the claim "they're forcing their religion" on me might be accurate.

- Get an abortion, don't get an abortion. I really couldn't care less what you do.

-No one can get an abortion because I don't like them.

In your head those two statements are congruent?

Get an abortion don't get an abortion, I don't care because I don't believe life begins at conveption, therefore abortion is not murder and eliminating a persons choice is wrong. That is a moral detrmination the same as: Ban abortion because I believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder and wrong.

Both sides are attempting to force their moral belief of right and wrong on the other and neither is attempting to force a religion on anyone.

The difference is that one says that both are valid and you do not have to get an abortion and may adhere to your belief in choosing to do so and someone else can make the decision that they want or need an abortion in accordance with their beliefs or medical needs.  The other does not offer the option and instead says that all people must obey one sides beliefs.

No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone.


Believing that a person has a right to decide what to do with their body requires a moral? In what way? A woman having or not having an abortion doesn't outwardly affect anyone other than the sperm provider and as such doesn't require a moral. Believing that "life begins at conception" and that abortion is thusly murder DOES require a moral of some kind- and if that moral came from a person's religion and inspires said person to attempt to pass legislation about what another person can/can't do with their body: well, that IS forcing a specific religion upon others.

/No dog in this fight, just pointing out the fallacy in the argument.
 
2014-03-24 07:13:13 PM  

EqualOpportunityEnslaver: CanisNoir: UncomfortableSilence: CanisNoir: Gecko Gingrich: CanisNoir: Trivia Jockey: The person responding to this comment pointed out a number of ways that Christianity (or at least certain aspects of it) IS forced upon all of us. In what we believe are very negative ways. Your particular religious beliefs or lack thereof are totally irrelevant.

Everyone's moral beliefs are forced on someone else; Christianity is not being forced upon people by the application of Blue Laws, but rather the collective "moral" attitude of that location. Kind of like how Abortion is legal because a preponderance of people felt it the "moral" thing to do, while others believe banning it is moral. Each side is attempting to force their "morals" on the other.

The original statement that nobody is forcing their "Religion" on anyone else is correct based upon the submitted counter argument.

Now when someone holds him down and forces a Eucharist down his throat, they the claim "they're forcing their religion" on me might be accurate.

- Get an abortion, don't get an abortion. I really couldn't care less what you do.

-No one can get an abortion because I don't like them.

In your head those two statements are congruent?

Get an abortion don't get an abortion, I don't care because I don't believe life begins at conveption, therefore abortion is not murder and eliminating a persons choice is wrong. That is a moral detrmination the same as: Ban abortion because I believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder and wrong.

Both sides are attempting to force their moral belief of right and wrong on the other and neither is attempting to force a religion on anyone.

The difference is that one says that both are valid and you do not have to get an abortion and may adhere to your belief in choosing to do so and someone else can make the decision that they want or need an abortion in accordance with their beliefs or medical needs.  The other does not offer the option and instead says that all people must obey one sides beliefs.

No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone.

Believing that a person has a right to decide what to do with their body requires a moral? In what way? A woman having or not having an abortion doesn't outwardly affect anyone other than the sperm provider and as such doesn't require a moral. Believing that "life begins at conception" and that abortion is thusly murder DOES require a moral of some kind- and if that moral came from a person's religion and inspires said person to attempt to pass legislation about what another person can/can't do with their body: well, that IS forcing a specific religion upon others.

/No dog in this fight, just pointing out the fallacy in the argument.


To answer your question, yes. Laws dictating what we can and cannot do with our bodies does require a moral choice. Drugs are illegal because our society at large decided that "drugs are bad mmkay". Whether it be through harm caused to oneself or to society, we've decided that partaking of them is wrong; a moral decision.

/we have a long history of legislating what people can do to their own bodies, abortion is nothing new.
 
2014-03-24 07:17:38 PM  

Ed Grubermann: whidbey: Ed Grubermann: allylloyd: Ed Grubermann: allylloyd:
Going TO heaven and getting INSIDE heaven are two very different things...

Actually, they are the same thing. It's impossible to accomplish either. What part of "dead" do you not grasp?

That is your interpretation and/or belief and you are entitled to it. I am entitled to mine.

That's not my belief, it's what the evidence makes clear. Dead is dead. Once the brain is gone, you are gone. Show me any credible evidence that there is anything beyond death and I'll reconsider my position.

Logically, though, how would you even know until it happens?

Medical science, how the fark does that work? We know that brain damage can destroy memories, scramble personalities, erase morals, destroy our ability to sense our surroundings, etc... We know that chemicals can alter the way in which we think. We have mountains of evidence that shows that everything the "mind" does is a function of the brain and no credible evidence that there is a incorporeal mind, to hell with anything like a soul.


Personally, I find the growing evidence that the mind is purely a function of the body and that there is therefore no "ghost in the machine" the biggest --- really, the only serious --- scientific challenge to faith.  Reconciling religious belief with the Big Bang Theory or evolution never struck me as that big of a deal.  But if there's no soul, and no afterlife: I don't see how religion can coexist with that.
 
2014-03-24 07:18:57 PM  

Kit Fister: Ctrl-Alt-Del: It's a fine reason to do things. It's a fine reason for doing almost anything, really.

But in a situation where one believes that the wrong choice will result in ETERNAL DAMNATION? "Because I feel like it" is a terrible farking "reason"

Who the fark cares?


I'll bet you're a real charmer at parties. It's called a conversation - an interesting conversation, and I'm actually interested in what he has to say. If you're so very uncaring, why don't you just butt the fark out? I mean, it's not like you're even agreeing or disagreeing, you're just being disagreeable

If that motivates a person to, hopefully, live a moral life and help other people and so on, then what harm does it do?

