Arguing about what percentage of science would be altered by the religious right misses the point. None should be allowed. There are religion classes .That is where it must stay. But caving into political power of the right stains science. Allow it and see where it stops.
How would the righties like it if scientists had input in the bible. It would wind up a pamphlet.
Emphasis Mine.
So if he hadn’t mentioned Santa (who I should mention wasn’t invented by Coca Cola) you would argue it? Okay how about vampires. Or unicorns. Or dragons. Or Arjuna, Krisha or Baal?
C’mon pony up. Argue for the existence of your invisible bff in the light of all that other shit you don’t believe in.
Religious beliefs are as stupid as believing in unicorns. They are both silly and have zero evidence for them. Please argue against that.
Arjuna is a mythical character in the Bhagavad Gita, he was a human, not a God. Krsna is a Vaishnavite name for God. Baal is a I believe Canaanite name for God.
You want me to argue within the terms of your conflation. That makes you an idiot who just wants to ridicule me, not an honest interlocutor. You don’t take me seriously, why should I take you seriously?
This is where you are irrational. You make a blanket statement. You don’t even know what I believe and you tell me that it’s as stupid as believing in unicorns. You’ve made up your mind. Where’s the debate? You just want to be a bully, and that’s obvious.
I’ve got your number, and it’s not a very big one.
Fair enough, but the origin of Santa Claus is easily determined.
Evidence for what? What exactly is it you want evidence for? What image of God is it that you think I believe in? You’re offering canned arguments, and you haven’t even slowed down to determine what it is you’re even debunking.
Why should I give a reason? It doesn’t matter what you think. I know you think you are highly important in the scheme of things, but I do not. I don’t get into the ‘gotcha’ argument about proof for God. I’m happy with you being an atheist. My arguments have always been about the sociological impact of religion. That’s why I don’t argue with you, you try to make it into, “Prove God exists.”, and ignore what I am actually saying. Different religions have different cultural properties and fill different roles in people’s traditional lives.
See there you go. You want us to argue with you, but you ignore the subjects offered to you. You don’t have any intention of arguing honestly. It is actually YOU who is dishonest. You don’t know a fucking thing about religion, as you haven’t looked at any of the materials, you just issue the blanket statement that ‘it’s all stupid’. Even though you don’t know what it is that is stupid, you just know that it’s stupid. You don’t know what anyone believes, you just know it’s wrong.
Well, because it reconciles conflicting mythologies within its framework. That’s one of the things that makes it interesting. You could read it and think of it as fantasy fiction if you like. I asked for a literary analysis, not that you buy into it. Arguing with you is like arguing with a petulant child. “I don’t know anything about it other than that it’s stupid!”, and you think that your argument is equal to other arguments. It’s not, it’s juvenile. You’re willing to spend whole months of your life spouting off about how stupid you are, but you won’t even spend 5 hours building up your knowledge of the topic you spend untold hours on.
I don’t care that whether you are right or wrong. That’s beside the point to me, it’s that you can’t offer any insight into the subject that makes you a totally worthless opponent.
I don’t see how that harms my argument. So I bought into an urban legend. So what? That’s just gotcha bullshit. “Here’s a piece of irrelevant evidence, now debate it.”, “No I won’t debate it it’s irrelevant because of X. I refuse to take it seriously.”, “Oooh pwned!”
I’m sorry, but me not knowing the correct debunking of a stupid argument doesn’t really award point to either side. That’s the problem with a lot of the atheists on this board. They don’t care about crafting real arguments, they just want to be able to say, oooh pwned. Then when I do it, they get all pissy and start crying because I don’t take them seriously. Either we are debating seriously, or we are discussing cartoon characters, which is it? Are we having a debate or are we flaming on the ‘pwned’ level?
I don’t take you seriously because you’ve a proven track record as a fuckwit. Aside from the fact that I don’t take you seriously, you have never faced an argument head on. You whine about how I and others aren’t honest interlocutors. If you had an argument worth anything you should be able to refute what I’m saying.
No, I just want you to support your constant bullshit claims. You can’t even do that, which makes you no better than lekatt.
I know you are but what am I? :rolleyes:
I face plenty of arguments head on. I talk to Sentient Meat, Voyager, Pochacco, Revenant Threshold and deal with their arguments head on.
Oh please, this is about as dishonest as it gets. Generally I don’t follow tangents I don’t feel like following. I have offered many times for people to start a thread on the tangent if they like, they usually decline, preferring to ‘pwn’ me, by being incensed that I won’t debate them.
Precisely.
Indeed.
Status: False
As everyone knows, Santa is none other than Wodan.
Sure his charactaristics have changed over time, from Wodan to Sinterklaas to Santa Claus.
It’s not as if the image of YHW hasn’t changed over time, from an egotistical genocidal maniac to a strict but fair God who loves us to God=Love
even though you folded like a Welsh scrum.