tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post660258072681648590..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Hurt Feelings?D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-7473291321751907622017-04-26T13:43:38.571-04:002017-04-26T13:43:38.571-04:00>>The only faith i have is that all specific...>>The only faith i have is that all specificly defined religions are certainly false.<br /><br />How do you know anything for certain in an atheistic worldview? Could you be wrong about the things you're claiming to know? Debunking Atheists https://www.blogger.com/profile/09738373112032154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17118639426829512742017-04-23T23:04:28.572-04:002017-04-23T23:04:28.572-04:00I found this page looking for ways to spread athei...I found this page looking for ways to spread atheism without hurting peoples feelings. The only faith i have is that all specificly defined religions are certainly false. This would, like most people who call themselves atheists,Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524555886358540433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-53272405449890479972011-07-10T22:29:39.637-04:002011-07-10T22:29:39.637-04:00D.A.N,
>> Here’s what you said: Wrong! I...D.A.N, <br /><br />>> <b> Here’s what you said: </b> Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary? Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint. And that is no lie.<br /><br />So you automatically assumed that pilot was a christian because – according to you – “afraid of hell is a christian thingy” when there’s no mentioning in the article what religion he follows.<br /><br />The thing is: you were caught lying again. You said the reason why those pilots didn’t want to fly with atheist banners was they were standing up for their beliefs when it wasn’t the case for most of the pilots.<br /><br />The only thing there that mentions religious beliefs being the reason why ONE pilot refused to fly with an atheist ad was because he feared hell. But we don’t know what his religion is. At least I didn’t make baseless assumptions of what is that pilot’s belief system. The CNN article I read was more complete and said some pilots didn’t want to fly with those atheist ads because they feared for their marriages. But all those reasons sums up to one word: FEAR. Even though is disappointing, the American Atheists respected them and didn’t force pilots to fly with atheist banners against their will.<br /><br />Besides the unjustifiable fear of hell, the other fears weren’t unjustifiable. Pilots fearing for their lives are a serious matter. People don’t wear bulletproof vest for the fun of it. They wear to protect themselves from being shot. And when some pilots say they won’t fly with atheist banners because they can’t wear a bulletproof vest it just means one thing: they fear for their lives thanks to the huge prejudice, bigotry and hate towards atheists in US, specially in the Bible Belt which the state of Texas is part of.<br /><br />Read the CNN article and take a look what Dave Silverman said: <b> “This is a clear reminder of why we need to keep fighting because the bigotry against us is so thick that a lot of the pilots are afraid to fly our banners.” </b><br /><br />Face it: you misinterpreted the entire article and manipulated information at your behalf and to the behalf of your religious belief. And that shows how intolerant/bigot/manipulative/dishonest person you can be.<br /><br />So, you can scream "STRAW MAN" until you get blue in the face. I don't care. That doesn't change the fact you lied once again.bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24580193245579425682011-07-10T16:06:01.283-04:002011-07-10T16:06:01.283-04:00Dan:
I posted here because your "you ob...Dan:<br /><br /> I posted here because your "you obviously do not understand what a lie is" comment is here. The people (possibly excluding yourself) <i>do</i> understand what a lie is. My reference to the other blog post was simply to give the required evidence that you tell lies.<br /> "Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint."<br /> It is indeed. However, it is not a courageous-stand thingy.<br /> "You have no [basis] for your accusation that I lied AT ALL."<br /> Of course I have. You said that you addressed the first comment on that thread (that would be the one made by Bathtub.) But, in reality, you have (so far) ignored that comment. There was the other thread where you called a message "offensive," someone asked you why you thought it was offensive and you claimed you never said it was. When you were called on that, you claimed it was a mere "mistake."<br /> Now, you are correct that I retracted a particular accusation of lying when evidence came that the particular claim of yours was, in fact, true. But the reason why I couldn't take you at your word was that you had already demonstrated a pattern of lying. Face it. <i>You lie.</i> Now, not <i>everything</i> you say is a lie. But you still have a habit of lying. You don't need to respond. I'm sure that people will understand that the reason you tried "shame on you" is because you agree and were trying to be pre-emptive.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5112846762685393292011-07-10T13:18:48.179-04:002011-07-10T13:18:48.179-04:00Michelle,