I never said, or implied, that it does any harm. That's must have been from the conversation you imagined I was having.

In the vast history of humanity, blah blah blah advancements in technology in a century thanks to conflicts and the need to more effectively battle those conflicts than we ever made just because someone was being nice.

That's nice. But the topic we were discussing is why a particular person has a particular belief, and whether or not the reasons presented for it are logical. you're welcome to join, it's a public forum, but maybe you meant to address someone else? Because none of that is really relevant to anything I was talking about. Or maybe you should just save it for your third period Western Civ class.

Frankly, I get out of the bed in the morning and go to work because if I don't I don't get paid, and my family starves and I lose all the shiat i have. I don't do it because I love my job and want to work and help people of my own free will.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps you should discuss it with  your therapist.
 
2014-03-24 07:19:59 PM  

Ed Grubermann: allylloyd: Ed Grubermann: allylloyd: Ed Grubermann: allylloyd:
Going TO heaven and getting INSIDE heaven are two very different things...

Actually, they are the same thing. It's impossible to accomplish either. What part of "dead" do you not grasp?

That is your interpretation and/or belief and you are entitled to it. I am entitled to mine.

That's not my belief, it's what the evidence makes clear. Dead is dead. Once the brain is gone, you are gone. Show me any credible evidence that there is anything beyond death and I'll reconsider my position.

I beg to differ! I had a partial left temporal lobectomy! Part of my brain is gone! I also have a benign brain tumor.
I am very much alive.

So, part of your brain is all of your brain?


Sure.  It's uh, a holographic fractal, dude.

That or it's a RAID-6.  Something like that, anyway.
 
2014-03-24 07:21:42 PM  

tlars699: Lord_Baull: tlars699: Lord_Baull: Gecko Gingrich: Rueened: Dry your eyes princess, no-one is forcing anything on you.

No? Then why does my brother have to go two counties over to buy a beer on Sunday? Why did my sister need to drive an hour and a half when she wanted to get an abortion? Why can't my cousin marry his boyfriend?


Settle down. Rueened said he wasn't religious, so your point is invalid.

Umm. the points Gecko brings up are still valid. They might not be forcing anything on him, but they are forcing things on people around him. There only needs to be one more rule like "Shrimp is now illegal because Leviticus" or "Masturbation/Living in your mother's basement is punishable by public stoning" to affect him.


I was being facetious. I was making a joke that somehow, because he's not religous, his comment that no one is forcing religion on others must be a reasonable statement. Too subtle?

Apologies; as a Vulcan, the subtleties of the human capacity for sarcasm interpretations via text sometimes escapes me.


It is a difficult concept.  But we learn by doing.
 
2014-03-24 07:21:48 PM  

CanisNoir: No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone.


1) One need not be okay with murder to be pro-choice while holding the view that both sides are "valid." One may simply believe that reasonable people may differ on the question, and that the best compromise is to allow individual self-determination. From the anti-choice point of view, this might not seem like a compromise; but at this time I am aware of no significant movement in this country to compel abortion under any circumstances. Compelled abortions would be the true opposite of the current anti-choice view--anti-choice the other way, you might say. Individual self-determination is the only compromise.

2) The particular post you responded to there did not claim anti-choicers were forcing religion on anyone. Only that they were attempting to force their views on others. Which is objectively true of anti-choicers, and objectively untrue of pro-choicers.

And no: it's not even true that pro-choicers favor forcing their view on the unborn. They're in favor of letting everyone individually decide whether or not they want to force their view on the unborn. And in reality, bringing children into the world imposes another's will upon them just as surely as does aborting them.

Worse still for the anti-choice view, the simple fact is that given Christian theological predicates regarding damnation of the unsaved, it is a priori and from behind the veil of ignorance in nobody's interest to be born. Most people will end up damned for all time; it was an act of cruelty to create or conceive them in the first place. If as this writer says, aborted babies go to heaven, then it is kinder by far to abort them than to expose them to the probable outcome of eternal damnation.
 
2014-03-24 07:37:47 PM  

The_Hairy_Gooch: Kit Fister: Ctrl-Alt-Del: A brief analogy to describe the conversation so far:

allyloyd: I drive a Ford F150

eraser8: Why? Why do you drive a Ford f150?

allyloyd : And my response is "Why not?" My driving of a Ford F150 is because I love to drive

eraser8: By that reasoning (if honest) you should be willing to drive ANY car because you love to drive. How could you possibly choose just one?  And, how did you choose the one you chose?

allyloyd : I'm not changing my response for you.

eraser8: I'm not asking you to changer your response.  I was just asking for an honest one.
Either you have a reason for driving that particular car or you don't.  Your "why not" answer only works if there is only one car from which to choose...but, even if you limit your set of possible cars to those that are currently manufactured, there are at least hundreds -- probably thousands -- to choose from.

allyloyd: I drive a Ford F150 because I can drive a Ford F150 .  I drive a Ford F150 because I want to  drive a Ford F150 .  I drive a Ford F150 because  driving a Ford F150 makes me happy, joyful, compassionate, forgiving and sometimes, sad...

And around and around you go - never actually answering the question. Why don't you drive a Honda Accord? Why don't you drive a Mercedes? Why did you choose a Ford F150 over all the other possible cars to drive? Especially if you posit that there is only one correct car to drive, and choosing the wrong one will result in eternal damnation.

So I'll ask once more - what made you choose the belief system you currently hold? I'd bet my next paycheck that the answer is "Because that's what my parents and all of the adults around me said was true my whole life - from even before I could read or write."

Personally, I think eraser8 is barking up the wrong tree, since that is almost universally the answer to that question. The more interesting discussion is when that question is directed at converts.

