Poll: How did human life come about?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.

Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.

The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.

That was the main purpose...

As the above said. Lack of religion leaves people to just be people. They could still be good and bad.

With religion, if you USE religion to kill/etc it is a combination of religious/personal reasons... without religion, you remove the religious reasons, but that still leaves people to be people.

Which doesn't change a thing. Your basic argument is that if we could just force people into thinking the right way, everything would be the same but better. And mine is that it is the force that is the problem, no matter what you want to call it. Do you even read the posts (including your own)? No... never mind, you don't have to. You're so right... eous.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.

Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.

The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.

That was the main purpose...

As the above said. Lack of religion leaves people to just be people. They could still be good and bad.

With religion, if you USE religion to kill/etc it is a combination of religious/personal reasons... without religion, you remove the religious reasons, but that still leaves people to be people.

Which doesn't change a thing. Your basic argument is that if we could just force people into thinking the right way, everything would be the same but better. And mine is that it is the force that is the problem, no matter what you want to call it. Do you even read the posts (including your own)? No... never mind, you don't have to. You're so right... eous.

Umm, I never said anything about forcing anything on anyone. Show me a quote.

I simply stated my opinion that the bible is the biggest con in history because so many people believe it as a word of a "god" when it was written by humans. It has also allowed people to use it as a way to persecute people, gather power, war.

There is no more argument made beyond that.

AGAIN , you MAKE UP the argument you assume I am making.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

 

[shadow9d9]

"How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?."

That wasn't an argument fool. I am not trying to convince anyone. Believe what you want. I am entitled to my opinion, which you keep trying to "disprove."

How bout YOU prove that the Bible WASN'T written intentionally as a con... Because that is your argument, remember?

Do you realize how stupid that is?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

Communist regimes killed for political reasons, NOT to enforce atheism. Churches still existed in communist Russia. You could practice religion to some extent as long as you do not spread it. Communists planned to slowly eradicate religion because they seen it as something that could compete with communist ideology. You are pointing out where people were killed for going against the church for political reasons (i.e. going against the divine king) but you are ignoring the crusades where people were killed solely to enforce a religion.

Atheist regimes never waged wars for the sole purpose of spreading atheism, communism yes, atheism no. Religious regimes did.

The crusades were about far more than *just* religion.

That was the main purpose...

As the above said. Lack of religion leaves people to just be people. They could still be good and bad.

With religion, if you USE religion to kill/etc it is a combination of religious/personal reasons... without religion, you remove the religious reasons, but that still leaves people to be people.

Which doesn't change a thing. Your basic argument is that if we could just force people into thinking the right way, everything would be the same but better. And mine is that it is the force that is the problem, no matter what you want to call it. Do you even read the posts (including your own)? No... never mind, you don't have to. You're so right... eous.

Umm, I never said anything about forcing anything on anyone. Show me a quote.

I simply stated my opinion that the bible is the biggest con in history because so many people believe it as a word of a "god" when it was written by humans. It has also allowed people to use it as a way to persecute people, gather power, war.

There is no more argument made beyond that.

AGAIN , you MAKE UP the argument you assume I am making.

Once again, WTF? You really don't read the posts here, do you?

Originally posted by: Vic
Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not?

Maybe this is a case of -- once again -- people on the internet shooting BS out of their asses without even realizing what their statements mean or imply.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?."

That wasn't an argument fool. I am not trying to convince anyone. Believe what you want. I am entitled to my opinion, which you keep trying to "disprove."

How bout YOU prove that the Bible WASN'T written intentionally as a con... Because that is your argument, remember?

Do you realize how stupid that is?

So if it wasn't an argument, then you're admitting it was a flamebait troll?

BTW, while you are entitled to your opinion, such entitlement does not protect you from having the validity of your opinion attacked on intellectual grounds. Get a clue about the difference, eh?

Lastly, I wasn't the one who trolled the "Bible is a con" statement, so that burden of proof is not on me. Here, you are still desperately (and obviously) trying to protect your statement of the Bible being written intentionally as a con without trying to justify it intellectually.
Do you realize how stupid that is?

However, I already did address that issue, when I made the comparisons between the ancient understandings of certain words (I used the word "spirit" as the example) with the modern understandings. Clearly that went right over your head.

This little go-round with you is getting tiring. You provide zero intellectual content but your do seem to enjoy trolling, flamebaiting, and personal attacks. If have an opinion, go ahead and state it. As you insist on pointing out, you are entitled. If you choose not to back up your opinions with intellects and facts, but just state your opinions as though they are facts unto themselves (and you continue to persist doing so over and over again), then try not to be surprised or affronted when you get flamed for your trollish stupidity. Thank you and goodbye.