>>If there’s any evidence that sh...Michelle,<br /><br />>>If there’s any evidence that shows those pilots were brave christians standing up for their beliefs, where are those evidences?<br /><br />I feel caught. It was NEVER my original argument that I claimed this. It was yours from the beginning. YOU assumed it and argued against it. I failed to say STRAW MAN, but instead I said "Wrong!" I should of said the former. I retract the "Wrong!" and insert "Straw man" to tighten up the conversation.<br /><br />>>Hell is not only a Christian thingy.<br /><br />Its your <i>injected</i> straw man argument, not mine!<br /><br />>>There aref non christian religions who have the concept of hell: Islam, Buddhism, hinduism, etc.<br /><br />*sigh. I know this. <br /><br />>>How do you know for sure that pilot who feared hell is a christian?<br /><br />STRAW MAN! Read what I ACTUALLY SAID instead of what YOU BELIEVE I said, after the fact.<br /><br />"I applaud these pilots for knowing their rights and for having the courage to stand for what they believe in."<br /><br />Where did I ever state this was a Christian thing? Either show it, or better yet... Please take me up on my offer. Pretty please?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82642331881797166802011-07-10T12:13:24.171-04:002011-07-10T12:13:24.171-04:00D.A.N,
>> Wrong! Is there any evidence spe...D.A.N, <br /><br />>> <b>Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary?</b><br /><br />If there’s any evidence that shows those pilots were brave christians standing up for their beliefs, where are those evidences? Can you give us one? Or that affirmation was just something you took out of your ass? Unless you are all-knowing like the god you believe in, you can’t know for sure all those pilots who refused to fly with atheist banners are christians.<br /><br />>> Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint.<br /><br />Hell is not only a Christian thingy. There aref non christian religions who have the concept of hell: Islam, Buddhism, hinduism, etc.<br />How do you know for sure that pilot who feared hell is a christian? He could be a muslin or a buddhist or a hindu, etc…bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-51428582500906869452011-07-10T11:21:39.655-04:002011-07-10T11:21:39.655-04:00Pvb,
>>You took an article that showed that...Pvb,<br /><br />>>You took an article that showed that many pilots would not fly atheist banners either because they were afraid of hellfire or because they were afraid of being shot at and misrepresented it as the pilots taking a courageous stand for the christian faith.<br /><br />You're assuming a great deal in all of this. Anyway, go to that post to comment about all of this, like I did <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/07/independence-day-indeed.html?showComment=1310285654785#c4840712519082122660" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/07/independence-day-indeed.html?showComment=1310307888594#c4409732939542505136" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />You have no base for your accusation that I lied AT ALL.<br /><br />>>There is no evidence that even one pilot was taking a stand for the christian faith.<br /><br />Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary? Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint. And that is no lie. <br /><br />Also, shame on you STILL accusing me of lying when you FULLY RETRACTED your accusations of my lying in that 'spam' fiasco. If "A lie is a willful misrepresentation" then you are certainly lying about me being a liar.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-75718358446566427342011-07-10T10:33:53.950-04:002011-07-10T10:33:53.950-04:00Dan:
A lie is a willful misrepresentation. ...Dan:<br /><br /> A lie is a willful misrepresentation. You took an article that showed that many pilots would not fly atheist banners either because they were afraid of hellfire or because they were afraid of being shot at and misrepresented it as the pilots taking a courageous stand for the christian faith. There is no evidence that even one pilot was taking a stand for the christian faith.<br /> By the way, Dan, you did <i>not</i> address that first comment and it was not a fallacy. But that's okay, it just means another lie coming from you.<br /> The addition of the words "under god" to the Pledge is a little like the way China calls itself the "People's Republic." Its mere presence tells you that it's false and that the people who put it there did not believe it.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-3529603003882943462011-07-10T01:57:47.572-04:002011-07-10T01:57:47.572-04:00Reynold,