Pardon me, and I don't disagree that his statements ...


Here's some logic: I drive a Ford because I can't afford to drive a Mercedes.


//The GOP doesn't pay me enough!
 
2014-03-24 07:40:52 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Kit Fister: Ctrl-Alt-Del: It's a fine reason to do things. It's a fine reason for doing almost anything, really.

But in a situation where one believes that the wrong choice will result in ETERNAL DAMNATION? "Because I feel like it" is a terrible farking "reason"

Who the fark cares?

I'll bet you're a real charmer at parties. It's called a conversation - an interesting conversation, and I'm actually interested in what he has to say. If you're so very uncaring, why don't you just butt the fark out? I mean, it's not like you're even agreeing or disagreeing, you're just being disagreeable

If that motivates a person to, hopefully, live a moral life and help other people and so on, then what harm does it do?

I never said, or implied, that it does any harm. That's must have been from the conversation you imagined I was having.

In the vast history of humanity, blah blah blah advancements in technology in a century thanks to conflicts and the need to more effectively battle those conflicts than we ever made just because someone was being nice.

That's nice. But the topic we were discussing is why a particular person has a particular belief, and whether or not the reasons presented for it are logical. you're welcome to join, it's a public forum, but maybe you meant to address someone else? Because none of that is really relevant to anything I was talking about. Or maybe you should just save it for your third period Western Civ class.

Frankly, I get out of the bed in the morning and go to work because if I don't I don't get paid, and my family starves and I lose all the shiat i have. I don't do it because I love my job and want to work and help people of my own free will.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps you should discuss it with  your therapist.


I responded to your specific, quoted line, and did so rather flippantly. If my response was out of line with what you intended to state, I apologize. I read it differently than the way you intended it.  Cheers!
 
2014-03-24 07:46:05 PM  

whidbey: Ghastly: It's not a nonapodeictic, agnostic atheist nor a nonapodeictic, agnostic theist, nor even an apatheist position I take umbrage with but the further pollution of the English language with vagary and dilution for the purpose of setting one up as a special little snowflake, superior to all others.

I'd still urge you to get over it. And people who continue to question centuries of oppressive ideology are special to me, if anything, just for doing it.


The problem is, people who identify as CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostics don't question. They walk into the middle of the conversation, shiat on everyone participating then strut around claiming to have taken the superior position. It's contrarianism and nothing more.
 
2014-03-24 07:49:32 PM  

Amish Tech Support: When your god creates an entire planet with his own powers. Then drowns all his creations in a horrible flood. Your god is a four year old with a sadistic streak.


I was thinking of writing a novel with that premise. . .with Satan as his wiser older sibling picking logical failings in the younger's behavior.  Jesus is simply a last ditch effort before retard-boy finally grows up and leaves his toy.  A toy that continues to grow even long after ant-farm-owner is gone.
 
2014-03-24 07:52:28 PM  

allylloyd: Here's some logic: I drive a Ford because I can't afford to drive a Mercedes.


//The GOP doesn't pay me enough!


I...oh ffs. Just give it a rest. I think it's pretty clear at this point that what you meant to say was that it makes sense to you because of your own reasons, which may, or may not, be logical. Perhaps they are logical to your subjective reality, but objectively, they're not.

I'm going point out that so far, many people have asked you for the courtesy to explain your side. They haven't done so in overtly outlandish ways, for the most part, and most have been downright courteous and simply asked you to expound, and so far all you've done is ignore or evade it, or repeat the same ol' same ol.

So, let me put it to you bluntly, as I am often wont to do: Why christianity and not Asatru, Judaism, etc.?
 
2014-03-24 07:57:21 PM  

Kit Fister: allylloyd: Here's some logic: I drive a Ford because I can't afford to drive a Mercedes.


//The GOP doesn't pay me enough!

I...oh ffs. Just give it a rest. I think it's pretty clear at this point that what you meant to say was that it makes sense to you because of your own reasons, which may, or may not, be logical. Perhaps they are logical to your subjective reality, but objectively, they're not.

I'm going point out that so far, many people have asked you for the courtesy to explain your side. They haven't done so in overtly outlandish ways, for the most part, and most have been downright courteous and simply asked you to expound, and so far all you've done is ignore or evade it, or repeat the same ol' same ol.

So, let me put it to you bluntly, as I am often wont to do: Why christianity and not Asatru, Judaism, etc.?


Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!
 
2014-03-24 08:00:08 PM  

allylloyd: Kit Fister: allylloyd: Here's some logic: I drive a Ford because I can't afford to drive a Mercedes.


//The GOP doesn't pay me enough!

I...oh ffs. Just give it a rest. I think it's pretty clear at this point that what you meant to say was that it makes sense to you because of your own reasons, which may, or may not, be logical. Perhaps they are logical to your subjective reality, but objectively, they're not.

I'm going point out that so far, many people have asked you for the courtesy to explain your side. They haven't done so in overtly outlandish ways, for the most part, and most have been downright courteous and simply asked you to expound, and so far all you've done is ignore or evade it, or repeat the same ol' same ol.

So, let me put it to you bluntly, as I am often wont to do: Why christianity and not Asatru, Judaism, etc.?

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!


OH, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, Katherine Jefferts Schori has a PhD in Oceanography! She's a SCIENTIST who believes in God!
 
2014-03-24 08:01:52 PM  

NateAsbestos: Secret Agent X23: I dunno, Ken...that wording sounds awfully polytheistic to me.

Yeah, what's this "a" God nonsense?

But then again, doesn't the first commandment tacitly admit the existence of other gods?


Sssh.  You'll make the Christards think.   That's physically painful for them.
 
