Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 9:48 AM
368 online now:
Aussie, herebedragons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile (7 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,799 Year: 21,405/21,208 Month: 1,838/2,326 Week: 293/881 Day: 11/107 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Author Topic:   Does Athiesm = no beliefs?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 316 of 348 (786450)
06-21-2016 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Phat
06-18-2016 3:14 PM


Re: Ringos Believe It Or Not
So you got nothing?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Phat, posted 06-18-2016 3:14 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9596
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 317 of 348 (786459)
06-22-2016 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Theodoric
06-18-2016 11:59 PM


Re: Ringos Believe It Or Not
I dont have any specific examples...I just know that I talk to a lot of people...and they dont want to know God...or at least the god I market.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Theodoric, posted 06-18-2016 11:59 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:52 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 645
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 318 of 348 (786470)
06-22-2016 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
06-21-2016 2:11 PM


You, too, omitted the part where you go on to proclaim that the idea is wrong. Funny how you guys just remove that part instead of addressing it.

How did I omit that the idea was wrong? If I decided against the idea due to specific factors that I cited, does that not, by inference, imply that the idea was wrong or a bad one?

Are you no longer an atheist if you proselytize?

Am I promoting a belief system? Is there a church I am attending?

You could inform your roommate that you cannot have a tree in the back yard.

But is that the same as saying we now have a non-existent tree in out backyard? Which statement do you think will get me a funny look?

"Only natural beings exist on this planet and none of the extra-things that anybody may come up with are going to be real. None of them exist. Disbelieve them all, son, and go and spread this truth. There are no hidden beings around us."

I am not sure why you are quoting this. It is not anything I stated.

quote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
From wikipedia

It doesn't require a claim to take that position nor to proclaim it yourself.

I am sorry, but you are still seeing things ass-backwards. How any anyone make a claim about the non-existence of something if there is no concrete frame of reference? There is no logical basis for that to occur.

Consider the following statement:

"I don't believe in the Argulsneezer."

What does that mean? If I uttered that statement, wouldn't the immediate response from any individual be: "What's an Argulsneezer?"

There is no way someone can reject in the affirmative that which has not been posited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2016 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Diomedes has responded
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:02 PM Diomedes has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 319 of 348 (786473)
06-22-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Phat
06-22-2016 2:03 AM


Re: Ringos Believe It Or Not
So this claim is bull? You know no one that has said this?
There are some who would prefer that there be no God. There are others who wish fervently that it were so.

and they dont want to know God...or at least the god I market.

Because the first comment is not equal to the second. You finally may be getting it with the final clause on your last comment.

Please stop trying to impute the feelings of people that have a different view of the supernatural than you do. It is extremely insulting.

I could just as easily say you believe in a god, because you are incapable of taking personal responsibility. Or that you fear the unknown so you are willing to believe anything.
I would be wrong though, because I have no idea why you have the faith you do. So quit telling other people why the believe what they believe. It is insulting.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Phat, posted 06-22-2016 2:03 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 320 of 348 (786474)
06-22-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Diomedes
06-22-2016 10:38 AM


The problem with people like Cat Sci and most religious is that they think belief is the default. Lack of belief to them is an active rejection of something.
No-belief is actually the default. If it were the other way around everyone would have the same belief in a god, even people that were not indoctrinated. They would have the belief naturally.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 10:38 AM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 11:24 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 323 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:06 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 327 by Phat, posted 06-22-2016 4:01 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 645
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 321 of 348 (786475)
06-22-2016 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Theodoric
06-22-2016 10:59 AM


The problem with people like Cat Sci and most religious is that they think belief is the default. Lack of belief to them is an active rejection of something.

That is often true. Ironically, it proves my original point: that the active belief must precede the rejection of said belief. I am not sure how anyone can assume that one can have an active 'dis-belief' in something that has not yet been defined or posited.

No-belief is actually the default. If it were the other way around everyone would have the same belief in a god, even people that were not indoctrinated. They would have the belief naturally.

Therein probably lies part of the confusion on their part. 'No Belief' as you are defining it is not the same as a rejection of a belief or a dis-belief. It is basically a clean slate. The entity in question has not been presented details on anything and as such, has no concept of the existence or non-existence of anything that is being presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11675
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 322 of 348 (786478)
06-22-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Diomedes
06-22-2016 10:38 AM


You, too, omitted the part where you go on to proclaim that the idea is wrong. Funny how you guys just remove that part instead of addressing it.

How did I omit that the idea was wrong?

You omitted the part of proclaiming that the idea was wrong, you stopped short of active disbelief to maintain the position that it is simply a response to a claim.

