End times

@secondson said
If you want to say that what I believe is speculation, then you're going to have to do more than just say so.

No I don't. Meanwhile, If you can demonstrate that the tenets of your faith are based on something other than subjective claims based on speculations about supernatural things and are rooted in objective facts, I will adopt your beliefs.

@secondson said
Do you think "humans" can make the earth uninhabitable?

They probably can. I don't think they will.

@secondson said
Someone should start a thread titled "Brainwashed", subtitled "who is and who isn't".

You do it. It is, after all, you who introduced the word into the conversation. You could use this from wiki:

"Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques."

@fmf said
I think you are mistaken. I think you are using the word "brainwashed" incorrectly. You may vehemently disagree with my perspective, but you don't need to use a word like "brainwashed" inappropriately in order to express your disagreement.

Brainwashed - a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas; persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

So, do you want to split hairs and drag the discussion into a maze of irrelevant and idiosyncratic lines of inquisition you employ when you don't have a debate worth engaging with?

@secondson said
Brainwashed - a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas; persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

According to this definition, I can't be described as having been brainwashed.

@secondson said
So, do you want to split hairs and drag the discussion into a maze of irrelevant and idiosyncratic lines of inquisition you employ when you don't have a debate worth engaging with?

It is you - not me - who sought to dismiss galveston75's mind and beliefs as being brainwashed, not me. It is your debate tactic, not mine.

@fmf said
I think you are misrepresenting both my contribution to this community - as a non-believer - and my character as a writer who expresses personal perspectives without appeals to authority and without trying to equate my views with "objective truths". If I start copy pasting memorized quotes from 'atheist books' and citing chapter and page numbers, then you can call me out for my rote-learning and recitations.

Repeating yourself is quoting yourself. You're quoting yourself by repeating the same lines you use to derail what others say with regards to the topic of discussion, because when they cite the source, in reference to the subject, you can't refute what's being said, so you resort to derailing the discussion by quoting your own self-learned rote.

Your "personal perspective" carries little weight in a debate. Especially if you can't cite sources that lend credibility to your assertions, which ultimately add up to nothing but opinion.

And it's stupid to think that rote learning and citing "authority" is somehow not a worthy debate method.

@fmf said
It should have been you who pointed out to him that it was you who said he was brainwashed.

I might have if I was reading every post you two exchanged in. You caught it first.

Besides, I tend to get bleary eyed when reading long drawn out paragraphs unless I find what's being said worth focusing on.

@secondson said
Is that your best?

Do you think what Jesus said is contradicted by what the other New Testament writers said?

We are commanded to preach the teachings and gospel of Christ. You are foolishly arguing a nonsensical point with an atheist/agnostic, something Jesus said to steer clear of. By the way FMF appears to appreciate the gospel of Christ far more than you do. I have never seen FMF write derogatory things about what Jesus said, like calling the keeping of the commandments 'legalistic / works salvation'. Your corrupted doctrine is of men and of the flesh and you will reap the corresponding corruption.

@fmf said
No I don't. Meanwhile, If you can demonstrate that the tenets of your faith are based on something other than subjective claims based on speculations about supernatural things and are rooted in objective facts, I will adopt your beliefs.

You're just going to have to accept that without "objective facts" to prove the viability of an assertion everything becomes speculation and subjective opinion.

If that's true, then nothing is provable. Debate is futile, except perhaps to gloat over ones powers of articulation and self admiration.

Sometimes knowledge becomes a wall blocking passage to the path of truth. Knowledge can bury the heart and soul beneath a mountain of speculation and opinion.

There becomes no room for the obvious truth declared in creation.

@fmf said
You do it. It is, after all, you who introduced the word into the conversation. You could use this from wiki:

"Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques."

No point in starting a thread. Everybody knows that.

@fmf said
According to this definition, I can't be described as having been brainwashed.

"persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship"

But it does describe exactly how you are brainwashed. You bought into the ideology of agnostic atheism by believing the propaganda sold to you by sources that cannot prove that God doesn't exist or can't be known.

Perhaps you fall into the category of the one who received the seed, but in stony places. You received the word with joy at first, but there was no root in you. Things got tough and you were offended.

It's true. It's easier to deny the truth than to be accountable to it.

@fmf said
It is you - not me - who sought to dismiss galveston75's mind and beliefs as being brainwashed, not me. It is your debate tactic, not mine.

I stand by my "dismissal" of Galveston as brainwashed, not because it's a "tactic", but because I am fully knowledgeable about the doctrine of the JW's, and because I am thoroughly versed in the scriptures.

Atheism is no stranger to me either.

Why do you allow yourself to get so bogged down over trifling debate issues?

@rajk999 said
We are commanded to preach the teachings and gospel of Christ. You are foolishly arguing a nonsensical point with an atheist/agnostic, something Jesus said to steer clear of. By the way FMF appears to appreciate the gospel of Christ far more than you do. I have never seen FMF write derogatory things about what Jesus said, like calling the keeping of the commandments 'legalist ...[text shortened]... . Your corrupted doctrine is of men and of the flesh and you will reap the corresponding corruption.

What? Did you say something?

If you did, tell it to FMF. I suspect he may be the last person to take you seriously, although I don't recall the last time he ever engaged with you in debate.

@secondson said
Repeating yourself is quoting yourself. You're quoting yourself by repeating the same lines you use to derail what others say with regards to the topic of discussion, because when they cite the source, in reference to the subject, you can't refute what's being said, so you resort to derailing the discussion by quoting your own self-learned rote.

If in doubt, go for the word salad.