2014-03-24 08:04:33 PM  
allylloyd:

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!


So basically, I believe in the god I believe in because the books about the god I believe in tell me that they're right and the authority figure for my religion backs this up.
 
2014-03-24 08:05:31 PM  

Baz744: CanisNoir: No; pro-choice does not believe both are valid unless they are okay with murder. Both sides rely upon a belief when life begins and are moralistic. Neither is forcing a religion on someone.

1) One need not be okay with murder to be pro-choice while holding the view that both sides are "valid." One may simply believe that reasonable people may differ on the question, and that the best compromise is to allow individual self-determination. From the anti-choice point of view, this might not seem like a compromise; but at this time I am aware of no significant movement in this country to compel abortion under any circumstances. Compelled abortions would be the true opposite of the current anti-choice view--anti-choice the other way, you might say. Individual self-determination is the only compromise.

2) The particular post you responded to there did not claim anti-choicers were forcing religion on anyone. Only that they were attempting to force their views on others. Which is objectively true of anti-choicers, and objectively untrue of pro-choicers.

And no: it's not even true that pro-choicers favor forcing their view on the unborn. They're in favor of letting everyone individually decide whether or not they want to force their view on the unborn. And in reality, bringing children into the world imposes another's will upon them just as surely as does aborting them.

Worse still for the anti-choice view, the simple fact is that given Christian theological predicates regarding damnation of the unsaved, it is a priori and from behind the veil of ignorance in nobody's interest to be born. Most people will end up damned for all time; it was an act of cruelty to create or conceive them in the first place. If as this writer says, aborted babies go to heaven, then it is kinder by far to abort them than to expose them to the probable outcome of eternal damnation.


I could be mistaken but the original complaint I was responding to was that someone was having religion forced upon them, another disagreed. The counter was then Blue Laws to provide an example of religion being forced onto them. I disagreed by pointing out that advocating for laws based on a personal philosophy of "right and wrong" is what we all do, and just because someone arrived at their personal philosophy through religious teachings does not mean they are forcing their religion upon others. I stand by the logic of that statement.
 
2014-03-24 08:09:30 PM  

Ghastly: allylloyd:

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!

So basically, I believe in the god I believe in because the books about the god I believe in tell me that they're right and the authority figure for my religion backs this up.


I don't know how or why YOU believe in God or anything else and frankly, I don't care. So long as you aren't having sex with children under 18 or animals, I really don't give a damn what you do!

//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.
 
2014-03-24 08:12:59 PM  
CanisNoir

I could be mistaken but the original complaint I was responding to was that someone was having religion forced upon them, another disagreed. The counter was then Blue Laws to provide an example of religion being forced onto them. I disagreed by pointing out that advocating for laws based on a personal philosophy of "right and wrong" is what we all do, and just because someone arrived at their personal philosophy through religious teachings does not mean they are forcing their religion upon others. I stand by the logic of that statement.

?

blue law:

- a type of law designed to restrict or ban some or all...shopping for religious standards, particularly the observance of a day of worship or rest.

- any puritanical law that forbids certain practices, especially drinking or working on Sunday, dancing, etc.

That is forcing your religious beliefs on others. Having a "personal philosophy" that Yahweh wants his Sabbath to be conducted a certain way is a religious belief.
 
2014-03-24 08:25:57 PM  

allylloyd: Kit Fister: allylloyd: Here's some logic: I drive a Ford because I can't afford to drive a Mercedes.


//The GOP doesn't pay me enough!

I...oh ffs. Just give it a rest. I think it's pretty clear at this point that what you meant to say was that it makes sense to you because of your own reasons, which may, or may not, be logical. Perhaps they are logical to your subjective reality, but objectively, they're not.

I'm going point out that so far, many people have asked you for the courtesy to explain your side. They haven't done so in overtly outlandish ways, for the most part, and most have been downright courteous and simply asked you to expound, and so far all you've done is ignore or evade it, or repeat the same ol' same ol.

So, let me put it to you bluntly, as I am often wont to do: Why christianity and not Asatru, Judaism, etc.?

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!


Who is asking you to answer the way "I" want you to? I just asked a simple, blunt question. Why do you believe what you do? What makes it acceptable to you over other faiths? It's a simple question. I get what your Bishop wrote, and I get her perspective. But ultimately, professing a faith, especially one with the necessary conviction as Christianity, has to be a conclusion one reaches on one's own, and through careful thought and consideration, no? After all, you're not just randomly picking one, right? And it means that you then accept certain truths endemic to the faith, and thus accept the consequences that agreeing to those articles of faith would provide for?
 
2014-03-24 08:38:37 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CanisNoir

I could be mistaken but the original complaint I was responding to was that someone was having religion forced upon them, another disagreed. The counter was then Blue Laws to provide an example of religion being forced onto them. I disagreed by pointing out that advocating for laws based on a personal philosophy of "right and wrong" is what we all do, and just because someone arrived at their personal philosophy through religious teachings does not mean they are forcing their religion upon others. I stand by the logic of that statement.

?

blue law:

- a type of law designed to restrict or ban some or all...shopping for religious standards, particularly the observance of a day of worship or rest.

- any puritanical law that forbids certain practices, especially drinking or working on Sunday, dancing, etc.

That is forcing your religious beliefs on others. Having a "personal philosophy" that Yahweh wants his Sabbath to be conducted a certain way is a religious belief.


