Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MadKally · 05-14-2002, 09:00 PM

sock, puppet, says, NITPICK ALERT!!!!!!!,,,

aza wood · 05-14-2002, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scombrid:
Goddamn, learn how to use a comma properly. Reading your post taught me what it must be like to be William Shatner when trying to speak. Your writing reads something like this. You used (pause) a flawed (pause) argument (pause) so you are (pause) wrong.

Don't go getting all religious on me.

Quote:

I ordinarily do not complain about grammar or spelling as I tend to be colloquial in style myself. However, I could hardly read your post for the excessive misplacment of commas.

You shouldn't complain about your grama smelling, my grama smells too. They can't help it.

Quote:

Eventually I got your point and partially agree. It sucks to have to concede bullshit to make your point. However, keep in mind that the article is written for true believers. The first step in getting them to question their belief is to get them to recognize flaws in their dogma, even if that requires that you argue from the standpoint of the veracity of their text.

My dog doesn't even know his ma, but, i think that i fetch, your meaning?

aza wood · 05-14-2002, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sockpuppet:
sock, puppet, says, NITPICK ALERT!!!!!!!,,,

Would the sock puppet say that, if the person using the Bible for his/her only documenttation was an Xian, and not a good old boy Atheist? If so, then sock puppet could be right, butt i can't see that occurring.

BibleBelted · 05-15-2002, 07:06 AM

aza,

I understand your point clearly.

You are saying that you cannot use the bible against itself to prove anything because it is wrong. You feel that this vindicates the bible and proves Don Morgan does not know what he's talking about so he should just shut up.

I think this states your case plainly and all your further efforts to illuminate it have failed to add any brightness.

Since apparently neither of us are well-versed in higher literary criticism, I shall try to answer you using an automotive analogy. (Satan told me you're into NASCAR)

Say you just bought a new car and the engine started to run crappy. You take it to the dealer and demand it be fixed; however, he insists there is nothing wrong with it. You take him to the car and have him listen to the engine sputtering and knocking and tell him there is something obviously wrong with it and he must be incredibly ignorant to not see this.

His response is that, since the engine is a piece of crap, it cannot be relied upon to accurately exhibit the qualities that would prove its' crappiness.

Therefore, you should admit:

The engine is perfect.

You're a dufus.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]

abe smith · 05-15-2002, 09:09 AM

Wet glove >>>>>>>>>> My impression Izz that no-one is likely to have much success in attempting to show a {HEY, you read the longshoreman Eric's book called *The True Believer*?} a True Believer that his/her/other's dogma/dogmata are ill-logical, erroneous, false , whatever. True Believers are by definition not accessible to any arguments wh/ call their beliefs into question. They do keep coming here tho; [so] I suppose we do have to keep tryng to shoot them down. {sigh] Of course, True Believing atheists , of whom I am one, class under this same rubric. [sigh]

southernhybrid · 05-15-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

My impression Izz that no-one is likely to have much success in attempting to show a {HEY, you read the longshoreman Eric's book called *The True Believer*?} a True Believer that his/her/other's dogma/dogmata are ill-logical, erroneous, false , whatever. True Believers are by definition not accessible to any arguments wh/ call their beliefs into question.

You're right abe! It's good to see you're still livin' it!

aza wood · 05-16-2002, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BibleBelted:
aza,

I understand your point clearly.

You are saying that you cannot use the bible against itself to prove anything because it is wrong. You feel that this vindicates the bible and proves Don Morgan does not know what he's talking about so he should just shut up.