You obviously do not understand what a l...Reynold,<br /><br />You obviously do not understand what a lie is. Please educate yourself more. It may get embarrassing for you. <br /><br />BTW, I did just address the first comment although fallacies do not require it. I did it for you. :7)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-18815785316411159462011-07-09T23:31:56.605-04:002011-07-09T23:31:56.605-04:00"manipulation of truth"? Did you not re..."manipulation of truth"? Did you not read the replies you got to your "Independence Day" blog post that showed how <b>you</b> are the one who got caught lying? Here's a tip: It's the FIRST FUCKING COMMENT!Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19198225202466507742011-07-08T11:22:09.127-04:002011-07-08T11:22:09.127-04:00D.A.N,
>> D.A.N: Your insults are saying ...D.A.N, <br /><br />>> <b> D.A.N: Your insults are saying very little about Atheists Reynold, and volumes about the kind of manipulation of truth required by your faith. </b><br /><br />Really D.A.N? You complaining about manipulation of the truth? If you don't remember you <b>"forgot"</b> to put in your newest post <i>”Independence Day Indeed”</i> the true reason why some pilots refused to fly with atheist ads. <br /><br />One of them - even though being an atheist - didn't want to fly with an atheist ad in his airplane because he didn't want to be shot by religious extremists.<br /><br />The other one didn't want to fly with atheist ads because he feared hell. <br /><br />Basically, the main reason they didn't want to fly with atheist ads was FEAR, plain and simple. Not <i>"...for having the courage to stand for what they believe in.”</i> as <b>you interpreted.</b> <br /><br />That's being dishonest. Not too mention is very hypocritical of you complaining to Reynold about manipulation of the truth when you are the one manipulating the truth at your behalf by keeping information out and not telling the whole story.<br /> <br />Besides, a faith that keeps their believers in a state of constant fear due the <i>"threat of burning in hell forever if you doubt us or abandon us”</i> is not strong and confident enough to keep and hold their followers by <i>"its own merits"</i>.<br /><br />Christianity looks like a very insecure girlfriend doing everything in her power to keep her boyfriend near her all the time. She calls and text him 24x7; she has jealousy fits all the time; she uses emotional blackmail when it looks like he's about to end the relationship; she gets pregnant of him in order to keep him around, she threatens to commit suicide if he leaves her, etc, etc...bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-40996889840468352862011-07-08T04:03:33.673-04:002011-07-08T04:03:33.673-04:00Your insults are saying very little about Atheists...Your insults are saying very little about Atheists Reynold, and volumes about the kind of manipulation of truth required by your faith.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25673766521249889762011-07-07T22:55:05.046-04:002011-07-07T22:55:05.046-04:00By the way...in the "eternal" sense, in ...By the way...in the "eternal" sense, in your view babies supposedly go to heaven (biblical justification please) no matter how they die, or who kills them. So, what then, in your worldview, is wrong with abortion?<br /><br />I've given an atheist point of view a while back.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-54686983575364113572011-07-07T22:50:46.631-04:002011-07-07T22:50:46.631-04:00Well, Dan..it looks like the others here are busy ...Well, Dan..it looks like the others here are busy shooting down your bullshit from your last reply to me, but since it was addressed to me I'll reply anyway.<br /><br /><b>Being secular means to be neutral about religion. Secular humanism is a philosophical position. The two are not the same thing, Dan. You lie by implying that they are.</b><br /><i>Wrong! Humans are NOT robots. EVERYONE holds a philosophical position on every aspect of their lives.</i><br />Evidence please? So if someone says that they don't care about any particular topic you'll accuse them of lying? Good luck.<br /><br /><i>If there is a subject of God, everyone has a position. NO ONE is neutral. "You lie by implying that they are.</i><br />Policies CAN BE neutral, even if people can't. Though I don't believe for an instant that you're right there. Just arrogant assumption on your part. You're letting some old book do your thinking for you again, I think.