Originally posted by twhiteheadsmart fish!
It doesn't 'bother' me. Its just wrong. Why are you so insistent that it 'bothers' me rather than actually considering what I said? When someone disagrees with you it doesn't always mean you are on to something, sometimes it means you are wrong. Think on that for a bit.
[b]We live on a mote of dust, in galactic terms. Do we not need to not pollute the ...[text shortened]... holics are against birth control, and the various wars do not appear to be ending any time soon.
Originally posted by EladarOh Eltard, you have no idea what my beliefs are you very silly person other than that I am not gullible enough to fall for the lies of men who claim to know what they do not.
Leftist ideology is for the left what scripture is to orthodox christians.
Of course you can't see it because of your ideological beliefs.
Also, you are not smart enough to use that particular rhetorical device effectively. Your words would carry much greater weight if you crafted your phrasing yourself rather than trying to shoehorn your intentions into other people's sentences.
You clearly feel comfortable labelled as a right-winger, but you are quite mistaken if you think that everybody who thinks you are a fool is a 'leftist'.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou are an antichristian libtard. You are both predictable and ignorant of things beyond your ideological beliefs.
Oh Eltard, you have no idea what my beliefs are you very silly person other than that I am not gullible enough to fall for the lies of men who claim to know what they do not.
Also, you are not smart enough to use that particular rhetorical device effectively. Your words would carry much greater weight if you crafted your phrasing yourself rather ...[text shortened]... but you are quite mistaken if you think that everybody who thinks you are a fool is a 'leftist'.
Hang around long enough and I will enlighten you on more things than just Christian beliefs.
Originally posted by apathistHey man.....
Why does my view bother you. We live on a mote of dust, in galactic terms. Do we not need to not pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. That answers your first question.
Replace yourself. Justify a need to do more that that, while recognizing that resources are limited. That answers your second question.
Your third question: dude, we are o ...[text shortened]... on: you put 'manage' in quotes. Why? Do you advocate unrestricted growth? Have you met cancer?
A hippie who rejects nature man.....
Who would have thought it man....
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou expect me to question my scriptures yet you will not question your golden rule. Which coincidentally happens to be in the scriptures that you want me to question.
No, you have misunderstood again, wilfully I suppose. I suspect that you will never be able to understand the shortcomings of your own argument as you are unable to question your scripture.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAnd if one human decides that a certain action is right and another decides the same action is wrong, you will just have to judge their actions using your own personal preferences.
It's you who is insisting that there is a "god" role for someone or something to play. Not me. Claiming that 'the only option I am left with is...' to accept your superstitious premise blah blah blah... is nothing but one of your rhetorical gimmicks. Every single human being must strive to decide what is right or wrong; it is something that constitutes the very essence of human nature and the human condition. "Play God"?? Don't be daft.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut that's exactly what you do. You cite some supernatural being that you imagine exists. And you offer your personal interpretations of ancient texts. Your entire moral universe is as stitched together with subjectivity and preferences as anyone else's. Your self-anointment as some kind of communicator of godly wishes passed down, through divine inspiration, to the whole of humanity through the writings of the ancient Hebrews thousands of years ago, is not the demonstration of "objectivity" and "universality" and "absolute truth" that you seem to think it is. But you prefer to think that it is.
And if one human decides that a certain action is right and another decides the same action is wrong, you will just have to judge their actions using your own personal preferences.
Originally posted by FMFThis description you have given is perfectly consistent with the assumption that atheism is true. However just like I cannot prove that God exists you cannot prove that he doesn't. Thats why we both have to make unprovable presuppositions about the universe which ultimately governs our world view. Within the assumption that atheism is true, there cannot be any objective standard for right or wrong. Within the assumption that I make, God's laws are the objective standards for measuring right and wrong.
But that's exactly what you do. You cite some supernatural being that you imagine exists. And you offer your personal interpretations of ancient texts. Your entire moral universe is as stitched together with subjectivity and preferences as anyone else's. Your self-anointment as some kind of communicator of godly wishes passed down, through divine inspiration, t ...[text shortened]... ersality" and "absolute truth" that you seem to think it is. But you prefer to think that it is.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSee the "Hitler" thread for my responses to this kind of stuff which you keep repeating over and over and over again.
Thats why we both have to make unprovable presuppositions about the universe which ultimately governs our world view. Within the assumption that atheism is true, there cannot be any objective standard for right or wrong. Within the assumption that I make, God's laws are the objective standards for measuring right and wrong.
