Why do you think I qualified it in my long post about the Problem of Evil as Unnecessary Suffering? Why do you think I specifically asked about childhood cancer? Do you deny that children get cancer?

5/17/2010 1:39:18 PM

I really can't tell if you are being serious or obtuse on purpose.

Children die of cancer, AIDS, get hit by cars, murdered, aborted (depends on your views), I can keep going on and on...again...what are you asking? Why do children die?

5/17/2010 2:06:13 PM

Ok, that's established.

Does God have the power to stop children from getting cancer?

5/17/2010 2:10:02 PM

Quote :

"Ok, that's established."

lol? I wasn't aware anyone had their doubts about whether or not children get cancer and can indeed die.

Quote :

" Does God have the power to stop children from getting cancer? "

I know exactly where you want to take this...so go right ahead and say it.

"Why doesn't He?"

5/17/2010 2:12:13 PM

So was that a yes? You know where I'm going with this because I already went there several times in this thread without any rebuttal.

Well, why doesn't he? The answer to that would help address the problem.

5/17/2010 2:17:38 PM

Help address what problem? You want an answer to why God heals some people and not others. Why God lets some people die and grants others long life. Any answer you receive is just another mans interpretation. We cannot assume to know God and His plan.

Your idea of what God is and Christian belief is that we're just puppets in a perfect world. Its painfully difficult to have a serious discussion with you because you presume to know everything about Christianity but have proven in this thread and others that you have no grasp on Christianity or religion in general yet refuse to listen to users correcting you.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean people trying to convert you, I just simply mean people explaining to you what their beliefs are because you are misinformed.

5/17/2010 2:30:58 PM

lol@ heals some people. Prove it.

lol@ god's plan.

Here's a simpler, more elegant, and entirely consistent within observable evidence and logic: There is no God that has the power to cure childhood cancer. If there was, he would have.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, and I'm repeating myself here, if it's part of your God's plan to give children cancer then fuck him and fuck you for worshiping him.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not even talking specifically about Christianity. I laid out all the terms in my post about the Problem of Evil. Are you saying that God is not Omnimax?

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 2:44:49 PM

Quote :

"lol@ heals some people. Prove it."

I am a result of this.

Quote :

"Here's a simpler, more elegant, and entirely consistent within observable evidence and logic: There is no God that has the power to cure childhood cancer. If there was, he would have. "

So your reasoning is, if a god existed there would be no death, no evil, etc, no arguments on TWW because people would just get along.

I am repeating myself but here goes again....Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean people trying to convert you, I just simply mean people explaining to you what their beliefs are because you are misinformed.

Quote :

"I laid out all the terms in my post about the Problem of Evil."

Really? Where? I missed it because I only saw the part where you said evil exists therefore God doesn't. Evil being a scientifically proven force in this world.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 2:45:41 PM

Quote :

"I am a result of this."

Prove it. Unless you don't care whether I believe your claims, you need to substantiate them with evidence.

Quote :

"So your reasoning is, if a god existed there would be no death, no evil, etc, no arguments on TWW because people would just get along."

There would be no suffering that the all-powerful, all-loving god would be capable of stopping. Quit comparing arguments on TWW to childhood cancer.

I'm really concerned that you've never heard of this paradox before, or that you dismiss it so easily.

5/17/2010 2:51:31 PM

Quote :

"There would be no suffering that the all-powerful, all-loving god would be capable of stopping. Quit comparing arguments on TWW to childhood cancer. I'm really concerned that you've never heard of this paradox before, or that you dismiss it so easily."

No, I've heard it before but I dismiss it because I've grown up. I stopped wondering why God doesn't make the world a perfect place, grant us all the riches we desire, stop people from dying, etc when I was like 6. Its a bit naive of you to think that. Allow me to direct you to a genie in a lamp.

Quote :

"Prove it. Unless you don't care whether I believe your claims, you need to substantiate them with evidence."

No offense but no, I don't care whether you believe me or not and TWW isn't really the place for me to go into details. I know this isn't the Christian thing for me to say but I'm not here to convert you or share my experiences with you, just here to point out that you are seriously misinformed on Christianity and our beliefs.


[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 2:55:22 PM

You obviously are a smarter man than all of the philosophers throughout history that have pondered the Problem of Evil.

