|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 19:19:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude, You made me laugh out loud! Huxley was promoting atheism by distributing Christian Bibles in classrooms??? What are you smoking???
Is Gideons International aware they are promoting atheism??? This is over the top dumb Dude! Thanks for the belly laugh! I answered your question as best anyone could on page 27. Let's move on. Can you imagine you may be wrong??
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gideons International (also known as Gideon's Bible) is an evangelical Christian organization dedicated to distributing copies of the Bible in over 94 languages and 194 countries of the world, most famously in hotel and motel rooms. The organization was founded in 1899 in Janesville, Wisconsin, as an early American parachurch organization dedicated to Christian evangelism. It began distributing free Bibles, the work it is chiefly known for, in 1908, when the first Bibles were placed in the rooms of the Superior Hotel in Superior, Montana.
Nearly 79 million Gideon Scriptures were given out in 2009. Close to 1.7 billion have been distributed since 1908.[1]
Holy crap! All those Christians with Bibles in their homes and churches are spreading atheism like a plague across America!! Dude...seriously? Come on. Give your head a shake. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2011 : 20:04:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Are we asleep? |
No, but fascism isn't a good answer to Islam. Why do you think the violent restriction of civil liberties is the only solution to the problem, Officiant? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 20:17:56 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Dear Kil, You are not eight years old. Adults do not say "who cares" or "I'll alert all scientists" as a way to avoid answering a direct serious question. |
If I'm going to waste my time, it's much more fun wasting my time by ridiculing you, Officiant. I figured out many pages ago that an actual debate with you is an exercise in futility. You lie, you don't follow the rules that you yourself laid down, and you are impervious to correction. You lack any semblance of humility, wit, logic or honesty. So really, when I am addressing you, as I am now, you can be pretty sure that if you are able to read between the lines, what I'm really saying to you is; "Go fuck yourself."
Now the truth is, I don't really care what you think. But as an administrator, and one of the founders of SFN, I have to set an example to other people who post here. So I will never actually come right out and say what I think in the only words that you might possibly understand. (I say possibly, because it's clear you have some sort of reading comprehension problem, and can't even sort out those things that are put to you in a straight forward way. Been there... Done that... And I'm not doing it anymore.)
I may chime in from time to time, but it won't be to try to convince you of anything. You know what they say, because even you have used this quote, even if inappropriately:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.
In the case of this thread, that would be continuing any attempt at having a serious discussion with you, Officiant.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 05:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, I am reading between the lines. What you are really saying is that agnosticism is undeniably self-refuting.
That's quite an example you are setting for the other people. Nice language.
Thank you for inviting me here. This discourse has taught me a lot about agnostics. |
|
|
|
Falconjudge
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:01:11 [Permalink]
|
| And on the Bible thing: The distribution of Bibles is only dangerous to faith if they are study Bibles. They have too much acknowledgment of ignorance. They might get people thinking. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Thank you for inviting me here.
|
My mistake.
Officiant:
This discourse has taught me a lot about agnostics. |
No. It hasn't. You even have atheists here who don't identify as agnostic/atheists telling you that you're full of crap. You keep building the same strawman version of what you think we are. After 32 pages of that, you have convinced no one of the validity of your position. Not the New Atheists, the atheists or the agnostic/atheists. And that's because none of us are given to faith based beliefs, or the delusions of a self proclaimed number 7 religious fanatic.
As for my language, you get back what you give. You set that bar in your opening post. That I chose to use an urban expression does nothing to change the fact that you have relied on name calling and on appeals to authority, and have not once risen to the challenge of actually defending your position. Call us a few names, appeal to authority, call us a few names, appeal to authority... And you think you are debating. You're pathetic.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 08:25:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, I am reading between the lines. What you are really saying is that agnosticism is undeniably self-refuting.
|
Fascinating. So "between the lines," you can find Kil saying things he neither said, nor believes. Your powers of insight are truly incredible, and frightening!
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 08:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dude, You made me laugh out loud! Huxley was promoting atheism by distributing Christian Bibles in classrooms??? What are you smoking???
Is Gideons International aware they are promoting atheism??? This is over the top dumb Dude! Thanks for the belly laugh! I answered your question as best anyone could on page 27. Let's move on. Can you imagine you may be wrong??
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gideons International (also known as Gideon's Bible) is an evangelical Christian organization dedicated to distributing copies of the Bible in over 94 languages and 194 countries of the world, most famously in hotel and motel rooms. The organization was founded in 1899 in Janesville, Wisconsin, as an early American parachurch organization dedicated to Christian evangelism. It began distributing free Bibles, the work it is chiefly known for, in 1908, when the first Bibles were placed in the rooms of the Superior Hotel in Superior, Montana.
