Mike Huckabee, Are you KIDDING me?! Options

[THECHICKEN]

Hey, same tactic you always use! I like consistency. [unfounded claim -> attacking of character -> some sarcastic smiley] where -> = followed by. Though I do not think everyone on this message board is stupid, I do consider both you and jonathan such. And Will.

And just by the way, your usual pathetic response does not change the fact you assume we have free will.

So... you make unfounded claim, i say we already went over it and thats unfounded?

You make no argument... i say a previous argument over the issue was bad... and im the bad guy... sorry you have sand in your vagina

Funny

As i said, we already went over it. You already "claim" mental superiority on anything you say (so that you don't have to make a good argument about it), and i call you on it. How is it a character attack if its EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO? Look at your posts to jonathan... all of them attack his ability to read and comprehend your arguments. Well thats funny since you do it to anyone who DISAGREES with you. As if what you say can't EVER be questioned or else we are stupid. Gee that doesn't say something about YOUR mental ability at all. So stop your constant bitching that people don't like you trolling constantly and go find a hill to look down at everyone from.

[THECHICKEN]

Let's analyze this sentence and let me explain to you why I truly believe you are a stupid human being. An intelligent one would reread what he wrote, reread the argument already presented, and would have edited the shit out of this post.

First, "that's what faith is"

followed by

"knowing and believing"

and then

"not thinking."

So putting it all together: "that's what faith is, knowing and believing, not thinking."

Let's look at "knowing and believing" as applied to "faith". The argument I put out there is this:



I know you jonathan, you skipped over it, so I'm going to post it again (please read it this time):



ONE MORE TIME



Did you get it this time, jonathan? Will I have to copy paste again? Can you read what was quoted and understand it? (hahaha notice the superiority complex) I don't think you can, so here is again:



We've had this problem before, where I blatantly and clearly present a (one [1]) point. I only make one. And you completely miss that one [1] (uno) point.

Jonathan, Seth (?????) . There is a difference between believing in something, and knowing something. IF you believe, it is because you don't know. Otherwise, it is no longer belief, it's knowledge.

So tell me Jonathan, how is it, you know. Please show me your god. So that I may know as you know.

Second, You did say something that I agree with Jonathan. And this may surprise you, as it has surprised me, but I really, and truly, agree with something you have said.

Ready?

Here it is:
You are rarely wise, Jonathan. Cherish this moment, as you have said something earth shaking.

Inflamatory and trolling

[THECHICKEN]

And in case the above post was too long for you jonathan, I have written a shorter one for you that really emphasizes the point of the above:



Go.

infamatory and trolling


ill go back to my usual ignoring billy now. Guess him quoting me broke me out of habbit... sorry

[Hartmann]

Salvation is an interesting thing. Jesus said that all men, even the evil ones, can have their hearts and souls changed by His Father's love. Yes, this means people such as Hitler and Stalin could be in Heaven (highly unlikely since both were strong atheists).

But the Bible also says that a man can lose his salvation if he abuses the gift. It's one thing to be human but God says it is something completely different to take His love for granted and think you can sin and turn right back around and ask forgiveness, then do the same thing over and over. It's not a revolving door. God will forgive but He will not do such a thing when the person's heart is not true.

[Oasis]

Hey, same tactic you always use! I like consistency. [unfounded claim -> attacking of character -> some sarcastic smiley] where -> = followed by. Though I do not think everyone on this message board is stupid, I do consider both you and jonathan such. And Will.

And just by the way, your usual pathetic response does not change the fact you assume we have free will.

I don't know why you brought me into this, considering I've made like one post in this thread. I figured you wouldn't mention my name again after I challenged you to an argument of your choice and you avoided me for the next month straight.

You know, I don't particularly like religion and Christianity annoys the hell out of me, but I'll occasionally defend it when idiots like you attack it. You're probably too dumb to realize this, but you're just as stupid and closed minded as the blind right wing religious whackos you claim to hate.

Guess I'll actually read through this thread and join the fun. While I haven't read anything you've said yet, I'm sure you've completely written off Seth and Jonathan's arguments since they're Christian. I'm sure you've called them idiots, morons, whatever. I'm sure you've already flipped out and berated everyone as you usually do. This should be fun.

[Billy]

So... you make unfounded claim, i say we already went over it and thats unfounded?

You make no argument... i say a previous argument over the issue was bad... and im the bad guy... sorry you have sand in your vagina

Funny

As i said, we already went over it. You already "claim" mental superiority on anything you say (so that you don't have to make a good argument about it), and i call you on it. How is it a character attack if its EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO? Look at your posts to jonathan... all of them attack his ability to read and comprehend your arguments. Well thats funny since you do it to anyone who DISAGREES with you. As if what you say can't EVER be questioned or else we are stupid. Gee that doesn't say something about YOUR mental ability at all. So stop your constant bitching that people don't like you trolling constantly and go find a hill to look down at everyone from.

Impala made a good argument about a national sales tax. He showed supportive evidence to back his argument. He changed my opinion. This nullifies your entire post.

And speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, you do the exact same thing you're condemning me of! Give me ONE instance when you initially disagreed with someone else's argument and you didn't just write them off as stupid because they had a different view than you? I have never once seen you do that.

Anyway, don't respond to my posts. I'll ignore you too. Hypocrite.

[Billy]

infamatory and trolling
ill go back to my usual ignoring billy now. Guess him quoting me broke me out of habbit... sorry

Yes, it was inflammatory. An inflammatory response to an inflammatory comment.

" it sounds like either 1. you had a bad experience with christians as a little boy and got all butt hurt"

I like how you take sides, Seth. Guess you're too weak on your own.

[Billy]

I don't know why you brought me into this, considering I've made like one post in this thread.

Everyone wants Will at the party!

[Mommy]

You're all going to hell
nah. jk

I will say, though, that I agree 100% with Seth and Jonathan. I really think they are arguing strongly.

[Billy]

You're all going to hell
nah. jk

I will say, though, that I agree 100% with Seth and Jonathan. I really think they are arguing strongly.

Please elaborate. They haven't provided answers to any of the following:

.the entire forum condemns the whole Westboro Baptist Church for saying that soldiers death/hurricanes/murder rates are tied to America's acceptance of homosexuality, something that everyone would say is completely and utterly false (and most likely laughable). Here is a a stance that has no scientific justification what so ever, just the church's "faith" in the cause of all these terrible things. Is it not upsetting for you to see them take that position on faith alone? Wouldn't you have a condescending attitude if you were to ever talk to one of them, or would you say "golly shucks, I'm not being open minded enough concerning their different viewpoint, maybe I'm just a little insecure..." I think the answer is obvious.

To paraphase: Some people use "faith" for deciding what is good and bad in this world. One of those things they have decide bad was homosexuality. There does not appear to be any reason to hate homosexuals. Why is this acceptable?

I wouldn't care if religious people went around saying that they think there is a god, they think their religious book is factual, they think that by following their religion they will be given X [replace X with whatever you can think of that makes you feel good] after death because they followed that religion. That's not what they say. They say they know. But you don't know. So stop pretending you do. And especially do not make social policy based on this false knowing

To summarize: To touch up further on using faith to decide what is right and wrong, I would like to know how faith alone is justification on deciding what is right and wrong. Because it is not that you know homosexuality is wrong. You have faith it is. How can you consider it acceptable to condemn a group of people without any real apparant reason? Explain how faith is a real reason to decide what is right and wrong, especially if that faith hurts people?

These two above issues seems to be the problem those without faith have with those who have it. You decide how the world should act, and what roles the normal man and normal woman should play in society based no on knowing, but on belief.

And btw, now that Seth has promised not to respond to any my posts, I will be civil here on out in this thread.

[THECHICKEN]

Impala made a good argument about a national sales tax. He showed supportive evidence to back his argument. He changed my opinion. This nullifies your entire post.

And speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, you do the exact same thing you're condemning me of! Give me ONE instance when you initially disagreed with someone else's argument and you didn't just write them off as stupid because they had a different view than you? I have never once seen you do that.

Anyway, don't respond to my posts. I'll ignore you too. Hypocrite.

All the time actually. You are the only one who can't argue in a civil manner. After all you are the self-proclaimed troll. I have severely calmed down any flamings on these boards for a while now. I make exceptions for you i guess when i get pissed at your trolling.

I actually have deleted and edited a couple posts to you, to tone them down a bit. So instead im going to go ahead and give you some advice. If you want to actually ARGUE (like you try to say you are when actually just flaming) then do it in a polite manner. When you call people "stupid human beings" it effectively makes ANYTHING you say irrelevant. So how about this, you make legit questions about someone's beliefs and withhold the "omg your so stupid and can't comprehend anything" and people will take what you say serious.

[blaarg]

I will say, though, that I agree 100% with Seth and Jonathan. I really think they are arguing strongly.

I would watch out concerning the blanket statement that you "agree 100% with what Seth and Jonathan," because your stance might (and I believe is) be potentially different than Jonathans (and I have no idea who Seth is...what's his user-name). I get a sense of your personal beliefs from one of your initial posts:

I dont believe in evolution... would any of you say that Im a religious zealot...because I most certainly am not. I never go to church, I dont pray or read the Bible, never preach to others, etc.
I agree with Jonathan... evolution is still a theory and anyone who says that scientific FACT backs it up is sorely misinformed. I dont argue for creation or against evolution, but something inside of me feels that there is more to life than a random formation of quarks into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into compounds...etc. I dont care enough to argue.

The interesting points:
You mention how you "don't believe in evolution" then follow it up with "I don't argue for creation against evolution," which is kind of confusing to me. So you don't argue for a divine creator against a belief you disregard? You do disregard both of them? I don't quite understand that (could you provide some clarification)...?

Then you follow it up with "something inside of me feels that there is more to life than a random formation of quarks into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into compounds...etc" which to me is a rather ambiguous statement. If by the statement you meant (and I'm paraphrasing) "there is more to me that all of these random happenings, someone must be in charge putting this all together, at least in a loose way," I don't know why you wouldn't argue creation over evolution? As a side note, I personally believe there is a lot more to life than a random assortment of "impossibilities" that are used to form me (and I'm an atheist!) , that is why I choose to live.

