Debating............

[Guest bdp]

P.S. - And could you "White Knights in shining armor" please dismount your horses and allow these "damsels in distress" to defend themselves?  Sheesh!  You'd think in this age of Women's Liberation that women couldn't hold their own in a debate.  Stop rushing to TAP's and Amanda's defense, willya? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Women's Liberation my fucking ass. Women want what they want when they want it, including and especially rescue from knights in armor (which I am not, I'm just a great big fucking asshole loser.) I have no regrets about jumping in when I did and will do it again when someone is being a total dick.

 

bdp

[Guest bdp]

...and 'honor' is a bullshit concept too.

 

bdp

[Asimov]

i want to be a damsel goddammit I never get to be a damsel...I just get to be a meanie! 

 

Look at me boys!  I'm damselling! 

 

*faints*

 

*peeks with one eye*

 

Isn't anyone going to rescue me goddammit! 

 

*goes back to fainting.*

 

 

*walks up to Zoe*

*pokes her with a stick*

 

*runs off laughing*

[dogmatically_challenged]

Women's Liberation my fucking ass.  Women want what they want when they want it, including and especially rescue from knights in armor (which I am not, I'm just a great big fucking asshole loser.)  I have no regrets about jumping in when I did and will do it again when someone is being a total dick.

 

bdp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong bdp. You are a chivalrous old fart, and if I am wrong there, then you simply did not like seeing a nice person in the hot seat, which is understandable.

 

However, you are not a mind reader, and you made no real points. All you had was emotionalism. Anytime you want me to defend my contingient faith in things I believe in I will be glad to show you that my contingient faith in things is superior to faith as described in the N.T. as well as the dogma that was built around the N.T. passages talking about faith. I'll make it easy for you. I believe in UFO's and that they are either manned by aliens or time travelers. My brand of faith is still better than any xers faith in the bible claims just on account of the fact that I am not commited to this belief 100%. My beliefs can change based on evidences either way.

 

Pointing out bigotry is not bigotry or being a dick. Since you seem to have so much passion for such a topic, why don't you have a one on one debate with me on whether or not the bible is riddled with bigotry in both the N.T. and the O.T. as well as if it is bigotry to hold such beliefs based on "I believe just becsause."

 

Keep in mind a person can be nice and still narrowmindedly hold to bigoted beliefs. That is what xianity is. A few other denominations prove thier faith through "loud and proud" activism and some individual xers have faith backed up by works in thier bigotry.

 

If you don't have the time to demonstrate how I was in error in my assessments of one xian, them perhaps you should stay out of the debate forums, as understanding and truth seeking really is not that important to you as much as protecting a woman right or wrong.

 

PM me if you are interested and I will prepare for our debate. I recomend that you open up a dictionary and look up the word bigotry first though.

[Totallyatpeace]

(Checking quickly before I go on to make sure this isn't the debate forum, remembering my agreement with DC)

 

 

DC~ Have you not learned anything? *sigh*

 

Nobody rescued anyone. I just refused to allow you to call me a bigot and called you on it in IRC. Was I rescued? Heck no. I fought back.

 

 

 

"I believe in UFO's and that they are either manned by aliens or time travelers."

 

Prove it....... and use no books to make your point.

 

 

 

Kidding. I really am not interested nor will I tear you down because if it.

[dogmatically_challenged]

(Checking quickly before I go on to make sure this isn't the debate forum, remembering my agreement with DC)

DC~ Have you not learned anything? *sigh*

 

Nobody rescued anyone. I just refused to allow you to call me a bigot and called you on it in IRC. Was I rescued? Heck no.  I fought back.

"I believe in UFO's and that they are either manned by aliens or time travelers."

 

Prove it....... and use no books to make your point.

Kidding.    I really am not interested nor will I tear you down because if it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tap

Prove it....... and use no books to make your point.

I have no beliefs based on ancient comic books. Hehe!

 

"I believe in UFO's and that they are either manned by aliens or time travelers."

If UFO's are not a secret earth technology, then I have a hypothesis about what UFO's really are. I am not commited 100% to my hypothesis. How ever, there is more evidence for UFO's than there are for a historical abraham, moses and jesus as well as evidences of bible claims of miracles.