<br /><br /><b>Didn't we teach you the last time you tried this lie of yours?</b><br /><i>Didn't we teach you about your religion in the past?</i><br />And we bitch-slapped you in the comments to that post.<br /><br />Now, Dan you just get stupid (again). The others have dealt with this though:<br /><i>- Bald is a hair style<br />- "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.<br />- "abstinence" is a "sex position"<br />- Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.<br /><br />We all have made our choices. Freely given by our Creator I might add.</i><br />Oh? Look at your bible sometime. Why don't you list all the "rights" the bible gives. You know, like "thou shalt have no other gods before me" kind of shit? Do you claim that "freedom of religion" is a "god-given" right, Dan?<br /><br /><b>It was the TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE!</b><br /><i>This is a equivocation fallacy again. Yes, it was the name of that post on that particular subject, but its not to take the position of its OK to kill babies, like you are insinuating.</i><br />You kept on defending the killing of those babies within your post, idiot! You called it "capital punishment" to kill ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE!<br /><br /><i>It was capitol punishment for the Canaanites.</i><br />Even for THEIR CHILDREN?? Remember, they were killed too.<br /><br /><i>It would be murder if I did that to my kid. Unless I lived in Florida that is.</i><br />Or unless you believe your god's voice telling you to do it, <i>a la</i> Susan Smith style. <br /><br /><b>Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.</b><br /><i>You are comparing an eternal realm with a temporal one and calling it the same. If you take out your kid, its murder. If God did it, its calling His own home to HIM. Two different things.</i><br />WRONG! It's still babies being killed by people. Only it's a double standard. It's no sin for god to do it, but it is for us to do it? What the fuck is the sin then? Either way, babies are being killed and (you assume with no evidence) going "home". Yeah. To the guy who had them killed. <br /><br />What about this "rapture" bullshit I hear you people talk about? Why not just "teleport" them painlessly away? No killing needed!<br /><br /><i>You just are comparing them in the same plane/realm you are currently in.</i><br />I'm using a <b>consistent standard of morality</b>. What you idiots pretend to have.<br /><br /><i>I am sure you will brush that aside, yet again, and claim that I love to kill babies all over again since your broken record cannot be repaired without God intervening.</i><br />You defended it, Dan. You can't get around that.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-73168124715745664142011-07-06T16:09:38.564-04:002011-07-06T16:09:38.564-04:00Dan the Debunked wrote: Michelle,
Your preaching ...Dan the Debunked wrote: <b>Michelle,<br /><br />Your preaching is obvious. You're not fooling anyone here.</b><br /><br />This is a lie, and lying is a sin. The ease with which you do it suggests unpleasant things about your character.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-83737982267595168472011-07-06T01:42:27.449-04:002011-07-06T01:42:27.449-04:00By the way Dan, are you still arguing that you'...By the way Dan, are you still arguing that you're commiting the crime of not commiting a crime? Because we may have to report you.Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09398018171200335379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70306775799983194372011-07-06T01:34:16.648-04:002011-07-06T01:34:16.648-04:00In sex, abstinence is certainly a position taken a...<b>In sex, abstinence is certainly a position taken about it.</b><br />"What is your religon?" is a question where the answer is an enumerable (ie. there are multiple, but finite and mutually incompatible, answers). I cannot think of any way to phrase a question about sex such that it is an enumerable question. Lets not "compare apples to oranges" here, okay?<br /><br /><br /><b>"Atheists certainly are participating. They are not bowing out, they are taking up their version of the cross and running with it."</b><br /><br />They're participating in various debates and arguments, sure, but you weren't claiming that atheism was a debate position or a side in an argument. It is, we already know <i>that</i>. But you said that athism was a <i>religon</i>, and the problem with that is that atheists are not participating in or practicing a <i>religon</i>. Look: no rituals, no belief in supernatural or devine entities (actually, no central belief at all beyond "there's probably no god"), no faith, no doctrine. Ergo, no religon.Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09398018171200335379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-7448164929315606422011-07-06T01:10:31.183-04:002011-07-06T01:10:31.183-04:00D.A.N,
