Something for the Atheists

[warrior1972]

It isn't Christians or "scientists" in general claiming there is a faith science conflict. It is the new atheism that is making that claim. Dawkins, Dennent, Hithchens, etc. Dawkins has equated teaching religion to children as child abuse. Philosophically speaking their arguments are jejune, but they are big hits in the pop culture. There is no conflict between the idea of natural selection and the Christian faith, never has been. Both can be believed at the exact same time with out any reservation. You Catholics have always been a bit weird from my vantage point. Anyway thanks for the insights. [/quote]


Who said I was Catholic?

I was brought up Catholic, and educated Catholic, but I'm grown now, and make my own choices, including and especially when it comes to God.


And as for being "weird", what do you think YOU look like to people who don't agree with YOU?

And it's not Christians or scientists "In general", but there are plenty of Christians who reject anything science says that conflicts with their faith. There are plent of examples, including the entire arguments about birth control and aborition, and if human life begins at conception or not, along with the religious rqadicals who refuse to allow certain medical procedures becuase they believe those procedures contradict their faith, just to name two or three. And then we can discuss education, and who it is that is constantly challenging ANY teaching of Darwin's theory, while also sometimes pushing for Creationism to be taught on equal footing with Darwins' Theory in our public schools.

It sure isn't atheists, all right?


You yourself get very "dogmatic" every time we have a discussion, cam.

I would never profess to speak for all Catholics, all Christians, or most definitely not all atheists, since I have never been one.

But I do know for a fact that Christians are far from blameless.

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 8:27:14 GMT -8 warrior1972 said:

It isn't Christians or "scientists" in general claiming there is a faith science conflict. It is the new atheism that is making that claim. Dawkins, Dennent, Hithchens, etc. Dawkins has equated teaching religion to children as child abuse. Philosophically speaking their arguments are jejune, but they are big hits in the pop culture. There is no conflict between the idea of natural selection and the Christian faith, never has been. Both can be believed at the exact same time with out any reservation. You Catholics have always been a bit weird from my vantage point. Anyway thanks for the insights.

Who said I was Catholic?

I was brought up Catholic, and educated Catholic, but I'm grown now, and make my own choices, including and especially when it comes to God.


And as for being "weird", what do you think YOU look like to people who don't agree with YOU?

And it's not Christians or scientists "In general", but there are plenty of Christians who reject anything science says that conflicts with their faith. There are plent of examples, including the entire arguments about birth control and aborition, and if human life begins at conception or not, along with the religious rqadicals who refuse to allow certain medical procedures becuase they believe those procedures contradict their faith, just to name two or three. And then we can discuss education, and who it is that is constantly challenging ANY teaching of Darwin's theory, while also sometimes pushing for Creationism to be taught on equal footing with Darwins' Theory in our public schools.

It sure isn't atheists, all right?


You yourself get very "dogmatic" every time we have a discussion, cam.

I would never profess to speak for all Catholics, all Christians, or most definitely not all atheists, since I have never been one.

But I do know for a fact that Christians are far from blameless.


[/quote]
Ok a lapsed Catholic then, whatever. Blameless for what? What hobby horse have you hopped onto now? Me dogmatic? ya OK. I'm a Presbyterian, that's not a secret. What I believe I believe for rationally sound well thought out reason. I can in fact rationally defend my faith using my God given ability to understand logic and reason. That life begins at conception has not been disproved by science, by the by. Sometimes you seem to forget just how extremely well read I can be when posting on a topic. Don't tell me there is no war on Christians or those of faith in pop culture. We are the only religious group those morons feel comfortable mocking, aka the piss christ. Violent zealots they openly embrace. Want me google some pics and audio from the OWS folks?

The New Atheists is the latest atheist movement. Men like Dawkins who not only claim that for Christians to allow their children to pray before a school event is wrong if it happens on school property. They claim to even allow those parents to pass on their own religious convictions is tantamount to child abuse. That where ever and whenever possible the state should discourage people from having or expressing a religious belief. And something that certainly should not be allowed in polite and intelligent circles. You want to debate the constitution? OK the document means exactly what it says and what the founders who wrote it understood it to mean. No where in the Constitution is there a "right to have an abortion". It simply isn't there. It's not in the penumbra or in the mixture of other gasses surrounding the document. The left has invented a new way of reading the constitution. