Messages

31

Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical conversing

« on: November 14, 2012, 10:50:17 pm »Message ID: 641846

While "permits and tolerates" is indistinguishable from condoning, there is no valid evidence that some speculative supernatural entity has the ability to "condone" or not condone anything without assuming an existence, (and that assumption is logically-invalid).

Though I obviously agree, I've been stepping into their realm of thought lately just to show that there is major problems with this god's actions.

Understood however, the when the basic premise, (superstitious religiosu belief), is a non-basis for any rational conclusion, such perspectives are moot from the get-go.  It's precisely like arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" before establishing evidence for the existence of "angels".

32

Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical non=verse

« on: November 14, 2012, 10:16:36 pm »Message ID: 641832

"It is not that God condones slavery or any other sort of evil. He does not condone, but rather, permits and tolerates."

While "permits and tolerates" is indistinguishable from condoning, there is no valid evidence that some speculative supernatural entity has the ability to "condone" or not condone anything without assuming an existence, (and that assumption is logically-invalid).

33

Off-Topic / Re: Is anybody following the news on these 20 states?

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:51:09 pm »Message ID: 641822

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice"

No, they don't.  When a religious theocracy is in authority, people rise up against it.

Yes, they do. Religion aside ...

This context isn't a matter of "religion aside". When someone so fundamentally religious tries to use the term "righteous" in the context of government, they aren't putting "religion aside" but, are inherently implying that "righteous" means 'religiously-based'.

When they don't, they are evil, selfish, and are detrimental to the country.

Conversely, what is "righteous" to a religious believer isn't to non-religious persons and is likely support for a detrimental religious theocracy.

**Definition of RIGHTEOUS (Merriam-Webster.com)
1.  acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

Hence the inherent religious connotations of that term.

34

Debate & Discuss / Re: How To Handle Christian Persecution of non-xtians On FusionCash

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:45:33 pm »Message ID: 641821

... when i discuss bible truths and i dont wish to debate them ...

That's a more accurate summation of the religious evangelizing and overt proselytization engaged in by some fundies in lieu of debate.

35

Debate & Discuss / Re: How To Handle Christian Persecution of non-xtians On FusionCash

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:43:24 pm »Message ID: 641819

No one has the right to deny that decision ...

No one is denying the option, (not a "right"), for religious adherents to choose to believe in some superstitious mythology.  By the same token, those blinded by irrational "faith" do not have the option to deny more rational thinkers from posting dissenting viewpoints, (because that's tacit censorship on the part of the religious fundamentalists).
 

What is real to one may not be real to another ...

True; some are self-deluded by blind religious faith and others are not.

36

Off-Topic / Re: daily bible inverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:38:21 pm »Message ID: 641817

No more speaking with your non-reasoning to discuss this issue.  Good night.

Your assertion is manifestly false, as my previous posts in this context have been based on logical reasoning, (as opposed to presumptive faith-based religious irrationalities).

37

Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical reverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:35:50 pm »Message ID: 641815

I was responding about Egypt because their use of slavery was the ugly things you mentioned, and was not the slavery God allowed for the poor to have a way to survive. 

To reiterate; you may be referring to Aegyptian slavery, I was not.  Until now.  Where are the valid non-biblical references to Aegyptians treating their slaves any differently than Hebrews/Isrealites treated theirs.  Imputing religious justifcatons based upon unsubtantiated religious beliefs isn't logical, (and is therefore speciously irrational speculation).

If you want to twist words around again, then there is no more to say to you about this. 

On the contrary, I'm not the one making false assumptions and attributing them to something not stated or implied, (you were, xtian liar).  As it happens, I'd considered the examples of Chinese and Japanese slavery as well as the usage of slaves by "native" american/canadian tribes which consisted of the members of other tribes.  I still haven't mentioned Eygpt, (or 'Aegypt'), in regards to slavery - you are falsely imputed such to me.  That's more than a "twist"; it's you fabricating another strawman argument and falsely attributing it.

38

Off-Topic / Re: daily bible inverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:25:17 pm »Message ID: 641812

Whatever you choose to think with this is your prerogative

Thanks but, your 'permission' to think rationally is not required, (just as you don't need anyone else's 'permission' to think irrationally except your own).

- free choice and freedom to voice your stand.  Good for you, and good for all - we are fortunate to have this freedom.

Indeed; such an option would disappear under a dictatorial religious theocracy - something to avoid at all costs.

39

Off-Topic / Re: Is anybody following the news on these 20 states?

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:20:13 pm »Message ID: 641809

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice"

No, they don't.  When a religious theocracy is in authority, people rise up against it.

40

Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical reverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:18:21 pm »Message ID: 641808

The "slavery" being discussed here is not the same as you are trying to include.  You are speaking of the slavery that Egypt used. 

Nothing in my reply asserted anything about Egypt's use of slavery.

Research much? - applies to you with that - go for it.

Falsely assume much?  I know you do because there is extensively-archived evidence of it, (including this post, in which you try to tell me that I was "speaking of" something I never mentioned - which is also known as false attribution/lying).

41

Off-Topic / Re: daily bible inverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:14:01 pm »Message ID: 641805

Under the stipulations given

The "stipulations given" are based upon unfounded religious speculations regarding 'slavery' as a form of ancient welfare.  They rely upon further speculations attributing the form to a supernatural cause, which is not a reasoned hypothesis but, a faith-based, (sans evidence), assumption.
  

God was trying to help the poor ...

That's an unfounded attribution to a supernatural entity which has no evidentiary basis and instead, relies entirely upon a religious belief, (which has no evidentiary basis itself).  Basing one fiction upon another doesn't produce non-fiction.

42

Off-Topic / Re: daily bible reverse

« on: November 14, 2012, 08:46:12 pm »Message ID: 641797

"Do not be mislead.Bad associations spoil useful habits."

If that is the case, it is misleading to make false metaphysical/religious associations and spoil the usefulness of reasoned thought.

43

Off-Topic / Re: Do you watch the walking dead

« on: November 14, 2012, 08:27:21 pm »Message ID: 641782

Re: ***The Walking Dead***

44

Off-Topic / Re: daily non-bible non-debate refutation of the non-rational

« on: November 14, 2012, 08:01:47 pm »Message ID: 641774

I wouldn't waste anymore time debating this here (it's a verse thread,not a debate thread after all.) but obviously Falconer is going to hide behind his "I don't trust your source!" routine as usual.

Since the reference source is religio-mytho-illogical hearsay, it can't be trusted as a valid one.

45

Off-Topic / Re: daily Bibe verse

« on: November 14, 2012, 07:05:32 pm »Message ID: 641751

I have begun to study my Bibe again ...

Why, doesn't only read "Red Lobster"?