What counts as offsides in a Religious debate?

texo

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,589
No -- it's just you who doesn't have a clue. In most of your posts you rave on like a lunatic and make no sense at all. And I have yet to see you answer any of the direct questions which have been posed.
 

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
No -- it's just you who doesn't have a clue. In most of your posts you rave on like a lunatic and make no sense at all. And I have yet to see you answer any of the direct questions which have been posed.
There was no reasonable direct questions babyboy...sleep tight:)
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,076
Actually douwdouw, there have been multiple reasonable direct questions asked of you, yet you consistently refuse to answer them and just attack us, or accuse us of being stupid, or ignorant. Most of us have at least done some research and made an informed decision in our own minds, yes it doesn't gel with your view of reality but it is nonetheless an informed decision for us.

If you wish to try and convince an intelligent audience to believe in your "god" then you do need to, at the very least, address the valid concerns that we have regarding your "god" and the bible, most importantly its many contradictions.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,822
evilspinach : all of our posts seem lost on this person, they refuse to even begin to answer any question we put to them.
Its not surprising when they disregard logic totally and just keep spouting propaganda, clearly not much thought process going on.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,076
Syndyre : its actually amusing to watch the language deteriorate the angrier or more threatened they seem to get.

If they spouted intelligent propoganda it would be more useful, but they just seem to be obsessed with spouting propoganda that doesn't even pass as FUD.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,822
Syndyre : its actually amusing to watch the language deteriorate the angrier or more threatened they seem to get.

If they spouted intelligent propoganda it would be more useful, but they just seem to be obsessed with spouting propoganda that doesn't even pass as FUD.
Its amazing how the grammar of people on that side of the debate is often inexplicably bad, you'd think they could get a bit of divine help! :D

People always get aggressive when their beliefs are threatened and they no longer have any decent arguments to defend them with I suppose.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,076
Yeah, it is. I will be the first to stand up and say my grammar is usually shocking, but that side of the debate ALWAYS seem to make me look like an english scholar :D

Personally, I find it more useful to listen when someone threatens my belief and try to listen to them. I have found that it can at times benefit me greatly. Of course I would probably be a huge exception to the norm on that one.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,822
Personally, I find it more useful to listen when someone threatens my belief and try to listen to them. I have found that it can at times benefit me greatly. Of course I would probably be a huge exception to the norm on that one.
I'm the same, the difference I think is that, speaking for myself at least, I want my beliefs to be based on reality and empirical evidence so if someone can challenge them with real facts I'm interested to see what the truth really is.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,076
Yeah, exactly. That goes for me as well. I will admit I get slightly aggravated when someone challenges me and then refuses to accept the facts as I lay them out, but then thats their choice I suppose.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,822
Yeah, exactly. That goes for me as well. I will admit I get slightly aggravated when someone challenges me and then refuses to accept the facts as I lay them out, but then thats their choice I suppose.
I just get irritated by illogical people who have no sound basis for their argument.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,076
Why do us logical, reasoning type of people have to deal with all these illogical people. I propose we cram them all up onto their own little island and let their "soceity" deteriorate the way they seem to think it won't.
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
Just to put some clarity on this.

Although we don't agree with other religions and find some of their ideas to be outright hilarious at times we don't go around mocking them for it like most of the atheists/agnostics do. Telling outright lies is not a part of free speech and you can't complain when you get called on it. Since most of you still don't understand it if you make the claim that the Bible is a collection of fables you HAVE TO PROVE IT. It is NOT our responsibility to prove it is true as you are the one who made a claim. If you don't back up your claim then you have proven that you are lying and we have every right to tell you to put up or shut up. If you can show that to be a banning offense then I could certainly show that mocking and spreading lies are also banning offenses.

It only goes to show that while the atheists/agnostics will say certain things most of them don't have the courage to stand by their convictions. If you don't believe in what is being debated then wtf are you doing there if you don't know how to behave with respect. And I'm sick and ****ing tired of hearing about all the atrocities bull**** committed in the name of religion when history has shown that those same people are willing to commit them against religion. It's usually the ones bringing that up who come off as perfectly willing to stone religious people for their beliefs.

To call people delusional for believing in God is just plain nuts. Again you have to provide the proof that He is not real. It is commonly accepted in medicine that God is a belief and not a delusion as the latter would require proof that He is not real. A person can not be labeled delusional without other symptoms like seeing dragons other people don't see or believing that "everybody is out to get me" in which case it only raises the probability that seeing God is part of their delusion and does not raise it to a fact as God may talk to people who are delusional too. If someone believing in God is delusional then so is one who does not as the definition of delusional then becomes believing without proof which you are yourself doing. I can't blame people for taking offence to this as you yourself would take offence as do I.

Problem is that most don't understand the difference between criticism and insult. Insulting someone is NOT debating.
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,132
Just to put some clarity on this.

Although we don't agree with other religions and find some of their ideas to be outright hilarious at times we don't go around mocking them for it like most of the atheists/agnostics do. Telling outright lies is not a part of free speech and you can't complain when you get called on it. Since most of you still don't understand it if you make the claim that the Bible is a collection of fables you HAVE TO PROVE IT. It is NOT our responsibility to prove it is true as you are the one who made a claim. If you don't back up your claim then you have proven that you are lying and we have every right to tell you to put up or shut up. If you can show that to be a banning offense then I could certainly show that mocking and spreading lies are also banning offenses.
Why would freedom of speech necessarily exclude lying?