 

[shadow9d9]

"Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not? "

No, that is not the case. A dictionary might help you.

Con-
-to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
-to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea where you got YOUR definition. Trying to change one thing into another just so you could attatack me is my guess.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: BigJ
God created beer.

God could not drink all the beer.

God created man.

Good a theory as any. In Heaven there is no beer; that's why we drink it here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

Why? Should I? Am I supposed to?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

Why? Should I? Am I supposed to?

I'm asking.

 

[shadow9d9]

I think I found Vic's problem. He keeps making leaps of logic to fill in the gap for what he wants the other person to have said. our last example is perfect for that- "

"Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not? " "

A con CAN be a fraud. A fraud CAN be illegal(if done so for money under our legal system). Something illegal is outlawed. The 2 cans are assumptions and leaps that Vic chose to make to continue his agenda of attacking others who might share a different view than him.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not? "

No, that is not the case. A dictionary might help you.

Con-
-to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
-to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea where you got YOUR definition. Trying to change one thing into another just so you could attatack me is my guess.

My only opinion is that you're a troll. And it's not an "attack" to tell an obvious flamebait troll to STFU, get it? That wasn't an attack, that was me taking your bait (which I now regret). Now go tell some legal authority that a con is not a crime. Then someone might laugh in your face. In the meantime, I await your evidence that the Bible was written intentionally as a con. You made the statement, therefore the burden is on you. If you don't wish to back up your statement, or if you don't wish to keep to something remotely resembling the thread topic, then... please... STFU.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not? "

No, that is not the case. A dictionary might help you.

Con-
-to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
-to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea where you got YOUR definition. Trying to change one thing into another just so you could attatack me is my guess.

My only opinion is that you're a troll. And it's not an "attack" to tell an obvious flamebait troll to STFU, get it? That wasn't an attack, that was me taking your bait (which I now regret). Now go tell some legal authority that a con is not a crime. Then someone might laugh in your face. In the meantime, I await your evidence that the Bible was written intentionally as a con. You made the statement, therefore the burden is on you. If you don't wish to back up your statement, or if you don't wish to keep to something remotely resembling the thread topic, then... please... STFU.

Having an opinion that differs from vic=troll.

Gotcha.

I made a statement of an opinion. You can't prove an opinion. Therefore, there is no burden on me.

A fraud does not have to be a legal fraud and a con does not need to be a legal con. You can be tricky and deceitful without it being a crime. What do you not get?

 

[shadow9d9]

According to vic, a con-

"to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
or
a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk"

is illegal and should be outlawed! No wonder I can't get anywhere!

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: torpid
So... do you have any evidence of any sort, or links to articles at least somewhat scientific in nature or is this simply your opinion?

Would it matter? That's a lot of books to dig through. Paper. Not internet.
You could use google just as well as I in that regard - just search for evolution then dig for a few days.

Ugh! Too much information on both sides to slog through for this silly thread. In the past I'd posted dates, books, fact, etc. You could post good, tested, relaible data until your fingers fall off - people have formed their opinions (based on a few minor beliefs and a few scattered facts) and call everyone else an idiot for not believing what they do.

That goes for religious and athiest alike.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

Why? Should I? Am I supposed to?

I'm asking.

Do you? Or is it that you just need to have some polar opposite to argue with, and you have some freakin' hard-on against me, so you decided to create some pretty false positions for us to argue from?
For the hundreth time, I'm not interested.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

Why? Should I? Am I supposed to?

I'm asking.

Do you? Or is it that you just need to have some polar opposite to argue with, and you have some freakin' hard-on against me, so you decided to create some pretty false positions for us to argue from?
For the hundreth time, I'm not interested.

If you don't want to answer, then you can't claim not to believe what I claimed you did. Dodge!

 

[Seekermeister]

shadow9d9,

As much as I hate to agree, a fact is a fact. I couldn't be called atheist because I have not made the conclusion that I disbelieve an existence of a deity.

I must say that for an agnostic, you are very unique, because I have generally found that most of them are easier to reason with, and they don't make such positive assertions about what they admit that they don't know. You call yourself an agnostic, but act like an atheist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not? "

No, that is not the case. A dictionary might help you.

Con-
-to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
-to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea where you got YOUR definition. Trying to change one thing into another just so you could attatack me is my guess.