 

Also, I can show how there is more evidences for UFO's than for any bible claims as most evidences for UFO's are contemporary evidences that can, and has been scrutinized. I have seen a UFO near crane lake oregon, while fishing.

 

Keep in mind Tap, that my contingent faith in UFO's is a better kind of faith than your belief in the bible claims as I can change my mind when shown how questionable my evidences might be. My beliefs can change to fit better explanations of what I saw as well as the evidences others provide.

 

I think I can give confidence in the existence of UFO's whether they are secret earth tech or are manned by aliens or time travelers.

 

How much confidence can you give for the claims of the bible writers? The debate is about comparison in reliable contemporary evidences of UFO's in comparison to bible historical claims of the existence of its prophets, jesus, as well as miracles. If you get involved you too will be expected to give us confidence in your belief in bible claims through evidences, and I promise you, I will have more weight in evidences in my beliefs than you have for yours.

 

My post here was to bdp and other heathen gentlemen, but xers are welcomed to have a one on one debate with me on these things. I was addressing bdp and another person in thier passionate rebutals to my posts in another thread.

 

I can be wrong in my assesment of bible bigotry, but anyone who disgrees will have to work for changing my mind.

 

BTW Tap. I am enjoying your sharing of your trip to India. I will just read and not post in that thread, as I think I can learn more about you by reading your expeiences there. I really appreciate your sharing these things with us.

[Totallyatpeace]

Thanks, DC. Just to clarify...you DO know that my post above was tongue-in-cheek based on our personal agreement, right?

 

In other words......it was a light-hearted post.

 

And regarding UFO's.......

 

Ever heard of Samjase and the Pleiadians?

 

http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Alien...ns/pleiadia.txt

 

 

Sorry! Waaaayyyy off topic. Back to debate.

 

Sorry, Thankful.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks, DC. Just to clarify...you DO know that my post above was tongue-in-cheek based on our personal agreement, right?

 

In other words......it was a light-hearted post.

 

And regarding UFO's.......

 

Ever heard of Samjase and the Pleiadians?

 

http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Alien...ns/pleiadia.txt

Sorry! Waaaayyyy off topic. Back to debate.

 

Sorry, Thankful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I know you were being silly. I am often very blunt when doing my best to explain my POV. It is a serious flaw.

[Guest bdp]

d_c -

 

fuck off, bitch.

[Guest bdp]

oh, and you can go look in a mirror and thereby understand the meaning of 'asshole.'

[dogmatically_challenged]

d_c -

 

fuck off, bitch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected bdp. You are right about everything. How can I refute such a well thought out statement as that. Bravo you old fart. Hehe.

[dogmatically_challenged]

oh, and you can go look in a mirror and thereby understand the meaning of 'asshole.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. I will. I do.

[BlueGiant]

If they are worth it, I will take a side, if they are not, then they can fall that is the quick version.

 

There is a reason why TAP may have defenders and one like SBF does not, frankly, in my view, TAP isn't an asshole. May be confused, misguided, and deluded, but not an asshole. Many of the other so-called Christian posters here are, and deserve what they get. In other words, I personally will stick up for someone if they are undeservedly getting bashed. Figure if someone is going to get railed, it should be for something they have done.

 

Note, that asking for some proof in a debate, something other than "this book tells me" (perhaps a reason why this book should be believed in this way, that isn't self-referental), is kind of necessary and is not an attack, though failure to provide proof and instead going with ad hominems (you were never saved, you are just blind, you are a meanine poo-poo-head, etc) is, however, grounds for a severe tongue lashing, for example.

 

And if I ever let the bullshit fly, then by all means let me have it with both barrels.

 

Edit: Addendum: Oh, and I am a believer in "honor" myself and have my own standards with respect to myself in that manner. I would like to precicely know why honor is bullshit, bdp. Please, enlighten us.

 

Edit 2: Browser is being funny again....

[dogmatically_challenged]

Sorry, this is the best I can do today as far as ranting. I have no animosity for you bdp. I just think you really need to give things more thought is all.