Quote :

"No offense but no, I don't care whether you believe me or not and TWW isn't really the place for me to go into details. I know this isn't the Christian thing for me to say but I'm not here to convert you or share my experiences with you, just here to point out that you are seriously misinformed on Christianity and our beliefs. "

Well then, instead of telling you that god probably doesn't exist because of logical and evidentary reasons I'll just say "neener neener neener I'm right and you're wrong because I say so".

5/17/2010 3:01:35 PM

Quote :

"Well then, instead of telling you that god probably doesn't exist because of logical and evidentary reasons I'll just say "neener neener neener I'm right and you're wrong because I say so"."

You know, if you had said that to begin with, we'd be on page 2 and this thread would have long been forgotten. *shrug*

5/17/2010 3:02:48 PM

Except you obviously haven't been reading because I have been providing evidentiary and logical reasons why a god probably does not exist. Then you called me a 6th grader because I brought up a philosophical problem with an omnipotent, benevolent god that has been brought up by countless philosophers smarter than myself and you.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 3:05:00 PM

You have yet to present any evidence that God does not exist.

continue...

5/17/2010 3:06:00 PM

If you're not going to even read my posts then I'm not going to continue this.

Evidentiary and logical reasons that a god probably does not exist. It's obvious by the very nature of your god that it can't be disproven, which is yet another reason not to believe it, which I have already stated several times.

V, your proposal is accepted.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM. Reason : V]

5/17/2010 3:09:04 PM

Quote :

"If you're not going to even read my posts then I'm not going to continue this."

I've read your posts which is why I have come to the conclusion that you have not presented any evidence.

But please...next time lead with this:

Quote :

"I'm not going to continue this"

5/17/2010 3:12:43 PM

For the record, atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It is the denial of the theistic claim that there is one. I don't have to prove anything, just like I don't have to prove there is no Loch Ness monster.

The fact that there is no evidence for or against God is in itself evidence against God, just as it is for Unicorns, Krishna, Allah, Zeus, and everything else that's made up. Mark it down, I noted evidence against the existence of a god.

There is a colossal amount of evidence against the literalness of the Bible, the Koran, and every other Holy book out there. Mark it down, I noted evidence against the existence of particular gods.

Logically, you cannot reconcile unnecessary suffering in the world to an all-powerful, benevolent god. Mark it down, I noted evidence against a particular type of god.

5/17/2010 4:01:13 PM

Quote :

"But please...next time lead with this: "I'm not going to continue this" "

Quote :

"your proposal is accepted"

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 4:07:52 PM

Quote :

" but have proven in this thread and others that you have no grasp on Christianity or religion in general yet refuse to listen to users correcting you."

Neither Christianity or religion are a single thing to grasp. It's pretty arrogant of you to presume that disco_stu doesn't understand Christianity. He may not understand your view of Christianity, because you've spent the last 2 pages explaining that you're not going to explain your view, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand Christianity or religion.

5/17/2010 7:33:03 PM

You can't cut off someones nose and give them a rose to smell. ~Some proverb from someone....idk

hey disco, sorry i haven't been meaning to skirt your question of kids with cancer. I appreciate the question, as it is a great one.

"We" in this will be Christians. Play along with me for a minute or so if you will.

You see in Romans 3:23 we learn that all have sinned. Now in Romans 6:23 we learn that the wages of sin is death. Now in Genesis 3 we learn that people chose an apple over God, thus introducing the world to sin. Now lets not make light of that. Its was absolutely like spitting in the face of God by saying you know what, you can't satisfy me, i need something else.

Now bear with me here because I am not beating around the bush I am laying a logical foundation to get to one of the answers to that question.

Anyway, back to the point. You have claimed earlier, what about innocent children with cancer? Now first of all, your definition of innocent and the Bible's definition of innocent are two completely different things. So please understand that when you try to take a Christian's perspective of this. Christians believe that no one is innocent. (Again read Romans 3:10-18 and Psalm 51:5). Now with that in mind we have to realize that in Romans 8:22-23 it says that creation has been groaning and that it is decaying etc. etc. So basically sin has consequences, and part of those consequences are physical diseases.

So why is there suffering? Sin.

Now you can agree or disagree but I believe that the logic I use to interpret from those verses is sound. And beyond the logic you have to realize what God's end goal is. See 2nd Peter 2:9, God is patient and doesn't want anyone to perish. See John 3:17, God didn't come to the world to condemn it, he came to save it.

