annoying things in this forum

Don't call neodude1212 a nail head!

 

Calm down and step away from the computer before you pop a blood vessel! Maybe if the Christian forum upsets you so, you might want to try a different Forum. Maybe something like the Fashion and Crafts Forum. I hear crafts can be real soothing.

PS and since I have always found fucking to be enjoyable and something nice to be shared with others I want to thank you for wishing us all so much Fucking!

I wish you and yours a Happy Fucking too!
OWB

 

Lol, @ OWB. Joke, right? I was agreeing with him.

 

I know but I couldn't resist.

 

This Thread Is Going Up In Flames, Fast.


And No One Even Bothered Responding To My Last Post.

Neo, You Nailhead.

ehehehe

 

Hehe.

 

You've got to be off your rocker to even attempt such a parallel!
If the Beatles intellectual property fueled and event that caused the genocide of 9 million people then I'd feel the same about it because people would have used their work as a basis to form a religion capable of killing that many people.

It is religion that I am against.

You are right, books don't kill people, RELIGION kills people. Cults are infant religions.

And to believe that most Cristians see Jesus as a Jew...
Is your rocker even in reach anymore???

Jesus is viewed not as the son of a Jew but the Son of God who rose up against a Jewish society and was persecuted by Jews.

Your arguments are a weak puddle of diarrhea!

 

aw Im sorry!

It's just that your last post was so great and awesome, there was nothing that I could add to it. lol.

yea, this thread is pretty stupid.....

 

Use of such empty rhetoric is usually a sign of a weak argument and used to try and divert attention from that fact.

For an actual refutation you have to think up something that refutes what has been said.

Saying things like;
You've got to be off your rocker to even attempt such a parallel!
Is your rocker even in reach anymore???
Your arguments are a weak puddle of diarrhea!

Doesn’t refute or prove anything except that maybe you don’t have anything to say on the subject!

 

LOL, So I will repost the meat of my post to which I can't help but notice you had no comment on!

-

If the Beatles intellectual property fueled an event that caused the genocide of 9 million people then I'd feel the same about it because people would have used their work as a basis to form a religion capable of killing that many people.

It is religion that I am against.

You are right, books don't kill people, RELIGION kills people. Cults are infant religions.

Jesus is viewed not as the son of a Jew but the Son of God who rose up against a Jewish society and was persecuted by Jews.

 

It is nice to know that you advocate some sort of thought control.

The people who hold that religion is essentially evil and should be eradicated are no better than the people who claim that atheists are essentially evil and should be converted.

 

? So rational thought and factual validation is no better than blind faith and emotional conformism ? ? ? ?

? ?

? ?

? ? ?

?

No, I can't see how those two paths can come crashing into the same tower!!

 

so that's what atheist are then?

have you ever thought that atheist might take comfort in the belief that there there is NO God? That way, they dont have to worry about the unknowns of death, owning up to a higher power, reliquishing control to something greater than them ect. ect.


look at both sides of the coin...

 

I Agree Completely. Well Said, Neo.

 

I am not saying that the belief systems are the same, I am saying that their end goals are the same (as is their methods...sweeping negative generalizations, unfactual claims about other groups and vilification of other groups to reach a consensus with their own group that they are superior).

An athiest fanatic who hopes to get rid of all religion will claim that ALL religion is bad because it is racist, brianwashing, violent, etc. A religious fanatic who wants to get rid of atheism and other religions will claim that atheists are devil worshipers, racist (some people claim that evolution is racist), and brainwashed by secular insitutions...

It is like Communism vs Fascism. Communists and Fascists are conflicting worldviews that on paper are very different, but in practice strikingly similar. (case and point, Hitler and Stalin...)

 

there was no such thing as a Christian when Jesus was around that only came after His death, before it they were (pretty much) all jewish
...
this is going back.. the proof that no one would know of God if no one mentioned Him is look at gravity before it was discovered it still existed just no one knew about it...and how can you memtion something if you don't know wut it is at all not even a concept.

... and im probably missing something i wanted to talk about but theres a lot of stuff written here and i forgot.

 

Actually your illustration disproves your point. Let’s say that there was a time that no one had a concept of gravity and no one mentioned it. Yet in today’s world there is a concept of gravity and people mention it. That means one of two things either that there never was a time when there was not a concept of gravity or that someone came up with the concept of gravity without it ever having been mentioned to them. This same reasoning applies to your argument about mentioning the concept of God.

 

A true anti-religious atheist is no fanatic. Do not confuse him with some cult of personality eastern religion so called athiest or spiritual "athiest". We may express our outrage at the injustices of the religious ignorant but we do not hold any emotional attachment to our beliefs like they do. We accept our beliefs as fact and understand how precious life is. We never martyr our bodies for an imaginary God or warmonger for a Greedy President hiding behind the ignorance of faith and flawed Christian values.

That is the difference between crashing into the twin towers and rising beyond them.

 

relaxxx, I suggest that you reread this thread and see who comes off as the fanatic and who doesn't. Is it the atheists or the "religious ignorant"? Who is it that seems to be defending their "facts" with flaming rhetoric and who is using reasoning?

 

i'm confused...

what i'm saying is simple you don't say what you don't know, you can't talk about something that is nonexistant (or to stop an argument before it starts non conceptional) because as soon as you mention it it becomes a concept