I think this states your case plainly and all your further efforts to illuminate it have failed to add any brightness.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]

No. I am not saying that "you can not use the Bible against itself". Of corse you can. What I am saying is that unless Don is just joking, spoofing, or being facetious, he makes no sense. He uses the Bible as his only documentation, to prove "Jesus as a false prophet"and then in his post, plainly says that the bible. (his only source) is questionable. This make him as questionable as the Bible.
It also proves nothing about "Jesus", which is his purpose for writing this SA, according to his tittle("Jesus" is a false prophet) .

aza wood · 05-16-2002, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith:
Wet glove >>>>>>>>>> My impression Izz that no-one is likely to have much success in attempting to show a {HEY, you read the longshoreman Eric's book called *The True Believer*?} a True Believer that his/her/other's dogma/dogmata are ill-logical, erroneous, false , whatever. True Believers are by definition not accessible to any arguments wh/ call their beliefs into question. They do keep coming here tho; [so] I suppose we do have to keep tryng to shoot them down. {sigh] Of course, True Believing atheists , of whom I am one, class under this same rubric. [sigh]

I agree with you. They do not have to know anything to be a believer. They are not called "Knowers".

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]

aza wood · 05-16-2002, 05:12 AM

Let me try, to clarify. I appreciate how you can say that the Bible has errors. It plainly does.
What I do not understand is how you can then take an erroneous book, and use it for your only source of reference and expect any kind of credibility.
You'll are so occupied with patting each other on the butts, that you can not see how foolish your arguments sound to outsiders.

BibleBelted · 05-16-2002, 05:27 AM

aza wood posted:

Quote:

No. I am not saying that "you can not use the Bible against itself". Of corse you can. What I am saying is that unless Don is just joking, spoofing, or being facetious, he makes no sense. He uses the Bible as his only documentation, to prove "Jesus as a false prophet"and then in his post, plainly says that the bible. (his only source) is questionable. This make him as questionable as the Bible.

So you're saying Don Morgan needs to make his case with sources other than the bible because it is unreliable?

You know there is little said about Jebus outside of the bible and other non-canonical gospels. In fact, it is hard to find any non-biblical references to Jebus that are not spurious or written well after the fact. Almost like some fictional character.

So you agree that the bible is full of lies? (Y/N)

Yet you still maintain Jebus is the son of gawd? (Y/N)

I just want to be sure I'm grasping your position correctly.

05-15-2002, 07:06 AM	#14
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	aza, I understand your point clearly. You are saying that you cannot use the bible against itself to prove anything because it is wrong. You feel that this vindicates the bible and proves Don Morgan does not know what he's talking about so he should just shut up. I think this states your case plainly and all your further efforts to illuminate it have failed to add any brightness. Since apparently neither of us are well-versed in higher literary criticism, I shall try to answer you using an automotive analogy. (Satan told me you're into NASCAR) Say you just bought a new car and the engine started to run crappy. You take it to the dealer and demand it be fixed; however, he insists there is nothing wrong with it. You take him to the car and have him listen to the engine sputtering and knocking and tell him there is something obviously wrong with it and he must be incredibly ignorant to not see this. His response is that, since the engine is a piece of crap, it cannot be relied upon to accurately exhibit the qualities that would prove its' crappiness. Therefore, you should admit: The engine is perfect. You're a dufus. And you don't know what you're talking about. [ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2002, 09:00 PM	#11
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	sock, puppet, says, NITPICK ALERT!!!!!!!,,,

05-15-2002, 09:09 AM	#15
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Wet glove >>>>>>>>>> My impression Izz that no-one is likely to have much success in attempting to show a {HEY, you read the longshoreman Eric's book called The True Believer?} a True Believer that his/her/other's dogma/dogmata are ill-logical, erroneous, false , whatever. True Believers are by definition not accessible to any arguments wh/ call their beliefs into question. They do keep coming here tho; [so] I suppose we do have to keep tryng to shoot them down. {sigh] Of course, True Believing atheists , of whom I am one, class under this same rubric. [sigh]

05-16-2002, 05:12 AM	#19
aza wood Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Planet Earth,Solar system of the Sun,Galaxy Milky Way,U.C.L. D- 51 Posts: 99	Let me try, to clarify. I appreciate how you can say that the Bible has errors. It plainly does. What I do not understand is how you can then take an erroneous book, and use it for your only source of reference and expect any kind of credibility. You'll are so occupied with patting each other on the butts, that you can not see how foolish your arguments sound to outsiders.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.