This is where the beauty of who Jesus comes in though. He came to earth and suffered and died for us. He entered into the suffering and ultimately conquered sin not sin spite of evil but through the evil that was done unto Him. That to me is awesome. Taste and see that the Lord is good...see Psalm 34

5/17/2010 8:23:21 PM

Quote :

"Neither Christianity or religion are a single thing to grasp. It's pretty arrogant of you to presume that disco_stu doesn't understand Christianity. He may not understand your view of Christianity, because you've spent the last 2 pages explaining that you're not going to explain your view, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand Christianity or religion."

He twists his view on Christianity to fit his reasoning behind why God doesn't exist...i.e. he spins it in the sense that if a god did exist we'd be living in a fairy tail fantasy land. This is not Christianity. Its arrogant of him and you to think that you know what faith, Christianity and God are with posts like that.

I have been down this road with disco_stu countless times in other threads and I am done explaining it to him.

^You just opened a can of worms that you are not ready for...

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 8:27:49 PM

^ the problem of evil isn't twisting Christianity, it's an if-then proposition.

If you believe that God is both omniscient and omnibenevolent, then the God as defined by some views on Christianity can't logically exist. Therefore God is either not omniscient, or omnibenevolent by the problem of evil.

What Lutz seems to be saying is that God's means of benevolence is not to always do good as the problem of evil presumes, but to allow humans free will and perhaps "hope" they choose to worship God. The problem with this viewpoint is that it implies God either isn't omniscient or isn't benevolent.

Because IF God is omniscient, then god would have known before it created humanity that we would be "flawed" by sin. God would have known that we would have chosen the Fruit of Knowledge, and chosen sin. Which means that God created us anyway, knowing that he is creating is to live in suffering. God never intended for us to live in the Garden of Eden. The cake is a lie. This also would imply that God doesn't play an active role in humanity, and that God doesn't really have a plan that tends towards bliss.

Or if you believe that God does have a plan, then some people would have to be born to burn in Hell, which is an odd plan for a religion that preaches salvation for everyone. How do I know i'm not one of those people whose future according to God's plan was always to die in Hell? How could i fight this if it was God's plan?

These aren't contortions of Christianity, because some christians might believe in free will, some might believe in a plan, some might believe that God isn't really omniscient (even if they don't realize it), some might believe god isn't omnibenevolent (also without realizing it), and then they would have entirely logically consistent beliefs. The issue is the cognitive dissonance most people have. If a person is forced to identify what their personal model of God actually is, then they may realize that they don't need to be as religious as they think they do.

The other option is that you say you simply don't know the nature of God, but then that would mean they wouldn't take the Bible literally (because the Bible presumes to paradoxically describe the nature of God), and that Christianity is not superior to any other religious belief in that scenario, beyond the social benefits.

And pointing out that religion has social/cultural benefits aren't a knock on religion. Those are valid, powerful reasons to keep religion around. Not everyone (most people IMO) can live happily thinking they are 100% alone, with no afterlife. It's a comforting thought (to myself too, i must admit) that helps keep people going. As long as people realize that they don't need to believe in a 100% literal Bible, and that we can teach evolution, understand science, and use stem cells, without detracting from the truly positive aspects of religion.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2010 9:22:13 PM

The God of the Old Testament too is very similar to the contemporary Mesopotamian Gods. The Flood in the Bible, for example, was one of God's "mistakes." God regretted his choice to wipe out humanity, and the rainbow was a promise never to do it again. This is not a perfect God, just like Zeus or Osiris weren't thought to be omniscient or omnipotent either.

And then there is the first of the 10 commandments. It doesn't say no other Gods exist, just those Gods can't be held before the one Hebrew God (Yahweh). The Hebrews when the Old Testament was written did worship other Gods, and tolerated foreign people who also worshipped their own gods. They believed that other gods were powerful, but not necessarily that Yahweh was the single, omnipotent God. THis was demonstrated in the story of Moses, when Moses visited Ramses. Ramses threw his staff down and his god turned it to a snake to demonstrate the power of his god. Moses though, to demonstrate the the Hebrew Yahweh was more powerful than Ramses' god through his own staff down, and it too turned into a snake, but a snake that devoured Ramses' snake. The God in the 10 commandments clearly is not an omniscient god, but more in line with all the other Mesopotamian Gods, just the patron-deity for the Hebrews.