Breaking it down, it's a law based upon the notion that doing these things on this day is wrong. Individuals voted for these laws as individuals. In this case, largely driven by religious teachings. Again, they were forcing a personal philosophy, not the religion.
People of the same faith often develop differing philosophies because they interpret the message differently. Religion is an individual relationship with God and people are just as justified pushing for laws that meet the lessons they learned through religious teachings as they are for pushing laws that match lessons learned any other way.
Blue Laws do not force religion or religious beliefs onto anyone. They are the result of a community voting as individuals based upon what they believe to be right.
It's a fine distinction I'll admit, but a necessary one.
 
2014-03-24 08:48:51 PM  
CanisNoir

I don't buy it. If a community of individual Muslims decide no one should eat before sundown during Ramadan, they're forcing their religious beliefs on other people. Laws made by Protestants regarding alcohol on Sundays are no different. There's no fine distinction, just people forcing others to abide by their religious customs.
 
2014-03-24 08:54:57 PM  
I did not rape that woman. I truly believed that she needed farking.
 
2014-03-24 08:58:47 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: CanisNoir

I don't buy it. If a community of individual Muslims decide no one should eat before sundown during Ramadan, they're forcing their religious beliefs on other people. Laws made by Protestants regarding alcohol on Sundays are no different. There's no fine distinction, just people forcing others to abide by their religious customs.


The difference is that while they are mpdeling the law around either Muslim or Protestant teachings, they are still just saying "We think not doing this stuff is right so lets make it law" which is the same as people saying "We think not farking kids is right so lets make it law." Again, both are examples of people using the law to force the community to act in the way they believe to be "right" but neither is forcing a religion onto another. There is no conversion happening in either example.

See the distinction? As I said, it is a fine one.
 
2014-03-24 09:06:16 PM  
allylloyd:
//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.

It seems to be the standard "move the goal posts" answer. At one time Genesis was believed to be the literal truth, science proved it differently then it became "Well, okay that part is not literal, but God was still in the equation, he just started the Big Bang".

So what about those generations of people who believed the literal interpretation of Genesis? Was God purposefully lying to them by denying the people who wrote the Bible the scientific truth of how the Universe was created? Or was Genesis just written by people who were basically making up what they thought was their best guess as to how the Universe came to be created and God had nothing to do with the writing of it.

If you're going to start picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are just stories primitive goat herders made up to explain things they didn't understand then why start believing any of it? Why not just recognize it for what it is, legends and myths. The Bible just like any other religious tome is nothing but the ancient stories told by ancient people to entertain, act as morality plays, and try to explain things they couldn't understand.

How can one say "well the God of the ancient book I believe in is the real God, but the gods in the ancient books those other guys believe in are obviously just legends and myths"?

How can it not be obvious that they're ALL just legends and myths? The comic book fictions of primitive people who didn't know how to publish comic books.

What logical reason could there be to believe in one set of comic book mythologies over the others? I can understand being a "fan" of one set over another. Liking the myths of one ancient culture more that another. I love the ancient stories and can appreciate them without believing in them. I just don't understand what would making anyone believe they were true. It's as confusing to me as it would be to try to understand why someone believes that Batman is real.
 
2014-03-24 09:12:07 PM  
CanisNoir

No, I don't see the fine distinction between individuals forcing other people to follow their religious customs because of their personal philosophy based on their religion and individuals forcing other people to follow their religious customs because of their religion.

Mainly because there's no such distinction.
 
2014-03-24 09:12:34 PM  

Ghastly: allylloyd:
//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.

It seems to be the standard "move the goal posts" answer. At one time Genesis was believed to be the literal truth, science proved it differently then it became "Well, okay that part is not literal, but God was still in the equation, he just started the Big Bang".

So what about those generations of people who believed the literal interpretation of Genesis? Was God purposefully lying to them by denying the people who wrote the Bible the scientific truth of how the Universe was created? Or was Genesis just written by people who were basically making up what they thought was their best guess as to how the Universe came to be created and God had nothing to do with the writing of it.

If you're going to start picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are just stories primitive goat herders made up to explain things they didn't understand then why start believing any of it? Why not just recognize it for what it is, legends and myths. The Bible just like any other religious tome is nothing but the ancient stories told by ancient people to entertain, act as morality plays, and try to explain things they couldn't understand.

How can one say "well the God of the ancient book I believe in is the real God, but the gods in the ancient books those other guys believe in are obviously just legends and myths"?

How can it not be obvious that they're ALL just legends and myths? The comic book fictions of primitive people who didn't know how to publish comic books.

What logical reason could there be to believe in one set of comic book mythologies over the others? I can understand being a "fan" of one set over another. Liking the myths of one ancient culture more that another. I love the ancient stories and can appreciate them without believing in them. I just don't understand what would making anyone believe they were true. It's as confusing to me as it would be to try to understand why someone believes that Batman is real.


So, you think if God were to communicate knowledge about the inner workings of the Universe to bronze age tribesman, he'd send Moses down with a discected DNA strand on tablets? If our scientific understanding can grow and evolve, why can't our Spiritual understanding do the same?
 
2014-03-24 09:15:23 PM  
I dont think Bill has much too worry about from God. I think he has a sense of humor.
His followers? Not so much, and I wouldn't turn my back on them.
 
2014-03-24 09:37:11 PM  

Ghastly: whidbey: Ghastly: It's not a nonapodeictic, agnostic atheist nor a nonapodeictic, agnostic theist, nor even an apatheist position I take umbrage with but the further pollution of the English language with vagary and dilution for the purpose of setting one up as a special little snowflake, superior to all others.

I'd still urge you to get over it. And people who continue to question centuries of oppressive ideology are special to me, if anything, just for doing it.

The problem is, people who identify as CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostics don't question. They walk into the middle of the conversation, shiat on everyone participating then strut around claiming to have taken the superior position. It's contrarianism and nothing more.


I fail to see any actual examples. It sounds more like your take on it than what happens in general.