You are the one who's not fooling anyo...D.A.N,<br /><br />You are the one who's not fooling anyone here with your preaching, your dishonesty, your misinterpretation of facts, your "reasoning and logic", your moral relativism and your bogus religion/god. <br /><br />Everyone who comments on your posts are too smart and intelligent to fall for your crap and manipulations.bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42661893042320020052011-07-06T00:59:45.785-04:002011-07-06T00:59:45.785-04:00D.A.N,
Me preaching? Just because I gave you the ...D.A.N,<br /><br />Me preaching? Just because I gave you the true definition of religion to show you atheism doesn't fit that definition anywhere except in your deluded mind?<br /><br />Funny, that's the only thing you said...I guess you don't have any arguments to prove me wrong...unless you come up with the same old arguments of <i> "how something is valid in my worldview"</i>. <br /><br />Seriously D.A.N; as person who was an atheist for years (I think that really hard to believe based on your misinformation about atheism) you are completely clueless about what atheism means. You are also completely clueless as an extremely religious person about what defines religion; as a religious person, you should've know better and it's a shame - to yourself I might add - you don't.<br /><br />Let's face it, D.A.N: you ran out of arguments.bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70283856358637966822011-07-06T00:20:03.965-04:002011-07-06T00:20:03.965-04:00Quasar,
>>"abstinence" is not a s...Quasar,<br /><br />>>"abstinence" is not a sex position.<br /><br />In sex, abstinence is certainly a position taken about it.<br /><br />>>The only thing these things are is a decision not to participate.<br /><br />Then compare apples to oranges. Atheists certainly are participating. They are not bowing out, they are taking up their version of the cross and running with it.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-15068796234247516672011-07-05T23:53:01.237-04:002011-07-05T23:53:01.237-04:00- Bald is a hair style
- "off" is a &quo...<b>- Bald is a hair style<br />- "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.<br />- "abstinence" is a "sex position"<br />- Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.</b><br /><br />So, by this logic, Dans a criminal. <br /><br />There's lots of crimes after all. The crime that Dan has chosen to commit is "not commiting a crime".<br /><br />Dan, I'm going to put this politely and tactfully despite wanting to scream it into your ear at the top of my lungs from 0.2 feet away:<br /><br />Stop making stuff up. Just. Stop it.<br /><br />Bald 'aint a hair style. "Hair style" implies hair.<br />"Off" isn't a television channel.<br />Unless someone's rewritten the Kama-Sutra recently, "abstinence" is not a sex position.<br />And not collecting stamps will never be a hobby.<br /><br />The only thing these things are is a decision not to participate. End of story. A <i>decision</i> is not the same things as a hobby, television channel, crime or religon. And if they are to you, then <i>you</i> are rewriting the english language to suit your own purposes. And that's <i>your</i> problem, not atheists.Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09398018171200335379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-10059884745798285722011-07-05T23:39:38.561-04:002011-07-05T23:39:38.561-04:00Michelle,
Your preaching is obvious. You're n...Michelle,<br /><br />Your preaching is obvious. You're not fooling anyone here.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36407559535238726042011-07-05T20:14:39.949-04:002011-07-05T20:14:39.949-04:00D.A.N,
I saw the definition of religion pointed o...D.A.N,<br /><br />I saw the definition of religion pointed out in one comment rebutting your claim that atheism is a religion and I will refresh your mind in case you forgot:<br /><br /><b> The definition of religion:</b><br /><br />- service or cult to a god or to any divinity through rituals and prayers; a conscient feeling of dependency or submission that connects the human creature to the creator; <br />- an external or internal cult rendered to a divinity; <br />- belief or religious doctrine; a moral and dogmatic system; <br />- worship of sacred things; practice of divine principles; <br />- fear of god; <br />- order of religious congregation; <br />- a set of rituals and ceremonies ordained for the manifestation of divinity's cult; <br />- acknowledgement of a dependence of god; <br />- social institution with beliefs and rituals; <br />- social institution created towards of an idea of one or several supernatural beings and their relationship with men.