The act of prayer itself is even a historical artifact from a time when people were polytheistic, and didn't believe in a single, omniscient, omnipotent God.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2010 9:30:01 PM

Lutz, listen to yourself. You're suggesting that children that get cancer and die after a short, pain filled life deserved it. You're suggesting that everyone who dies in a natural disaster deserves it.

This is a horribly repugnant viewpoint. To suggest that my 2 year old is sinful is offensive. I gave her an extra big hug this morning at the thought that there are people in this world that think of her this way.

Why believe this? Because it's written in the Bible? I honestly don't know why you'd condone this, unless you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Further, a moron pointed out, the Garden of Eden was a trap. If God is all-knowing, then he knew they were going to eat the fruit and hence didn't really have a choice in the matter.

I just don't get how a rational person can believe this stuff and still feel good about themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"Not everyone (most people IMO) can live happily thinking they are 100% alone, with no afterlife. It's a comforting thought (to myself too, i must admit) that helps keep people going. As long as people realize that they don't need to believe in a 100% literal Bible, and that we can teach evolution, understand science, and use stem cells, without detracting from the truly positive aspects of religion."

But this is bad reason to believe something. It's like saying that it's a good thing to believe that you're holding a winning lottery ticket if it makes you feel good. Unfortunately your beliefs influence your actions, and belief based on a falsehood will influence your actions negatively. Heroin is also comforting.

It wasn't a good reason to believe that the earth was flat, or the center of the Universe, or any of it and it's not a good reason to believe that there is an afterlife. Explaining away the "big" questions like the origin of life with a mystical explanation will only serve to distract us from answering these questions the right way: through investigation, evidence, falsification.

I have no crisis of meaning myself. I take comfort in the knowledge that there is probably nothing after I die. This gives ultimate meaning to each moment in my life, each action I take. It also makes me supremely interested in the way my actions affect others and the way others actions affect others since we're all in this together and we've only got one shot at it.

5/18/2010 8:55:52 AM

Quote :

"It wasn't a good reason to believe that the earth was flat, or the center of the Universe, or any of it and it's not a good reason to believe that there is an afterlife. Explaining away the "big" questions like the origin of life with a mystical explanation will only serve to distract us from answering these questions the right way: through investigation, evidence, falsification. I have no crisis of meaning myself. I take comfort in the knowledge that there is probably nothing after I die. This gives ultimate meaning to each moment in my life, each action I take. It also makes me supremely interested in the way my actions affect others and the way others actions affect others since we're all in this together and we've only got one shot at it."

The problem is that i don’t think most people are biologically capable of comfortably accepting an atheist mindset. That’s why religion/superstition/psychics/whatever are so prevalent. I think it’s a natural response to the human brain only being able to comprehend a small sliver of reality at a time. If we can’t perceive the entirety of something, our brain has to fill in the gaps, and mysticism is the easy solution.

But I don’t believe mysticism MUST mean religious activism. And if you look at most Christians in the US, our relative level of comfort supersedes people actually practicing what Christianity teaches. So it’s easily possible to force a dissonance between people finding comfort in religion, and being dicks about it.

5/18/2010 9:47:26 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately your beliefs influence your actions, and belief based on a falsehood will influence your actions negatively."

I'm going to jump in here and point out that Lutz's point is completely reasonable (in this instance). There's no rationale to say that false beliefs lead to negative actions. They may lead to unreasonable actions, but such actions are equally likely to be positive actions. For every Christian that condemns gays, there's a Christian who was prevented from crime or a Christian who went an extra mile for charity.

These Christians don't have to be the same person. You can be a Christian without adhering to the bible's bigotry or non-science. It may not make sense, but it doesn't have to - its fucking religion.

It would be nice if every human could be a good person without worrying about the boogeyman. It would also be nice if I had x-ray vision and a flying unicorn.

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason : the unicorn should fly]

5/18/2010 10:01:06 AM

Quote :

"There's no rationale to say that false beliefs lead to negative actions. They may lead to unreasonable actions, but such actions are equally likely to be positive actions."

The rationale is that we exist in reality and not la la land. Any actions based on beliefs that are grounded in reality will be more likely to coincide with reality. Someone *could* get really fucked up on heroin and accidentally do something good, sure. But in the long run, with the entire population, it's best for everyone if we all accept reality and act accordingly. I'm not sure why you would think that actions based on fantasy are "equally likely to be positive actions" or negative actions. They're actions based on delusion.