Sorry.
 
2014-03-24 09:39:16 PM  

CanisNoir: So, you think if God were to communicate knowledge about the inner workings of the Universe to bronze age tribesman, he'd send Moses down with a discected DNA strand on tablets? If our scientific understanding can grow and evolve, why can't our Spiritual understanding do the same?


I'm just saying there could have been something between A Brief History of Time and "I made men out of dirt and women out of dirt's rib and then a talking snake came along and ruined it for everyone".
 
2014-03-24 09:41:30 PM  

ciberido: But if there's no soul, and no afterlife: I don't see how religion can coexist with that.


But not all religion focuses on an afterlife. We can be spiritual beings and accept that our corporeal bodies cease.

And honestly, it's pretty arrogant to "know" what happens after death.

That's why agnosticism> atheism
 
2014-03-24 09:41:50 PM  

whidbey: Ghastly: whidbey: Ghastly: It's not a nonapodeictic, agnostic atheist nor a nonapodeictic, agnostic theist, nor even an apatheist position I take umbrage with but the further pollution of the English language with vagary and dilution for the purpose of setting one up as a special little snowflake, superior to all others.

I'd still urge you to get over it. And people who continue to question centuries of oppressive ideology are special to me, if anything, just for doing it.

The problem is, people who identify as CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostics don't question. They walk into the middle of the conversation, shiat on everyone participating then strut around claiming to have taken the superior position. It's contrarianism and nothing more.

I fail to see any actual examples. It sounds more like your take on it than what happens in general.

Sorry.


Anytime there's someone saying "frankly I find atheists just as annoying as fundamentalists" you've got a CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostic.
 
2014-03-24 09:44:05 PM  

Ghastly: whidbey: Ghastly: whidbey: Ghastly: It's not a nonapodeictic, agnostic atheist nor a nonapodeictic, agnostic theist, nor even an apatheist position I take umbrage with but the further pollution of the English language with vagary and dilution for the purpose of setting one up as a special little snowflake, superior to all others.

I'd still urge you to get over it. And people who continue to question centuries of oppressive ideology are special to me, if anything, just for doing it.

The problem is, people who identify as CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostics don't question. They walk into the middle of the conversation, shiat on everyone participating then strut around claiming to have taken the superior position. It's contrarianism and nothing more.

I fail to see any actual examples. It sounds more like your take on it than what happens in general.

Sorry.

Anytime there's someone saying "frankly I find atheists just as annoying as fundamentalists" you've got a CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnostic.


OK, well I agree with that.
 
2014-03-24 09:46:22 PM  

CanisNoir: Facetious_Speciest: CanisNoir

I don't buy it. If a community of individual Muslims decide no one should eat before sundown during Ramadan, they're forcing their religious beliefs on other people. Laws made by Protestants regarding alcohol on Sundays are no different. There's no fine distinction, just people forcing others to abide by their religious customs.

The difference is that while they are mpdeling the law around either Muslim or Protestant teachings, they are still just saying "We think not doing this stuff is right so lets make it law" which is the same as people saying "We think not farking kids is right so lets make it law." Again, both are examples of people using the law to force the community to act in the way they believe to be "right" but neither is forcing a religion onto another. There is no conversion happening in either example.

See the distinction? As I said, it is a fine one.


All we "see" is that you want to dismiss religious fundamentalism as being the same thing as secular law.

And you are very wrong in making this continually ridiculous false comparison.
 
2014-03-24 09:48:52 PM  
whidbey:
That's why agnosticism> atheism

Agnostic is a modifier, it modifies the non atheist or theist.

That's like saying "red >car".

What type of agnostic are you talking about? Apodeictic agnostic atheists? Apodeictic agnostic theists? Nonapodeictic agnostic atheists? Nonapodeictic theists?

Or are you just a contrarian who divides the argument into two sides, both of which you feel are inferior to you?
 
2014-03-24 09:52:13 PM  

Ghastly: What type of agnostic are you talking about? Apodeictic agnostic atheists? Apodeictic agnostic theists? Nonapodeictic agnostic atheists? Nonapodeictic theists?


I don't care really. I am an agnostic that merely questions the existence of God. There are half a dozen definitions which back up my position.

Or are you just a contrarian who divides the argument into two sides, both of which you feel are inferior to you?

I don't believe I've earned such a title, honestly. I think the Judeo-Christian religion is outdated and full of bigotry, but I don't discount the possibility that people can lead spiritual lives discovering new things about the world and the universe they live.

How would you classify that?
 
2014-03-24 09:54:29 PM  

Mirrorz: We Answers Find in Our Genesis. Don't dead. Open Inside.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]


lh5.googleusercontent.com

/I am not really saying he does
//the smiles in the original scared me
///So I helped the image evolve
 
2014-03-24 10:11:03 PM  

allylloyd: Ghastly: allylloyd:

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!

So basically, I believe in the god I believe in because the books about the god I believe in tell me that they're right and the authority figure for my religion backs this up.

I don't know how or why YOU believe in God or anything else and frankly, I don't care. So long as you aren't having sex with children under 18 or animals, I really don't give a damn what you do!

//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.


no.  The question you were supposed to be answering was: why episcopalian?  why not catholic, or other protestant variant?  baptist, southern baptist, jehovah's witness, evangelical Presbyterian snake handler...

and we all know the answer to that... because that was the sect of christianity that you grew up in and were spoon fed... you didn't consider any other 'version' of christianity, you didn't look at the issues that caused the splits in the various Christian sects... let alone even question christianity as 'the one true religion'... you didn't compare and contrast christianity to islam or judiaism, you didn't read about the various other popular non-abrahamic religions... you chose to conform without putting much thought into it... it was the easy answer.

you are supposedly living your life according the the beliefs of your chosen christian sect and you don't even know how episcopalian differs in their beliefs from catholicism...  allegedly your entire 'eternal life' is riding on this decision but you took the easy answer that didn't require any effort to make... assuming your parents and their parents chose correctly before you.
 