It is actually possible for atheism to be a claim. I don't know why you guys cannot admit that.

It's kinda funny, though, that the arguments are now that atheism can only be a response to a claim, and without a claim there is nothing to respond to and therefore no atheism. Because before, the arguments were that everyone is an atheist by default (because it is simply a lack of belief) until they hear about the concept of god. But now, hearing about the concept of god is required before someone can reject it and therefore be an atheist. Weird.

Anyways, atheism is a broad brush and there are different levels to it. There is no one thing that is atheism. There are three categories:

1) lack of belief that god exists
2) rejection of claim that god exist
3) active belief that god does not exist

To insist that atheism is really only just one of those things is incorrect.

Are you no longer an atheist if you proselytize?

Am I promoting a belief system? Is there a church I am attending?

Church attendance is not required for belief, and the point I'm making is that if you are promoting the belief that god does not exist then you are still an atheist despite not simply responding to a claim. You are arguing for it having to be a response to a claim, I'm showing where you are wrong.

You could inform your roommate that you cannot have a tree in the back yard.

But is that the same as saying we now have a non-existent tree in out backyard?

Why does it have to be phrased that way? Wouldn't a person proclaiming the belief that gods cannot exist be an atheist?

"Only natural beings exist on this planet and none of the extra-things that anybody may come up with are going to be real. None of them exist. Disbelieve them all, son, and go and spread this truth. There are no hidden beings around us."

I am not sure why you are quoting this. It is not anything I stated.

I put quotes around that to make it look like someone else was saying it, a hypothetical character. It was a response to your argument that a rejection of claims requires the claim to exist.

You can make beliefs and claims that would include the rejection of a claim that has not been made yet. In the example I provided, any and all non-natural beings are rejected outright, so if you come and claim that, say, an Argulsneezer exists, then if it is a non-natural being then it has already been rejected before it was even claimed.

I am sorry, but you are still seeing things ass-backwards.

Well no, I'm seeing things from all sides. You are the one insisting that there is only one way to view this thing. I'm saying that your way is one of the ways, but that there are others too.

I'm not sure why you can't accept that there are other ways besides yours?

Sure, atheism can be a rejection of a claim. It can also be a simple lack of belief. But, it too can be a claim in itself.

There's no reason to deny any of those. Why are you insisting that it can only be the first one?

How any anyone make a claim about the non-existence of something if there is no concrete frame of reference? There is no logical basis for that to occur.

Well, one way is to reject a broader category that the thing would be included in.

For example, if I claim that flying mammals do not exist, then I've already rejected the existence of bats even if I've never heard of them. It isn't an explicit rejection, but it follows logically.

Consider the following statement:

"I don't believe in the Argulsneezer."

What does that mean? If I uttered that statement, wouldn't the immediate response from any individual be: "What's an Argulsneezer?"

There is no way someone can reject in the affirmative that which has not been posited.

Consider someone taking the position that:

"I will disbelieve everything that you claim, no matter what it is."

Then no matter what you posit, they will have already rejected it.

But this is getting pretty pedantic, and straying from the point relating to atheism. You're insistence that atheism has to have a claim to reject is wrong for other reasons too:

Under the definition of atheism being simply a lack of belief in gods, an infant is an atheist before it can even verbally understand claims on gods existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 10:38 AM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11675
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 323 of 348 (786479)
06-22-2016 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Theodoric
06-22-2016 10:59 AM


The problem with people like Cat Sci and most religious is that they think belief is the default.

The problem with you is that you are really bad at telling what people are thinking based on what they have written.

I actually think that unbelief is the default.

Lack of belief to them is an active rejection of something.

Nope, wrong again.

I know the difference between nonbelief and disbelief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 645
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 324 of 348 (786481)
06-22-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
06-22-2016 12:02 PM


You omitted the part of proclaiming that the idea was wrong, you stopped short of active disbelief to maintain the position that it is simply a response to a claim.

So in other words, I have to stand on a pulpit and proclaim that the idea was wrong in order to complete the atheist checklist? I am sorry, but your insistence on such a need is predicated on your notion of atheists needing to make a proclamation in the affirmative. Which is not required.

It's kinda funny, though, that the arguments are now that atheism can only be a response to a claim, and without a claim there is nothing to respond to and therefore no atheism. Because before, the arguments were that everyone is an atheist by default (because it is simply a lack of belief) until they hear about the concept of god. But now, hearing about the concept of god is required before someone can reject it and therefore be an atheist. Weird.