[dogmatically_challenged]

If they are worth it, I will take a side, if they are not, then they can fall that is the quick version. 

 

There is a reason why TAP may have defenders and one like SBF does not, frankly, in my view, TAP isn't an asshole.  May be confused, misguided, and deluded, but not an asshole.  Many of the other so-called Christian posters here are, and deserve what they get.  In other words, I personally will stick up for someone if they are undeservedly getting bashed.  Figure if someone is going to get railed, it should be for something they have done.

 

Note, that asking for some proof in a debate, something other than "this book tells me" (perhaps a reason why this book should be believed in this way, that isn't self-referental), is kind of necessary and is not an attack, though failure to provide proof and instead going with ad hominems (you were never saved, you are just blind,  you are a meanine poo-poo-head, etc) is, however, grounds for a severe tongue lashing, for example.

 

And if I ever let the bullshit fly, then by all means let me have it with both barrels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I only pointed out in that thread that Tap did not really address Zoes questions. Her questions to Tap were the questions of many here. Tap could have said that she is still searching. I merely pointed out that if that is the case then she should start without an a priori belief in the bible as she tests the bible. Faith as understood by xers is not a good enough answer to the charges made by the bible writers against all of humanity, nor is it good enough to justify belief that THE creator has a beef with atheists, homosexuals and people who reject christ. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, fornication, and other bible taboos.

 

bdp really never read that whole thread. He was too pissed off to really absorb what people were posting.

[Asimov]

I agree with d_c and I have no animosity towards TAP.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I agree with d_c and I have no animosity towards TAP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My questioning of Tap whent south when I saw her play the faith card so quickly. Also I allowed my thinking and writing to suffer when attacked with ad homs by heathens. But I still stand by my points that to support bible claims of morality, and that THE creator has a beef with people who reject christ, or people who are homosexuals or atheist are villians and deserve punnishment is hate speach, and it is bigotry to support these beliefs based on "I have Faith".

 

Tap is not in anyones face about her beliefs, but what of the next person she brings to christ? Will they have thier own mind and choose hate speech and perhaps be active in thier support of bible bigotry? Who knows.

 

Anti-evangelism and spreading free thought is self defense.

[Totallyatpeace]

DC.......do me a favor.....

 

Leave me out of this and don't say the word TAP again. It's really getting old.

 

I can't stand the sound of my own nick anymore.

 

Want to know what's really interesting? Zoe and I have continued to discuss outside of the forum and so all of this really seems redundant to me.

 

Take the topic back to debate. Not Tap......uuggggg

 

 

Totally at Peace

[dogmatically_challenged]

DC.......do me a favor.....

 

Leave me out of this and don't say the word TAP again. It's really getting old.

 

I can't stand the sound of my own nick anymore.

 

Want to know what's really interesting? Zoe and I have continued to discuss outside of the forum and so all of this really seems redundant to me.

 

Take the topic back to debate. Not Tap......uuggggg

Totally at Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Remember that I too am connected to that thread and if any heathen wants to criticize me I will soundly spank them.

 

Blame bdp. I gave bdp a challenge and any more talking about that thread should have stopped here and taken up in the one on one moderated.

 

That being said, I will not bring up that thread again. I can understand your feelings here, it just didn't sink in very fast. I am sorry Tap.

[Merlinfmct87]

There are different kinds of debate with different purposes. At this site, I think the most important element in the debates is to have an open agenda. We do not come here to sell a certain fixed message, but with a desire to find the truth, no matter how unpleasant and hurtful that truth may be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen, thomas. Amen. We are supposed to seek the Truth here. Not any pre-made answers we assume are true. Freethought is a fluid, evolving(gasp!) thing. It always changes, and that makes it very, very hard to partake in.

 

There are no commandments, per se. Simply reason, data, and what happens when the two meet.

 

Trashy, in debates we are looking for the "why".  That's all, and no one is name-calling, only asking for a reason "why".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. Couldn't agree more, Thankful.