I think this point is muddled in reality by (as I've previously mentioned) moderate religious people that successfully compartmentalize their beliefs from their everyday actions. If anything this makes moderate religious people culpable for providing cover for the religious people that actually do affect other people.

We should not do things like take evolution out of our science books, take Thomas Jefferson out of our history books, not teach our children about safe sex, make our children feel guilty for being born, etc..

Yes, there are Christians that do good in the world and may in fact do that good as a result of their beliefs. Still doesn't make belief in mysticism the best way to justify your actions, even if they are good.

5/18/2010 10:31:24 AM

Quote :

"To suggest that my 2 year old is sinful is offensive."

Wait, you're responsible for raising a child? Poor kid

Quote :

"The rationale is that we exist in reality and not la la land. "

Again, the only one who thinks Christians believe the world is a la la land is you. *scratches head*



[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 11:47:48 AM

Oh surprise, another ad hominem from Golovko.

5/18/2010 1:50:45 PM

How 'bout you shut the fuck up about my daughter?

I will raise her in whatever manner I see fit independent of your crazy self-hating delusion.

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : anger]

5/18/2010 3:47:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to jump in here and point out that Lutz's point is completely reasonable (in this instance). There's no rationale to say that false beliefs lead to negative actions. They may lead to unreasonable actions, but such actions are equally likely to be positive actions. For every Christian that condemns gays, there's a Christian who was prevented from crime or a Christian who went an extra mile for charity. "

This is an overly sterile view of a negative action. There is a clear trend against rationality that's promoted by US Christians, that don't necessarily support violent actions. In other words, just because something is not violent, doesn't mean it's not negative.



The effect of large amounts of the population harboring negative views of science is that the US will falter in the field of science. In the 20th century, our technology was the main things that kept us on top. We are already starting to be eclipsed in research output and scientists graduated by the eastern countries, and the growth of the active belief in outmoded religious dogma has been growing recently.

It's good that religion might stop some people from acting like the animals that we are, but there are other mechanisms that could do this if they could gain acceptance, that wouldn't result in America losing one of the things that has made us great.

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2010 6:53:41 PM

Yo Golovko man that was uncalled for...

anyway, disco, i respect your thoughts on this. I would point you to Romans 9:14-23. Its a tough tough passage both for understanding and for taking in, but basically I think the Bible answers your question on that. I am not sure how to exactly interpret that. It goes to the calvinistic/armenian debate which is very complex and is beyond the scope of a few words here...

Also,

Quote :

"But this is bad reason to believe something. It's like saying that it's a good thing to believe that you're holding a winning lottery ticket if it makes you feel good."

Quote :

" Lutz, listen to yourself. You're suggesting that children that get cancer and die after a short, pain filled life deserved it. You're suggesting that everyone who dies in a natural disaster deserves it. This is a horribly repugnant viewpoint. To suggest that my 2 year old is sinful is offensive. I gave her an extra big hug this morning at the thought that there are people in this world that think of her this way. Why believe this? Because it's written in the Bible? I honestly don't know why you'd condone this, unless you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God."

My only point is that you shouldn't rule out Christianity based on finding it repugnant for the same reason that you don't want others to believe just because they think it feels good.

5/18/2010 7:04:42 PM

Quote :

"How 'bout you shut the fuck up about my daughter? "

Shouldn't bring her into it then if you are so freakin sensitive. Which you are.

Quote :

"The effect of large amounts of the population harboring negative views of science is that the US will falter in the field of science. In the 20th century, our technology was the main things that kept us on top. We are already starting to be eclipsed in research output and scientists graduated by the eastern countries, and the growth of the active belief in outmoded religious dogma has been growing recently."

lol..this has nothing to do with Christian views and everything to do with the fact that these advances in technology were thanks to the efforts of foreign scientists defecting to the United States. Again, nothing to do with religion. thanks for playing.

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 7:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 7:10:03 PM

^^ haha how does that Roman's passage answer anything...?

Quote :

"lol..this has nothing to do with Christian views and everything to do with the fact that these advances in technology were thanks to the efforts of foreign scientists defecting to the United States. Again, nothing to do with religion. thanks for playing"

So in your opinion, Christianity doesn't promote hostility towards science?

