We don't require proof. we have faith

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There are issues which require discernment and there are those which dont, after another of your ludicrous assertions of lying, this time with the rather interesting appellation pathological, another attempt at amateur psychoanalysis I suspect, I did not read any of your text. I generally dont waste my time with people who cannot conduct themselves with a modicum of either civility or decorum.

That's 5(five) , (count 'em), thumbs up on the post above this one I'm replying to. One might say Lemon was on the money there. Oh, and there's another thumb coming for your post, but unfortunately, it will have a 180* clockwise configuration performed on it 😉

Originally posted by karoly aczel
That's 5(five) , (count 'em), thumbs up on the post above this one I'm replying to. One might say Lemon was on the money there. Oh, and there's another thumb coming for your post, but unfortunately, it will have a 180* clockwise configuration performed on it 😉

ill need to take your word for it, after 'you are a pathological liar,' i stopped reading, i certainly dont take talk like that from people outside of RHP and i certainly dont take it from people within, but if you find 'you are a pathological liar', meaningful and it resonates with you, then i wish you well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ill need to take your word for it, after 'you are a pathological liar,' i stopped reading, i certainly dont take talk like that from people outside of RHP and i certainly dont take it from people within, but if you find 'you are a pathological liar', meaningful and it resonates with you, then i wish you well.

Ha!!!

(no follow up posts for me after this one everyone... but lets see if RC tries to tempt me into a response😉 )

Originally posted by rwingett
I think it is a colossal mistake for religious people to give in to the secular demand for logical proof of their beliefs. Instead of letting secularists lay out the terms of the debate, and failing miserably to cobble together some specious and tortured form of logic, religious people should instead embrace the fact that they have no proof, and that there ...[text shortened]... ying to have things both ways. A little honest faith might do you more good than some bad logic.

This is clearly the most reasonable response to the faith vs. logic argument I've heard yet from any atheist.

Originally posted by vistesd
Credo quia absurdum est?

Uh...maybe. I'm afraid my Latin in not quite up to par.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is clearly the most reasonable response to the faith vs. logic argument I've heard yet from any atheist.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is clearly the most reasonable response to the faith vs. logic argument I've heard yet from any atheist.

Darn! He beat me to it. I am sure that eventually I will say something that will gain your praise for my reasonableness, as well. One small step at a time.

The instructor

Originally posted by rwingett
I think it is a colossal mistake for religious people to give in to the secular demand for logical proof of their beliefs. Instead of letting secularists lay out the terms of the debate, and failing miserably to cobble together some specious and tortured form of logic, religious people should instead embrace the fact that they have no proof, and that there ...[text shortened]... ying to have things both ways. A little honest faith might do you more good than some bad logic.

Well said.