Freedom is defined as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint". By denying someone the right to speak as they want you would therefore curtail their freedom.

I'm not condoning lying btw - just questioning the reasoning behind the statement.
 

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Why would freedom of speech necessarily exclude lying?

Freedom is defined as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint". By denying someone the right to speak as they want you would therefore curtail their freedom.

I'm not condoning lying btw - just questioning the reasoning behind the statement.
Thank you BWANA, then you will also notice how many times the club of agnostics and atheists in this vatious threads have come down on me calling me a liar being sick of me lying... So i can actually have a nice gig at them in the name of freedom of speech:)
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
You miss the entire point of a religion. It's about believing that in which you have no absolute proof. If we all had absolute proof about God and Christianity, what challenge would there be about being a Christian? We would all live perfect lives and go to heaven, not because we truly believe, but because we don't want to die.
In the last days they will see God's wrath and most will not repent but they will curse Him.
A lot of terrible things have been done not only by Christians but in the name of Christianity itself, with the support of major Christian organisations such as the Catholic church, that's where the distinction comes in. The same way if a terrorist organisation commits violent acts you attack both the organisation and its members. And no I'm not trying to equate Christians to terrorists, just using it as an analogy.
I could no doubt show just as much committed against Christians by both other religious groups and atheists. By your own admission you are accountable for it then. Stop perpetuating that lie.
Why should you be judged at all? Shouldn't true love be unconditional?
Do you discipline your children or do you allow them to become spoilt little brats?
Just ask Salman Rushdie. :D
He had exactly the right name. :D
There is no connection at all to intelligence, unless intelligence gives an edge in the environment - as it did for homo millions of years ago.
Since when are the homos more intelligent than us? :p Btw. they are a clear contradiction to evolution as they don't reproduce that often.
Actually douwdouw, there have been multiple reasonable direct questions asked of you, yet you consistently refuse to answer them and just attack us, or accuse us of being stupid, or ignorant. Most of us have at least done some research and made an informed decision in our own minds, yes it doesn't gel with your view of reality but it is nonetheless an informed decision for us.
Geez, and you still continue to refuse to give us that undeniable proof that evolution is a fact. Exactly how many direct questions do you want us to answer before you answer even one? Isn't that hypocrisy?
Personally, I find it more useful to listen when someone threatens my belief and try to listen to them. I have found that it can at times benefit me greatly. Of course I would probably be a huge exception to the norm on that one.
I'm the same, the difference I think is that, speaking for myself at least, I want my beliefs to be based on reality and empirical evidence so if someone can challenge them with real facts I'm interested to see what the truth really is.
Yeah, exactly. That goes for me as well. I will admit I get slightly aggravated when someone challenges me and then refuses to accept the facts as I lay them out, but then thats their choice I suppose.
Why do us logical, reasoning type of people have to deal with all these illogical people. I propose we cram them all up onto their own little island and let their "soceity" deteriorate the way they seem to think it won't.
What complete and utter nonsense. You don't even stand by your convictions. Go ahead and flatter yourselves.
Why would freedom of speech necessarily exclude lying?

Freedom is defined as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint". By denying someone the right to speak as they want you would therefore curtail their freedom.

I'm not condoning lying btw - just questioning the reasoning behind the statement.
Your father is a murderer. Do you think I have a right to say that? If not then why? Because spreading lies are not protected by free speech.
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,132
Your father is a murderer. Do you think I have a right to say that? If not then why? Because spreading lies are not protected by free speech.
On the contrary - free speech is guaranteed unless it is usurped by other laws - in this case the laws protecting one from libellous remarks. So while you have every right to accuse my father of being a murderer I have every right to seek recourse for you doing so. ;)
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
On the contrary - free speech is guaranteed unless it is usurped by other laws - in this case the laws protecting one from libellous remarks. So while you have every right to accuse my father of being a murderer I have every right to seek recourse for you doing so. ;)
I don't think you're getting it. ;) My point is actually that I don't have that right and the fact that you can seek legal recourse is indicative of this. If I have a right to something there can be no legal recourse when I exercise that right. I have the ability to kill yet I don't have an undeniable right to do so. You have a right to life yet you don't have a right to use that to cause harm. Free speech is just like every other right. If you abuse it by using it to purposely hurt or harm other people you can lose it. :)
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,132
I don't think you're getting it. ;) My point is actually that I don't have that right and the fact that you can seek legal recourse is indicative of this. If I have a right to something there can be no legal recourse when I exercise that right. I have the ability to kill yet I don't have an undeniable right to do so. You have a right to life yet you don't have a right to use that to cause harm. Free speech is just like every other right. If you abuse it by using it to purposely hurt or harm other people you can lose it. :)
How could I use my right to life expressly to cause harm? :confused:

Never the less nothing you have said refutes the idea that freedom of speech protects lies. Lying is does not necessarily, nor purposely, cause direct harm to your person or any of the rights that you enjoy. There is after all no freedom of truth.
 
Top