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2010 7:12:27 PM

Why any of you are continuing this debate is beyond me. Each side is using texts to defend their claims that the opposing side views as false.

5/18/2010 7:13:33 PM

Quote :

"Why any of you are continuing this debate is beyond me. Each side is using texts to defend their claims that the opposing side views as false."

You obviously don't understand the imperative here. Each "side" has a vested interested in converting the other. The religious do because their holy book tells them to. The non-religious do because we're sick of the religious attempting to impose their will on us.

As much as it may seem like a waste of fucking time to convince you of anything, it is not a waste of time if I can convince you or anyone else reading this to take a moment to reflect on your beliefs with the same critical skills you (hopefully) apply to real things. I await your ad hominem response.

Quote :

"My only point is that you shouldn't rule out Christianity based on finding it repugnant for the same reason that you don't want others to believe just because they think it feels good."

I noticed you didn't deny that you think children who die of cancer deserved it.


[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 8:15:21 PM

^haha. you know how i hate to answer tough questions...

nah, i would say everyone including myself and even children who die of cancer deserve death. Anything other than that is an act of grace. Well I say "I" but really I believe God says that and I agree as it flows from the fact that he is Just among other things. Why? Because all have rebelled against God. Anywho, before you respond, please understand that this isn't God's end goal. He obviously wants everyone to come to know him but in order to do that we must choose him. Without choosing God then it isn't love, its automation.

Also, I do believe in an age of accountability, IE children who don't know any better go to heaven. See 2nd Samuel 12:23 among a few other verses that i can't think of off the top of my head for scriptural basis.

5/18/2010 8:33:51 PM

^ but if god hardens someone's heart, doesn't that mean he removes their ability to choose?

5/18/2010 8:39:26 PM

Quote :

"Each "side" has a vested interested in converting the other. The religious do because their holy book tells them to."

negative, it's not christians jobs to convert anyone, just make the introduction. i have no interest in your "salvation status."

5/18/2010 8:48:28 PM

^ then how do you explain evangelicals? they seem to be pretty much in that business.

5/18/2010 8:53:00 PM

Quote :

"how do you explain evangelicals?"

that must be a trick question, since you can't explain evangelicals

5/18/2010 8:53:57 PM

haha i dont even know what evangelical means

5/18/2010 9:21:37 PM

its tough to define

but when you hear people in TSB refer to it, they basically mean "radical Christians" regardless of how that actually relates to the real meaning of the word

just think, the most hardcore yet backwoods Christians...thats what they mean

kind of like how "neo-conservative" has come to mean crazy deranged republican...even though the actual meaning is just someone who is newly conservative in their opinions

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM. Reason : tv buzzwords]

5/18/2010 9:25:20 PM

Quote :

"You obviously don't understand the imperative here. Each "side" has a vested interested in converting the other. The religious do because their holy book tells them to. The non-religious do because we're sick of the religious attempting to impose their will on us. As much as it may seem like a waste of fucking time to convince you of anything, it is not a waste of time if I can convince you or anyone else reading this to take a moment to reflect on your beliefs with the same critical skills you (hopefully) apply to real things. I await your ad hominem response."

Its becoming more evident in this thread that you are just trolling. Your troll ability is on a rapid decline, however.

It really all boils down to you being pissed off that something is beyond your understanding. (which I wouldn't be surprised if you encounter that quite often in day to day life). Are you mad that you can't grasp faith and feel left out? I pity you.


and LOL@

Quote :

"I noticed you didn't deny that you think children who die of cancer deserved it."

haha

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 9:27:45 PM

I must be a prophet. I predicted the ad hominem.

5/18/2010 9:29:45 PM

Quote :

"^ then how do you explain evangelicals? they seem to be pretty much in that business."

too much fluoride in the water?

5/18/2010 9:29:45 PM

Quote :

"I must be a prophet. I predicted the ad hominem."

lol...seriously. Just because you're mad is no reason to vent it out on TWW. I mean one day you might be fortunate enough to experience life as we do. One could only hope.

5/18/2010 9:31:32 PM

You are the worst Christian ever

5/18/2010 9:49:35 PM

Wait, Golovko are you a christian then?

5/18/2010 10:06:53 PM

^^^ if only more people were like you...

5/18/2010 10:36:44 PM