 

Thanks for sharing this Vigile. I have had similar debating experiences in my life. A good lively debate, even with people who have opposing views can help us understand people better and actually bring them closer. I respect the opposing views of many of friends because they are well read, present good arguments and they are passionate about them.  However I have never been able to duplicate this experience online. Being physically in the space as the person or people you are debating is extremely helpful. You can read their faces and body language and immediately know that you have more explaining to do. The chances of offending people are also reduced because your eyes and the inflections in your voice will tell them what you were really implying.

 

Have you ever noticed that when you are walking on a very crowded sidewalk and you bump into someone, the results are usually eye contact indicating that you are sorry followed by a short pleasantry and then you move on; but when something similar happens behind the wheel of your car and you cannot see the other driver¿s face, you immediately become enraged. This is what happens to me in the debate forum. It is also why I avoid it.

 

IBF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, this raises a great point I hadn't considered. Very important to keep in the back of your mind while debating online IBF... thanks for highlighting it.

 

Let's this not be about a particular person, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

...

 

In fact, this is a much bigger point than it seems... it's not simple PC nicities, it's the only real way you can reach someone in a debate. If you're tearing a person to shreds for a label, not only are you embarrasing your peers(because people are so quick to pass judgment by association...) but you are also providing fuel for the anti-atheist propoganda machine("Look at this evil satan-guided atheist persecuting the poor, virtious Christian!! Fear those who depart from the path of Righteousness! Indulgences go in the tin...")

 

Now you are by all means free to point out that the illusions people hold of their faith are, quite frankly, utterly false and man-made lies.

 

There was a quote somewhere... most Christians are far better than Christ. That's the angle you have to come from... the idea that a person's own sense of right and wrong is far more valid than the guidelines in the Bible.

 

Highlighting the Church's bloody history, the fact that it's been trying to drag us back to the dark ages, that it's been the freethinkers, apostates, infidels, and other outcasts that have been dragging us forward kicking and screaming are all valid points - that I myself have used!

 

But saying all Christians are inquisitors simply for holding a certain belief is just plain nuts. There is no doubt that belief influences action - just look at the Kansas education system now taking Creationism/Intelligent Design seriously - but it's not a direct 1-to-1 road. You have to do a great deal of things before you are preaching in a classroom, or lighting the fires of the Auto de Fe, or burning libraries.

 

 

It takes something else to galvanize people to such extreme action, to blind them to the concequences and keep them focused on one thing and one thing only:

 

The promise of salvation at all costs...

 

This thing I speak of that can do this?

 

A nice enemy to hate...

 

By making the debates about dogma and not about morality and truth, you miss the point and give them the advantage.

 

Freethought isn't about preferring one doctrine/dogma/belief system over another. It's about rejecting all dogma, period.

 

Humans are capable of reason on their own... it's about time we started using it.

 

Merlin

 

Edit: Spellcheck

[dogmatically_challenged]

I agree with some of what you have posted, but I will never stop pointing out that the bible is filled with hate speach, and anyone who supports it is a bigot, whether they directly incite intolerance or not. Anyone who claims that book is the word of a god is giving power to that book that others can use.

 

Merlin

In fact, this is a much bigger point than it seems... it's not simple PC niceities, it's the only real way you can reach someone in a debate. If you're tearing a person to shreds for a label, not only are you embarassing your peers(because people are so quick to pass guilt by association...) but you are also providing fuel for the anti-atheis propoganda machine("Look at this evil satan-guided atheist persecuting the poor, virtuious Christian!! Fear those who depart from the path of Righteousness! Indulgences go in the tin...")

 

To top it all off... you've become the thing you hunt. And that only aids the other side.

The bible has bigotry in it and anyone who supports it better have good reason for doing so. Faith is not an answer; it is a hard headed narrow mindedness. I do not apologize for those facts. Because human beings are the way they are, I should have found a better way to sugar coat my points without being so bluntly accurate.

 

No one has done anything remotely like you have pointed out here recently. There is a place to discuss this further wizard. Your points are good ones, but you can not show how any heathens here recently have done this, if that is what you are saying here. Calling a spade a spade is reasonable. Anti evangelism is self defense AND it is also free thought.

 

I will gladly discuss this in the debate forum with you or some were more private. You start the thread at your liesure.

