So... let me get this straight. If a religious person tries to convert you save your soul, you're offended, but if they don't try, they're being hypocritical? :roll:
Originally posted by: Gurck
Actually I agree many kids are atheists in the name of rebellion, you generally see them take up a religion by 20-22 when they realize their mortality. What's left are the true atheists. So your attack wasn't entirely baseless. I'm not a kid however, nor do I crave attention in the least. But hey, I can't really blame you - at nearly 20k posts and nonelite status, most other posters would start kissing serious ass as well
Nice petty jab there. Nothing too low for you, eh?Originally posted by: Gurck
Actually I agree many kids are atheists in the name of rebellion, you generally see them take up a religion by 20-22 when they realize their mortality. What's left are the true atheists. So your attack wasn't entirely baseless. I'm not a kid however, nor do I crave attention in the least. But hey, I can't really blame you - at nearly 20k posts and nonelite status, most other posters would start kissing serious ass as well
Hardly. Any open-minded intellectually-minded person should be able to discuss the intricacies of both philosophies. Because there is no "evidence" to support either belief. No evidence whatsoever. To claim to know that either belief is "wrong" is simply to be a fool. If you're looking for evidence, I suggest agnosticism.
What's low about responding to a low blow?Originally posted by: Vic
Nice petty jab there. Nothing too low for you, eh?Originally posted by: Gurck
Actually I agree many kids are atheists in the name of rebellion, you generally see them take up a religion by 20-22 when they realize their mortality. What's left are the true atheists. So your attack wasn't entirely baseless. I'm not a kid however, nor do I crave attention in the least. But hey, I can't really blame you - at nearly 20k posts and nonelite status, most other posters would start kissing serious ass as well
First, we all know you're in high school.
Second, only non-intellectuals think that religion is all about the fear of mortality.
Originally posted by: Gurck
Actually I agree many kids are atheists in the name of rebellion, you generally see them take up a religion by 20-22 when they realize their mortality. What's left are the true atheists. So your attack wasn't entirely baseless. I'm not a kid however, nor do I crave attention in the least. But hey, I can't really blame you - at nearly 20k posts and nonelite status, most other posters would start kissing serious ass as well
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Ok.... how would you approach this situation?
R (Religious Person): Hi, are you Christian?
M (Me): No, I'm not religious.
R: I'm here to spread the word of Jesus.
M: That's fine, but I'm really not interested.
R: But I met Jesus!
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Ok.... how would you approach this situation?
R (Religious Person): Hi, are you Christian?
M (Me): No, I'm not religious.
R: I'm here to spread the word of Jesus.
M: That's fine, but I'm really not interested.
R: But I met Jesus!
M: So did I. He cuts my grass. Cool guy.
- M4H
More bias. Atheists make no claim; only believe what's observable. They need no evidence. A claim of something completely unobservable, despite about ten millenia of rabid study, on the other hand...
Originally posted by: Gurck
I don't think I'm cool in any regard, if it were even a priority I'd agree with the majority no matter what - which on this board is quite the god-squad :laugh: I quoted you because I like to have a humorous sig. I didn't take you out of context either, just caught you flashing your true colors... I'd bet good money you weighed the option of editing that post
Pretty tame after your opening attack, I agree - but I'm not in the mood tonight.
Sure thing, I'll take you up on that for any amount.Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'd bet good money that you're going to die with your doctor being the only person to ever touch your penis.
It's completely out of context and you know it. You even reserved the order in which they were posted, and edited to your convenience. And you would lose that "good money", because I didn't think for a minute of editing it.Originally posted by: Gurck
I don't think I'm cool in any regard, if it were even a priority I'd agree with the majority no matter what - which on this board is quite the god-squad :laugh: I quoted you because I like to have a humorous sig. I didn't take you out of context either, just caught you flashing your true colors... I'd bet good money you weighed the option of editing that post
Right... because we all know that the lack of an afterlife is completely observable... :roll:
What does the order matter? I'm preserving the spirit in which they were stated and edited for length only because of the sig length limit. Where have I preached atheism? Don't bother linking the 'atheism in a year' thread, as that's nothing of the sort; it was half-facetious, half experiment (one which proved mass hypocrisy here, I might add).Originally posted by: Vic
It's completely out of context and you know it. You even reserved the order in which they were posted, and edited to your convenience. And you would lose that "good money", because I didn't think for a minute of editing it.Originally posted by: Gurck
I don't think I'm cool in any regard, if it were even a priority I'd agree with the majority no matter what - which on this board is quite the god-squad :laugh: I quoted you because I like to have a humorous sig. I didn't take you out of context either, just caught you flashing your true colors... I'd bet good money you weighed the option of editing that post
The hypocrisy is yours. Ranting about preaching theists when you're nothing but a preaching atheist.
Yet more bias. Lack of something is not worthy of proving.
Facebook
Twitter