Nearly 79 million Gideon Scriptures were given out in 2009. Close to 1.7 billion have been distributed since 1908.[1]
Holy crap! All those Christians with Bibles in their homes and churches are spreading atheism like a plague across America!! Dude...seriously? Come on. Give your head a shake.
|
I'm saying nothing about Huxley's motivations. I'm saying that he inspired Azimov, and that Azimov believes as I do that the bible is a potent force for atheism.
But you wouldn't understand that because you suffer the same problem christian recruits suffer. You were converted before you were ever offered the opportunity to read the literature. You understand none of it, you can't even get Strenger right, but you are filled with the conviction your faith provides and nothing can shake you from it. If a person were to pick up the bible and read it, without the influence of preachers and other believers to "interpret" for them, no one would believe a word of it. If you read enough different religious "holy" books, the inevitable conclusion is atheism.
You have not answered my question yet either. If that drivel you posted on page 27 was your best effort, you prove only that you fail to understand the question. It is a simple fact that every human being bases every conclusion we ever make on assumptions about the nature of reality (I won't trouble your tiny brain with the problem of induction until after you get past this hurdle). You don't understand, you are immune to new information because of your faith, and you will probably never understand.
So I'll ask again, in response to your assertion that science can test any practical real world question, what is the test to prove there is a physical reality outside of your mind.
Get back to me when you can answer it, just make sure it is about an hour after you get over yourself though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 09:04:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hal
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, I am reading between the lines. What you are really saying is that agnosticism is undeniably self-refuting.
|
Fascinating. So "between the lines," you can find Kil saying things he neither said, nor believes. Your powers of insight are truly incredible, and frightening!
|
Officiant has no interest in what we are actually saying. His only interest is in promoting his strawman version of what he thinks we are. All arguments to the contrary falls on deaf ears. At least he's consistant. If an atheists argue with him, he immediately accuses them of being agnostic. Even after they tell him they are not. It's the black and white thinking of a faith based belief and Officiant has demonstrated his faith in spades. He will not tolerate any other view and is impervious to correction. He's a zealot. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 09:39:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Fripp, Agnostics are not Atheists and when you are wrong you are spectacularly wrong. Read the following. Ridicule: An instrument in the war on terrorism » News ...
Feb 9, 2006 ... Ridicule is an under-appreciated weapon not only against terrorists, but .... The best ones ...
www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.258/news_detail.asp
Info on Islam: Ridicule, mockery and satire - the best weapons ...
Jan 23, 2010 ... Ridicule, mockery and satire - the best weapons against Islam. If your enemy is temperamental, seek to ...
crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/ridicule-mockey-and-satire-best-weapons.html
|
Wow. And I thought Jesus-freaks are stupid. I had a lot more patience to reply to you yesterday... but today, you are merely a colossally unproductive waste of time.
More Appeals to Authority.
Plus, those two links are the height of cherry-picking. Two whole articles that support your assertion? I'm underwhelmed.
Tell me: exactly how successful has "ridicule" been here at Skeptic Friends? Tell me who you've converted.
I'm hoping that this is my last post. Unlike you, I have a job, a family, and a life. You, my friend, are a loser. Any reply you make will only confirm that fact. Does your mom know that you're not out looking for a job? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 09:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, I am reading between the lines. What you are really saying is that agnosticism is undeniably self-refuting.
That's quite an example you are setting for the other people. Nice language.
Thank you for inviting me here. This discourse has taught me a lot about agnostics.
|
Dear Pope Officiant I of Atheism,
I am reading between the lines.
You have no argument so you must insist that others are validating your failed assertion because you lack the honor, integrity, and honesty required to actually process arguments. You instead resort to misquoting experts and cherry picking definitions from sources you would normally decry as flawed. You language speaks for itself and your insults have been pervasive even from the very first post.
You like being a chew-toy and you have succeeded in your primary goal to prostelyze atheism without learning anything. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:39:21 [Permalink]
|
Dear Hal, Slowly read Kil's message above where he says, "if you are able to read between the lines"
and then tells me do something anatomically impossible. Now Kil made an incorrect use of the phrase
to sarcastically emphasize his utter contempt for me but I took his lead and used the phrase correctly.
You may have to scroll back a bit but I have repeatedly asked Kil to respond to a claim that agnosticism
is self-refuting. By creating a smoke screen of ad hominems he avoided honestly addressing the question.
So I read between the lines.'I perceived that he is unable to challenge the claim because it is valid.
No clairvoyance was required. If you have difficulty understanding this try answering the claim yourself
and you will see Kil's dilemma. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:45:32 [Permalink]
|
Dear Valiant Dancer, Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Merriam-Webster |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
