Mike Huckabee, Are you KIDDING me?! Options

[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.

[FORSAKENR320]

you don't need intelligence to have faith...

faith centers around the idea that you are ignorant, but it is ok to be that way. you end up with the Ignorant Faithful (fuck! i can't remember the name of the book i read that in!) people who don't know anything, but feel VERY strongly about that ignorance...

[Oasis]

I read through all eight pages of this shit, twice. I even turned off images so I could try to read what people said objectively without knowing who said it (didn't work, but it's the thought that counts).

First off, let me preface this with my own personal religious views. I'm not religious. I don't know whether there is a God or not, nor do I particularly care. It makes no real difference to me. To me, religion is nothing more than a moral code wrapped around a bunch of stories in the Bible. Of course stuff like Noah's Ark and creating the world in 7 days couldn't rationally happen in real life. That isn't the point of the goddamned tale. The point is the moral of the story and what it teaches us. It's just like any fictional book or movie. Religion, to me, is basically a guide on how to live your life.

Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.

I am very unorthodox on how I look at things. To me, the end result is what's important. How you get there is meaningless. The point of life is to be a good human being and be happy. I don't think anyone could rationally disagree with that statement.

In my opinion, Christianity is just a guide on how to be a good and happy person, and how to live your life. It's a moral code. All the ridiculous stories, all the old wives' tales, everything else that's in the bible, they're just small parts of the big picture of what the bible is.

At least that's my take on Christianity and religion. Religion cannot be proven or disproven, so in effect, my opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as anyone else's.

I do have a personal reason for disliking religion, though. When my father was killed the pastor (or whatever the fuck you call Episcopalian head of church) spent the entire time trying to convert me to Christianity, when he should have been consoling our family. That sealed the deal for me. Fuck organized religion. Am I being unfair by judging an entire entity by the actions of one person? Yes. Do I care what you think about that? No. Just to squelch any future problems with this view.

I have nothing against religion. I just find solace, strength, and direction in other ways - mainly myself. I'm hard headed and don't like relying on anyone other than me. I had to learn that the hard way.

Part two upcoming

[FORSAKENR320]

I read through all eight pages of this shit, twice. I even turned off images so I could try to read what people said objectively without knowing who said it (didn't work, but it's the thought that counts).

First off, let me preface this with my own personal religious views. I'm not religious. I don't know whether there is a God or not, nor do I particularly care. It makes no real difference to me. To me, religion is nothing more than a moral code wrapped around a bunch of stories in the Bible. Of course stuff like Noah's Ark and creating the world in 7 days couldn't rationally happen in real life. That isn't the point of the goddamned tale. The point is the moral of the story and what it teaches us. It's just like any fictional book or movie. Religion, to me, is basically a guide on how to live your life.

Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.

I am very unorthodox on how I look at things. To me, the end result is what's important. How you get there is meaningless. The point of life is to be a good human being and be happy. I don't think anyone could rationally disagree with that statement.

In my opinion, Christianity is just a guide on how to be a good and happy person, and how to live your life. It's a moral code. All the ridiculous stories, all the old wives' tales, everything else that's in the bible, they're just small parts of the big picture of what the bible is.

At least that's my take on Christianity and religion. Religion cannot be proven or disproven, so in effect, my opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as anyone else's.

I do have a personal reason for disliking religion, though. When my father was killed the pastor (or whatever the fuck you call Episcopalian head of church) spent the entire time trying to convert me to Christianity, when he should have been consoling our family. That sealed the deal for me. Fuck organized religion. Am I being unfair by judging an entire entity by the actions of one person? Yes. Do I care what you think about that? No. Just to squelch any future problems with this view.

I have nothing against religion. I just find solace, strength, and direction in other ways - mainly myself. I'm hard headed and don't like relying on anyone other than me. I had to learn that the hard way.

Part two upcoming

i'm shocked, but i agree with what you said, it's the same way i've felt and have posted such on these boards before. (DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO THE ARGUEMENT, BUT JUST SAYING)

[Oasis]

The only thing I don't like about religion are people who rely too heavily on it and use faith as a justification fo acting irrational. For example, there was a story in today's Statesman about a guy who was throwing a Christian concert festival in Austin. He used his $100k in personal savings to put it together, he expected about 40,000 people and like two thousand showed up. He's throwing it again this year even though he's now financially assraped. His justification was something to the effect of "I'm going to throw it again this year and and God will ensure that enough people show up." Oh. Have fun being bankrupt.

I don't see why religious and non religious people can't coexist. Who gives a shit what other people believe in? Religion is a personal thing. I'm sure you have better things to worry about in your life than worrying about someone else's views. Hell I knew Seth and hung out with him numerous times and had no idea what he believed in. Nor did I care. I doubt he knew what I believed in either. Doubt he cared either.

The only thing I dislike about Christianity are the nutcases, zealots, idiots, and the people who try to force their religion on you. There is a HUGE difference between people who force their views on you and people who tell you about what they believe in and see if you're interested in listening. Someone like Jonathan83 seems like the latter - a person who has faith in what he believes in and tells other people for their benefit. No malicious intent in that, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. The people who say "If you don't believe in God you suck, you're going to a damnation of eternal hell" whatever are dipshits. They're an extreme minority. Their are dumbfucks in every group, regardless of what that group represents.

The next dumbfuck who says Christianity sucks because a few nutjobs bomb abortion clinics in the name of God is gonna get an earful from me. Just remember, it's the people who don't believe in God who are sacrificing goats and drinking their blood. If you wanna pigeonhole Christians as idiots, I'll pigeonhole you as not only an idiot, but a psychotic idiot.

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.

I'm not a Christian, yet I probably made more points for Christianity than I did against Christianity. Never once used the word "stupid" while discussing something I don't believe in/agree with. Nor did I call anyone stupid

Is this good enough for you, Billy?




....Except for you. You're stupid. You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. You wanna call Christians who have blind faith in what they believe in and don't question anything "idiots." Fine. What does that make you, considering you believe the exact opposite? You're set in your beliefs and it's painfully obvious you wig out whenever anyone has a dissenting view from yours. That's closed mindedness and hypocrisy, in my opinion.

Listen up: When you think you're God's gift to intelligence and everyone else calls you an idiot and flat out refuses to argue with you because it's fruitless, that's a you problem. Not an everyone else problem. This will benefit you greatly in life

[Billy]

Was I even talking to you? What the hell is the matter with you?

And before you give me advice on life, fix your own first. I'm doing pretty well.

And though you spent some time writing your two posts, I do hope you realize they contribute absolutely nothing new to this thread.

No one cares what you dislike. No one cares what bothers you. No one gives a damn about you. How can such a pissant have such an ego? You want to know how you can contribute? Stop talking about how you feel, and start asking philisophical questions that are either pro or con what the original author brought up.

Back on topic.


Hey look, it's seth about to chime in.