Anyways, atheism is a broad brush and there are different levels to it. There is no one thing that is atheism. There are three categories:

1) lack of belief that god exists
2) rejection of claim that god exist
3) active belief that god does not exist

Actually, not, that is is accurate. You are mixing two concepts together: belief and knowledge. Which brings into the fray the concepts of gnosticism and agnosticism. But atheism in and of itself is not split across categories: it is simply a rejection of a claim. Any other affirmations beyond that step outside of the boundaries of the basic classification and get into more detail.

Why does it have to be phrased that way? Wouldn't a person proclaiming the belief that gods cannot exist be an atheist?

And how would one make that proclamation if the concept of gods was already not posited? Even in that phrasing, the concept must precede the response. There is no way around that.

In the example I provided, any and all non-natural beings are rejected outright, so if you come and claim that, say, an Argulsneezer exists, then if it is a non-natural being then it has already been rejected before it was even claimed.

Who says the Argulsneezer is non-natural? Do you see the mistake you just made? And this is the crux of the problem. You are spanning boundaries between the natural and the supernatural without quantifying either. Then you stipulate that one can make affirmations in the negative regarding something that has never been posited to begin with. Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Sure, atheism can be a rejection of a claim. It can also be a simple lack of belief. But, it too can be a claim in itself.

This goes back to Theodoric's point: the issue here is individuals who are religious unable to come to grips with the notion that their view is not accepted in the default. Therefore, there MUST be some 'anti-view' that acts counter to their view and it must have some positive affirmation associated with it. And I am sorry, but that is not the case. It is merely a construct created in religious circles as a means to create some counter-point strawman that they can then go after.

But this is getting pretty pedantic, and straying from the point relating to atheism. You're insistence that atheism has to have a claim to reject is wrong for other reasons too:

Under the definition of atheism being simply a lack of belief in gods, an infant is an atheist before it can even verbally understand claims on gods existence.

But the label only applies once the concept of a god or gods is posited. An infant is also illiterate. Does that make them 'anti-literate' with some positive affirmation in the negative towards being literate? The label only makes sense when the concept is posited.

In order to understand this, you need to be familiar with the concept of ternary or 'three value logic'. It is common in software parlance, especially those of us that have worked with databases.

In that sense, you can have 'true', 'false' and 'undefined' when considering instantiating a database object. This also is applicable to classes and objects. An object that has not been instantiated is 'undefined'. Often referred to as 'null'. If I then instantiate it with the variable '0' or '1', denoting true and false states, this is not the same in any way to the 'null' state.

Expanding that concept, theism/atheism are the 1 and 0 states. Null is undefined. But it is impossible to set the values to 1 or 0 until one instantiates the object. i.e. one creates the concept of defining a value of 1 or 0 in that object space. That instantiation of the object must occur. That is exactly equivalent to the concept of something needing to be posited prior to having a positive or negative affirmation associated with that object.

As such, one absolutely cannot have a positive or negative response to something until that something is defined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 1:43 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11675
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 325 of 348 (786487)
06-22-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Diomedes
06-22-2016 12:48 PM


So in other words, I have to stand on a pulpit and proclaim that the idea was wrong in order to complete the atheist checklist?

Nope, not at all.

A simple lack of belief in god, a rejection of the claim of god existing, and the active disbelief in the existence of god are all three a type of athiesm.

I'm not insisting that only one of those three is athiesm, you are.

Actually, not, that is is accurate.

I think you meant to say that I was not accurate. What I said fits with the wikipedia definition.

You are erroneously limiting atheism to a narrow sense than it is. I am trying to explain that it is broader than you are allowing for.

You are mixing two concepts together: belief and knowledge.

No, I'm not. Knowledge wasn't any part of it.

But atheism in and of itself is not split across categories: it is simply a rejection of a claim.

I disagree. I agree with wikipedia that in the narrowest sense, atheism is the active disbelief in gods. In a more broader sense, it is the rejection of the claim of gods existence. In the broadest sense, it is simply the lack of belief in a god.

Any other affirmations beyond that step outside of the boundaries of the basic classification and get into more detail.

No, a simple lack of belief in a god is actually less detail than the rejection of a claim of god's existence.

And how would one make that proclamation if the concept of gods was already not posited?

As I've said, with a broader proclamation that logically includes the more specific concept.

Even in that phrasing, the concept must precede the response. There is no way around that.

The phrase "No flying mammals exist." logically denies the existence of bats even if the speakers has never heard of one.

Who says the Argulsneezer is non-natural?

It was a conditional in the if-statement I made.

Then you stipulate that one can make affirmations in the negative regarding something that has never been posited to begin with. Sorry, but that makes no sense.

I understand what you are saying, in that you cannot explicitly reject a concept that has not been posited.