2014-03-24 10:17:40 PM  

Sofa King Smart: allylloyd: Ghastly: allylloyd:

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!

So basically, I believe in the god I believe in because the books about the god I believe in tell me that they're right and the authority figure for my religion backs this up.

I don't know how or why YOU believe in God or anything else and frankly, I don't care. So long as you aren't having sex with children under 18 or animals, I really don't give a damn what you do!

//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.

no.  The question you were supposed to be answering was: why episcopalian?  why not catholic, or other protestant variant?  baptist, southern baptist, jehovah's witness, evangelical Presbyterian snake handler...

and we all know the answer to that... because that was the sect of christianity that you grew up in and were spoon fed... you didn't consider any other 'version' of christianity, you didn't look at the issues that caused the splits in the various Christian sects... let alone even question christianity as 'the one true religion'... you didn't compare and contrast christianity to islam or judiaism, you didn't read about the various other popular non-abrahamic religions... you chose to conform without putting much thought into it... it was the easy answer.

you are supposedly living your life according the the beliefs of your chosen christian sect and you don't even know how episcopalian differs in their beliefs from catholicism...  allegedly your entire 'eternal life' is riding on this decision but you took the easy answer that didn't require any effort to make... assuming your parents and their parents chose correctly before you.


for the record... your version of christianity exists simply because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and the catholic church wouldn't annul his existing marriage or grant him a divorce.. so he created his own version of the church that would do the bidding of the British royalty.... jeez that's about as stupid a schism as mormonism.... but certainly something to base this life and your eternal soul on.
 
2014-03-24 10:31:25 PM  

whidbey: Ghastly: What type of agnostic are you talking about? Apodeictic agnostic atheists? Apodeictic agnostic theists? Nonapodeictic agnostic atheists? Nonapodeictic theists?

I don't care really. I am an agnostic that merely questions the existence of God. There are half a dozen definitions which back up my position.

Or are you just a contrarian who divides the argument into two sides, both of which you feel are inferior to you?

I don't believe I've earned such a title, honestly. I think the Judeo-Christian religion is outdated and full of bigotry, but I don't discount the possibility that people can lead spiritual lives discovering new things about the world and the universe they live.

How would you classify that?


Well first I'd ask do you believe in god(s) or do you not have a belief in god(s)?

If you believe in god(s) you are a theist. If you do not believe in god(s) you are an atheist.

Then I'd ask you do you know if god does/doesn't exist.

If you know god does/doesn't exist then your belief is gnostic. If you don't know if god does/doesn't exist then your belief is agnostic.

Then I'd ask if you believe god's existence/lack-of-existence can be proven.

If you believe if can be proven then your belief is apodeictic. If you believe it cannot be proven then your belief is non-apodeictic.

If you answer the questions with essentially "I don't know and I don't care" then you're an apatheist.

If you answer with "the only concepts I can grasp are theist, atheist, and what I define agnostic to mean and I'm the one whose definition let's me feel all self righteous" then I'd say you're a CAPTIAL-LETTER-A Agnostic.

Now I know to lay people a supercharger and a turbocharger mean the exact same thing even though they are different machines, and when you're hanging with your buddies in the bar talking about cars using the terms interchangeably is no big deal. But if you're talking with a mechanic then you'd better use the right terms.

Now I know your little CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnosticism might make you look cool and edgy on your tumblr blog, but if you're actually going to carry on a theological discussion with people who have an education in religious studies it might be a good idea to use the terms of the trade.
 
2014-03-24 10:39:35 PM  

Sofa King Smart: Sofa King Smart: allylloyd: Ghastly: allylloyd:

Read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130">http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

It was written by the Presiding Bishop of my church.

//So I can't answer the way you want to. I'm not a doll!

So basically, I believe in the god I believe in because the books about the god I believe in tell me that they're right and the authority figure for my religion backs this up.

I don't know how or why YOU believe in God or anything else and frankly, I don't care. So long as you aren't having sex with children under 18 or animals, I really don't give a damn what you do!

//Read the article. Presiding Bishop Katherine gives an excellent explanation of the Episcopal Church and its members thoughts/ideas/POVs.

no.  The question you were supposed to be answering was: why episcopalian?  why not catholic, or other protestant variant?  baptist, southern baptist, jehovah's witness, evangelical Presbyterian snake handler...

and we all know the answer to that... because that was the sect of christianity that you grew up in and were spoon fed... you didn't consider any other 'version' of christianity, you didn't look at the issues that caused the splits in the various Christian sects... let alone even question christianity as 'the one true religion'... you didn't compare and contrast christianity to islam or judiaism, you didn't read about the various other popular non-abrahamic religions... you chose to conform without putting much thought into it... it was the easy answer.

you are supposedly living your life according the the beliefs of your chosen christian sect and you don't even know how episcopalian differs in their beliefs from catholicism...  allegedly your entire 'eternal life' is riding on this decision but you took the easy answer that didn't require any effort to make... assuming your parents and their parents chose correctly before you.

for the record... your version ...


That version of history is up there with, Columbus discovered America, Cook discovered Australia or Newton discovered gravity when an apple fell on his head.
 
2014-03-24 11:24:16 PM  

Ghastly: CanisNoir: So, you think if God were to communicate knowledge about the inner workings of the Universe to bronze age tribesman, he'd send Moses down with a discected DNA strand on tablets? If our scientific understanding can grow and evolve, why can't our Spiritual understanding do the same?