My only opinion is that you're a troll. And it's not an "attack" to tell an obvious flamebait troll to STFU, get it? That wasn't an attack, that was me taking your bait (which I now regret). Now go tell some legal authority that a con is not a crime. Then someone might laugh in your face. In the meantime, I await your evidence that the Bible was written intentionally as a con. You made the statement, therefore the burden is on you. If you don't wish to back up your statement, or if you don't wish to keep to something remotely resembling the thread topic, then... please... STFU.

Having an opinion that differs from vic=troll.

Gotcha.

I made a statement of an opinion. You can't prove an opinion. Therefore, there is no burden on me.

A fraud does not have to be a legal fraud and a con does not need to be a legal con. You can be tricky and deceitful without it being a crime. What do you not get?

:roll:

The only thing I can't get is how someone can be as stupidly annoying as you. I got your opinion a long, long time ago. "Religion is a con that is the cause of all the suffering in this world." That came through loud and clear. And it's the stupidest, most petulant little piece of whining bullsh!t that I've seen posted here in a long time. Which is what I posted and even proved why. Sorry you can't accept it. And yes, you're entitled to your opinions but you're not entitled to be protected in them. Get. a. clue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
To be atheist would be just as self-righteous as being religious. To assume that you alone know the true answer to what controls the universe is LAUGHABLE. I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE VIC!

Thank you for removing all intellect from this discussion... I don't know how you think you can laugh in my face when your first line has been basically my point throughout this entire thread. Thanks again though... :roll:


edit: BTW, I really love that P&N tactic of yours that I supposedly can't admit when I'm wrong when you haven't given me anything to be wrong about, I was just pissed that you felt the need to troll inside the thread with your petty ignorant stupidity. How about this? Why don't you prove that the Bible was intentionally written as a con? Because that is your argument, remember?... Your personal attacks are just your way of pushing that argument of yours without actually proving having to prove it. Steeplerot would be so proud of you!

You want me to prove an opinion....mmm..gotcha...

I could give you REASONS for my opinion... but I can't prove the opinion. Would you like that?

My post made perfect sense. Sorry to say I am sure you still think whatever religion you believe in is the "truth." My point soared well over your head. Not surprising really. I'll simplify it for you.

To claim to know the "truth" is to be self righteous and ignorant. You claim to know this "truth." I laugh at you and your fellow fools.

You can't quote where I attacked you first because not only did you attack first, you continued to attack more and more. Admit that you were wrong or prove it.

WTF? I haven't argued any "truth" here except that the "truth" is unknowable. I don't know where you get your ideas but it's certainly not from my posts. Now kindly argue your straw men elsewhere and/or quit trolling the thread, which is what I have asked you to do many times before already.

Oh, so you hold the stance that you have no idea what religion is right, so you don't follow any?

Why? Should I? Am I supposed to?

I'm asking.

Do you? Or is it that you just need to have some polar opposite to argue with, and you have some freakin' hard-on against me, so you decided to create some pretty false positions for us to argue from?
For the hundreth time, I'm not interested.

If you don't want to answer, then you can't claim not to believe what I claimed you did. Dodge!

Did not!
Did too!
Did not!
Did too!

I have stated my own actual beliefs and positions, in this thread, long before you ever trolled your way into it. If you can't find your way to actually read the fsckin' thread, I'm not going to answer to your namecalling sh!t after the fact. I do not have to conform to (or even defend myself against) your misguided delusional opinions of me simply because you cannot trouble yourself to actual read the thread.

For the 101st time, STFU.

 

[shadow9d9]

I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

 

[So]

Ass far as I can tell, for the last page, this thread has been an argument about whether or not you're having an argument. Wtf?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So
Ass far as I can tell, for the last page, this thread has been an argument about whether or not you're having an argument. Wtf?

Apparently, I took the flamebait, hook, line, and sinker. Sorry 'bout that.


edit: And sorry, I work in finance. Even an error of omission can be a crime in my business (i.e. where if I forget to disclose a pertinent fact, even unintentionally), much less a con (generally considered to be a misrepresentation with intent). At least we know where shadow9d9 stands on ethics!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: So
Ass far as I can tell, for the last page, this thread has been an argument about whether or not you're having an argument. Wtf?

Apparently, I took the flamebait, hook, line, and sinker. Sorry 'bout that.


edit: And sorry, I work in finance. Even an error of omission can be a crime in my business (i.e. where if I forget to disclose a pertinent fact, even unintentionally), much less a con (generally considered to be a misrepresentation with intent). At least we know where shadow9d9 stands on ethics!

Yeah, he took the bait of not allowing someone to have a different opinion than his own. He is very sorry : (.