 

But saying all Christians are inquisitors simply for holding a certain belief is just plain nuts. There is no doubt that belief influences action - just look at the Kansas education system now taking Creationism/Intelligent Design seriously - but it's not a direct 1-to-1 road. You have to do a great deal of things before you are preaching in a classroom, or lighting the fires of the Auto de Fe, or burning libraries.

If you don't miss a few human beings here or a few human beings there that have been snuffed out by bible morality thats your call. I don't feel that way.

[Merlinfmct87]

I agree with some of what you have posted, but I will never stop pointing out that the bible is filled with hate speach, and anyone who supports it is a bigot, whether they directly incite intolerance or not. Anyone who claims that book is the word of a god is giving power to that book that others can use.

 

That's absolutly true.

 

Did I mention I don't want Christianity to persist? *GASP*!

 

That's right, D_C. I think the world would be much better off without Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. Destruction, death, torture, and darkness... that's the trademark of the Church.

 

The bible has bigotry in it

 

Correct.

 

and anyone who supports it better have good reason for doing so.

 

Again, Correct.

 

Faith is not an answer; it is a hard headed narrow mindedness. I do not apologize for those facts. Because human beings are the way they are, I should have found a better way to sugar coat my points without being so bluntly accurate.

 

And then you go off the deep end.

 

Pointing out that the Bible is bigoted, horrendus, and utterly devoid of worth is an excellent point... and yes, people should stop believing it's the word of God. It's 100% man-made, designed to control and manipulate people into doing what others want them to do.

 

There is no doubt that the bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisition, the oppression of women, the burning of books(and people)... need I go on?

 

The problem in your logic is automatically assuming that everybody who believes in the Bible is guilty of all these crimes - that they could commit these crimes themselves, no less.

 

No one has done anything remotely like you have pointed out here recently. There is a place to discuss this further wizard. Your points are good ones, but you can not show how any heathens here recently have done this, if that is what you are saying here. Calling a spade a spade is reasonable. Anti evangelism is self defense AND it is also free thought.

 

Who said anything about evangelism? I was attacking the method, not the idea.

 

I will gladly discuss this in the debate forum with you or some were more private. You start the thread at your liesure.

If you don't miss a few human beings here or a few human beings there that have been snuffed out by bible morality thats your call. I don't feel that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hold it right there.

 

I NEVER said ANYTHING of the kind. You can do a lot to me, D_C, but don't you dare put words in my mouth that were never there.

 

For crying out loud, I'm not saying what you are trying to do is wrong... I'm saying that the way you're going about it is idiotic and counter-productive.

 

Follow me?

 

Merlin

[Merlinfmct87]

Here's a quote I want you to consider.

 

To become self-educated you should condemn yourself for all those things that you would criticize others.

 

Merlin

[Vigile]

If you're tearing a person to shreds for a label, not only are you embarrasing your peers(because people are so quick to pass judgment by association...) but you are also providing fuel for the anti-atheist propoganda machine

 

Respectfully:

 

I believe this is an exaggeration of what took place here and on the other thread in question. No one is arguing that someone with the label "christian" is responsible for what took place during the inquisition. We are arguing however that closely held, admitted beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination before god, that premarital sex causes baby jesus to cry, and various other beliefs of this sort are in fact bigotry and hurtful towards society.

 

Moreover, anti atheist propaganda will continue to exist as long as christians continue to hold a place near the head of the political table. This is another form of bigotry that SOME christians participate in (and one that I would NOT accuse a certain someone of). If we were perfect angels we would still be the scapegoats for the world's problems from both the pulpits of this country and from the political front. I for one am not an evangelist for atheism and I for one do not intend to martyr my own set of beliefs surrounding freedom to just be me for some non existent cause.

[Vigile]

The bible has bigotry in it and anyone who supports it better have good reason for doing so. Faith is not an answer; it is a hard headed narrow mindedness.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's take a look at some church creeds:

 

Baptist: The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

 

Nazarene: We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

 

Ass of God: The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.

 

Though not exhaustive, the list I'm sure would be similar if applied to nearly all mainstream xtian churches.