I'm just saying there could have been something between A Brief History of Time and "I made men out of dirt and women out of dirt's rib and then a talking snake came along and ruined it for everyone".


And more importantly, what magical, amazing rainbow of knowledge makes the current assumptions of "spiritual understanding" correct when all the previous ones clearly weren't and unlike science, you refuse to test or refine or prove it?

A favored analogy of mine is the likening of magic and faith to the deadbeat brother.  Every once in a while when you call on him he shows up and manages to be what you needed at the time you needed it.  He shows up in his beat-up Ford when your car broke down and gets you where you need to go.

The REST of the time he not only fails to show up (despite promising to) he steals money for his drug habit, he breaks your car trying to "fix" it, and he ends up letting your kid play in traffic while passed out on the couch.  He tries, (no really!) and he never means to screw you over or screw up or fail but he almost always does.

That's magic, that's the god or the dowsing rod or the guardian angel that consistently fails double-blind case studies and never manages to provide repeatable or reliable results.  It is the fundamentally unreliable functionality of life.  A factor that you can never expect to work and will only bet your chips on when you're out of other options.

I don't begrudge you loving, caring for, and wasting some of your own cash on that beloved-but-hopeless brother, but I do not owe you or him my time and my life trying to get useful results out of him.  Nor should you let your love of him be to the detriment of your own life.  You can try dowsing when you're dying of thirst and lost, and you can ask your deadbeat brother to make sure your kids get home when you're in the hospital and have no one else to call, but you're a fool if the two of them aren't your last of last resorts.
 
2014-03-24 11:27:32 PM  

theotherles: Maher is a Marxist.  Marxists are properly dealt with by one round in the head in the old Soviet style.


*yawwn*

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 11:29:57 PM  

Ghastly: Now I know your little CAPITAL-LETTER-A Agnosticism might make you look cool and edgy on your tumblr blog, but if you're actually going to carry on a theological discussion with people who have an education in religious studies it might be a good idea to use the terms of the trade.


Well see, that's kind of annoying.

Questioning gods shouldn't have so many rules of discussion. And if the person is questioning religion, why should they respect theologians at all? Can't the argument be made that it's just made up shiat that doesn't have philosophical value?


whidbey: Ghastly: What type of agnostic are you talking about? Apodeictic agnostic atheists? Apodeictic agnostic theists? Nonapodeictic agnostic atheists? Nonapodeictic theists?

I don't care really. I am an agnostic that merely questions the existence of God. There are half a dozen definitions which back up my position.

Or are you just a contrarian who divides the argument into two sides, both of which you feel are inferior to you?

I don't believe I've earned such a title, honestly. I think the Judeo-Christian religion is outdated and full of bigotry, but I don't discount the possibility that people can lead spiritual lives discovering new things about the world and the universe they live.

How would you classify that?


Well first I'd ask do you believe in god(s) or do you not have a belief in god(s)?

If you believe in god(s) you are a theist. If you do not believe in god(s) you are an atheist.

Then I'd ask you do you know if god does/doesn't exist.

If you know god does/doesn't exist then your belief is gnostic. If you don't know if god does/doesn't exist then your belief is agnostic.

Then I'd ask if you believe god's existence/lack-of-existence can be proven.

If you believe if can be proven then your belief is apodeictic. If you believe it cannot be proven then your belief is non-apodeictic.

If you answer the questions with essentially "I don't know and I don't care" then you're an apatheist.


Actually I don't fit into any of those categories. "I don't know" is the answer, certainly, but I do care if there are other enlightened ways to find spirituality.
 
2014-03-25 12:12:43 AM  

whidbey: Actually I don't fit into any of those categories


Should we go through them one at a time?

1)Do you believe the existence of god(s) can be proven?

2)Do you know if god(s) exist or not?

3) Do you believe in god(s)?
 
2014-03-25 12:18:01 AM  
whidbey:
Well see, that's kind of annoying.

Up unpacked friendly ecstatic so possible humoured do. Ample end might folly quiet one set spoke her. We no am former valley assure. Four need spot ye said we find mile. Are commanded him convinced dashwoods did estimable forfeited. Shy celebrated met sentiments she reasonably but. Proposal its disposed eat advanced marriage sociable. Drawings led greatest add subjects endeavor gay remember. Principles one yet assistance you met impossible.

That is what it is like to live in a world where people just make up their own definitions for words as it suits them. Annoying doesn't begin to describe it.

If nowhere in the glory of what is the English language you can find a word that suits your meaning then do what scholars do. MAKE A NEW WORD. Don't just start arbitrarily redefining words to mean whatever is convenient for you at the time. That shiat farks up language.
 
2014-03-25 12:32:25 AM  

Ghastly: whidbey: Actually I don't fit into any of those categories

Should we go through them one at a time?
I)Do you believe the existence of god(s) can be proven?

2)Do you know if god(s) exist or not?

3) Do you believe in god(s)?


Again, I find all of those categories extremely rigid and pigeonholing. But for your personal closure here, I am close to the "non-apodeictic" qualities. Actually "Agnostic" is good enough, but you had to have a cow about that, didn't you?

That is what it is like to live in a world where people just make up their own definitions for words as it suits them. Annoying doesn't begin to describe it.

If nowhere in the glory of what is the English language you can find a word that suits your meaning then do what scholars do. MAKE A NEW WORD. Don't just start arbitrarily redefining words to mean whatever is convenient for you at the time. That shiat farks up language.


Guess I won't let on that I'm a writer and my specialty is English, then. Should I call you "Teach?"
;)
 
Displayed 50 of 515 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report