<br /><br /><b>Borderline:</b> religion is a belief system where everything revolves around the faith; loyalty; commitment; obedience; dependence and worship of supernatural/divine entities through ceremonies and rituals. <br /><br />So, atheism is not a religion. We have no dogmas, no religious ceremonies and rituals and we don't worship anything and anyone …including the <i> “self”</i> as you claimed we do.<br /><br />Of course I do believe in myself, but not in the religious meaning of the term. I don’t worship myself (if I did I would be a narcissist).<br /><br />Even – for argument’s sake – as you told in one of your comments on that post that we believe in a god and is called <i>”self"</i> and – showing to you the definition of the word <i> “self”</i> which means: <i>personality; I; the person itself; myself; by myself”</i> still atheism is not a religion as you claim to be since we (in that case, <i>self</i>) are not considered to be a divine/supernatural entity by definition of these 2 words: <b>divine and supernatural.</b>bellecheriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393655793944782045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-67309681798216112632011-07-05T18:25:55.426-04:002011-07-05T18:25:55.426-04:00Reynold,
>>Being secular means to be neutra...Reynold,<br /><br />>>Being secular means to be neutral about religion. Secular humanism is a philosophical position. The two are not the same thing, Dan. You lie by implying that they are.<br /><br />Wrong! Humans are NOT robots. EVERYONE holds a philosophical position on every aspect of their lives. If there is a subject of God, everyone has a position. NO ONE is neutral. "You lie by implying that they are.<br /><br />>> Didn't we teach you the last time you tried this lie of yours?<br /><br />Didn't we teach you about your religion <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2009/03/atheism-is-definitely-religion_08.html" rel="nofollow">in the past</a>?<br /><br />- Bald is a hair style<br />- "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.<br />- "abstinence" is a "sex position"<br />- Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.<br /><br />We all have made our choices. Freely given by our Creator I might add.<br /><br />>>It was the TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE!<br /><br />This is a equivocation fallacy again. Yes, it was the name of that post on that particular subject, but its not to take the position of its OK to kill babies, like you are insinuating. It was capitol punishment for the Canaanites. It would be murder if I did that to my kid. Unless I lived in Florida that is. <br /><br />>>Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.<br /><br />You are comparing an eternal realm with a temporal one and calling it the same. If you take out your kid, its murder. If God did it, its calling His own home to HIM. Two different things. You just are comparing them in the same plane/realm you are currently in. I am sure you will brush that aside, yet again, and claim that I love to kill babies all over again since your broken record cannot be repaired without God intervening.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12622041166952369002011-07-05T17:02:48.976-04:002011-07-05T17:02:48.976-04:00D.A.N. said...
Reynold,
>>Yet you someho...<b>D.A.N. said... <br /><br /> Reynold,<br /><br />>>Yet you somehow have NO trouble defending the killing of babies as "captital punishment"??</b><br /><i>Are you trying to lie now? Where did I EVER say that? </i><br />It was the <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/11/genocide-or-capitol-punishment.html" rel="nofollow">TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE</a>! Within that post and your comments after it, you made the case that it was "captial punishment". Including the children! <br /><br /><br />At some point, some idiot named "toddes" called it a "mercy" to kill the children, and you thanked him for being a voice of reason!<br /><br />Whether "capital punishment" or "mercy", either way, you defended the killing of children.<br /><br /><i>If you are speaking of God, then you're taking things out of context and not even in the same realm or plane. Try honesty next time.</i><br />You agree with your god's actions. That makes it your problem, that makes it your view. <br /><br />Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.<br /><br /><br />On some other points <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/06/hurt-feelings.html?showComment=1309869265530#c4545670177369966520" rel="nofollow">freddie's dead</a> nails you.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.com