There is one potential possibility which seems to align your beliefs the most, that being there was a man-in-charge who initially created everything, then backed away and let everything take it's course. This would agree with your statement (if you intended it to mean this way) that "something inside of me feels that there is more to life than a random formation of quarks into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into compounds..." however, also agrees with your statement that you don't argue for creation (in the literal biblical sense of God creating the Earth in 7 days, etc...) against evolution. So if this is your belief, I don't understand why you would say you "agree 100% with Seth and Jonathan," because I think they believe in some things that you might have qualms about (I'll take examples from Jonathan, since I don't know who Seth is):

"as far as the earth being billions of years old or thousands? i have no idea. i'm not a scientist. i kinda see both sides."
"yes, you're right. but, even if a person is the kindest person in the world, but doesn't accept jesus, that still won't get them to heaven."
"hey, if hitler truly asked god for forgiveness...that's between him and god. nobody knows but them. and hey, i could be wrong. god is the only one who can judge."
In response to Psycopath asking him what he thought about evolution: "the concept is plausible, but not proven."

I think you would have problems with the above statements, so maybe a more accurate phrase would have been "I agree with Jonathan's idea that there has to be some initial mover" rather than agreeing 100%.

Regardless I don't see how you can say that they have argued better. Here are some highlights from their arguments (again from Jonathan alone):

"2) most Americans believe in God.
not everyone is an atheist like you. maybe you'd like China better."
"since you aren't Christian, this is probably something you don't understand, but Christianity is based on faith. "
"i thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded? that's why i like staying in the middle."
"that's what faith is, knowing and believing, not thinking. now you know. it sounds like either 1. you had a bad experience with christians as a little boy and got all butt hurt or 2. you're jealous of people who actually have a purpose to live. normal atheists aren't as dickish as you."

Seems to me that your statement saying: "I'm immensely SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of atheistic assholes talking down to Christians for believing differently than them." could be used in the reverse in these situations...

I think that personal attacks never add much to arguments ever. The most I've done in this thread is a couple of "wow's I think that's astonishing that you believe that." In addition, very few of the problems I and forum warrior see with creationism have been addressed, or when they are, it is most likely responded with "that's why it's faith," or variations. And if you are going to look at someone who is arguing well for the other side, it is Hartmann, at least is civil when addressing points that we bring up (and he does address them).

I would like to see someone answer my point about Westboro Baptist:

the entire forum condemns the whole Westboro Baptist Church for saying that soldiers death/hurricanes/murder rates are tied to America's acceptance of homosexuality, something that everyone would say is completely and utterly false (and most likely laughable). Here is a a stance that has no scientific justification what so ever, just the church's "faith" in the cause of all these terrible things. Is it not upsetting for you to see them take that position on faith alone? Wouldn't you have a condescending attitude if you were to ever talk to one of them, or would you say "golly shucks, I'm not being open minded enough concerning their different viewpoint, maybe I'm just a little insecure..." I think the answer is obvious.

Why is one way of viewing faith more acceptable than another? Why can Christians condemn groups like Westboro but put their own viewpoints of faith and beliefs on a pedestal? Hartmann can you come through?

It probably won't get answered because more people will be trying to defend or rephrase what I have shown them quoted as saying rather than to address the topic at hand. That is the biggest problem on this forum (and trust me, I'm guilty of it as well).

EDIT:: Sorry for writing so long...hopefully it gets read.

[THECHICKEN]

I think one of the reasons that the "god hates fags" people are less acceptable from christians who believe in pure creation is that one is hateful towards others and helps promote persecution; Whereas the other doesn't even effect daily life. Its like believing the stork brought you... not remotely logical.. but doesn't really have a bearing on day to day life.

Not to mention, even the people who don't believe in evolution know of it, so its not like they are completely ignorant... more just willfully blind (to atheists looking in).

[Billy]

All the time actually. You are the only one who can't argue in a civil manner. After all you are the self-proclaimed troll. I have severely calmed down any flamings on these boards for a while now. I make exceptions for you i guess when i get pissed at your trolling.

I actually have deleted and edited a couple posts to you, to tone them down a bit. So instead im going to go ahead and give you some advice. If you want to actually ARGUE (like you try to say you are when actually just flaming) then do it in a polite manner. When you call people "stupid human beings" it effectively makes ANYTHING you say irrelevant. So how about this, you make legit questions about someone's beliefs and withhold the "omg your so stupid and can't comprehend anything" and people will take what you say serious.

How about we drop this bullshit and get back to the topic.

[Billy]

I've thought of an analogy to describe the problem some of us have with leadership by faith:

Let's say you have two bridges you can cross to get over a pit. We'll call them the bridges of morality. One bridge is built by a team of priests whom they believe their faith in god with keep the bridge up. The other bridge is built by trained engineers, whom used science and mathematics to build the bridge. Which bridge are you going to cross? For some of you, faith alone seems to be ok. And maybe their bridge will be ok. But for others, we like proof. And I would much rather live in a world engineered, than haphazardly constructed with hope it will work.