This goes back to Theodoric's point: the issue here is individuals who are religious unable to come to grips with the notion that their view is not accepted in the default.

That is not the issue here in the slightest. We are arguing what the meaning of the word is and you are using too narrow of a definition.

Shit, I gotta go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 12:48 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13473
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 326 of 348 (786504)
06-22-2016 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Tangle
06-21-2016 1:27 PM


Tangle writes:

That's possibly one of the dumbest arguments for arguments sake that you've come out with yet and there's a lot of competition.


So point out what's dumb about it. This is a discussion forum, not just an excuse for name-calling.

Tangle writes:

Except that believers try to use their beliefs to make me do things I don't want to and I regard as daft and dangerous in accordance to their beliefs.


Who said anything about believers? You insist that I am an atheist. You seem to want me on your side even though you think I'm dumb. You're an evangelical atheist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2016 1:27 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Tangle, posted 06-22-2016 5:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9596
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 327 of 348 (786509)
06-22-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Theodoric
06-22-2016 10:59 AM


All Insults Aside
Theodoric writes:

Please stop trying to impute the feelings of people that have a different view of the supernatural than you do. It is extremely insulting.
I could just as easily say you believe in a god, because you are incapable of taking personal responsibility. Or that you fear the unknown so you are willing to believe anything.
I would be wrong though, because I have no idea why you have the faith you do. So quit telling other people why they believe what they believe. It is insulting.

To start with, insulting you is the least of my worries. We are on a debate board and we often challenge each other, often aggressively. You yourself made a comment that I might be finally "getting it" when not two sentences later you tell me to stop speculating on your beliefs without knowing. So get over it.

As to your feelings and beliefs I can honestly say that I don't know them. I DO know that you are of above average intelligence and education and that you have studied the bible before. I can guess that you believe that the book was inspired solely by humans and not by God or some external force. Therefore if i quote scriptures to you they will only be reflections of what I believe. You are right about a few things, however... IMHO.

Theodoric writes:

No-belief is actually the default.

In my opinion this is truth. Paul tells us in Romans, however, that
quote:
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
I realize that quoting scriptures is unimpressive and unconvincing to some. Need I name them specifically? No. I understand that people have different views. We all have had different experiences and have been taught and/or influenced differently as well.

One thing that I strongly believe is that God understands the uniqueness and differences in individuals and if He wants to reach them he shall do so.

Even if the Bible as written was symbolic and was a communication from humans to humans, there is much that can be learned. Many of the old ideas such as idolatry are to be found in a modern day context. Just go to a car show! I would enjoy an argument as to whether people in the modern age still worship and idolize things (and people..(SI swimsuit edition as prime example) without even necessarily believing that they are doing so. Of course this is all my opinion. You may well have different beliefs or world views.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 4:25 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 328 of 348 (786512)
06-22-2016 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by New Cat's Eye
06-19-2016 12:21 PM


What do you call a belief system that claims that no gods exist?

A belief that no gods exist = strong atheism
A lack of belief that gods exist, but no absolute statement that gods do no exist = weak atheism
It is impossible to know if gods exist (and therefore, don't believe in any gods) = agnosticism

And to throw another hat in the arena:

A belief that claims should be backed by verifiable evidence = positive empiricism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-19-2016 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 8:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 329 of 348 (786513)
06-22-2016 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by New Cat's Eye
06-22-2016 12:06 PM


So when you used this argument you didn't really mean it?
Consider that the system implies believing itself exists and that the additional claim is that no god exists.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2016 11:00 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 330 of 348 (786516)
06-22-2016 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Phat
06-22-2016 4:01 PM


Re: All Insults Aside
Phat writes:

There are some who would prefer that there be no God. There are others who wish fervently that it were so.


So you going to stick with this?
To start with, insulting you is the least of my worries.

How christian of you. It seems a lot of religious people have no problem insulting the non-religious but are extremely thin skinned with all of their imagined sleights.
In my opinion this is truth.

Can you define truth?

Even if the Bible as written was symbolic and was a communication from humans to humans, there is much that can be learned. Many of the old ideas such as idolatry are to be found in a modern day context. Just go to a car show! I would enjoy an argument as to whether people in the modern age still worship and idolize things (and people..(SI swimsuit edition as prime example) without even necessarily believing that they are doing so. Of course this is all my opinion. You may well have different beliefs or world views.

Wow! You obviously have no concept of the historical and religious reality of idolatry. A car show or SI swimsuit edition, though offensive to many, is not in any way shape or form, like religious idolatry.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Phat, posted 06-22-2016 4:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017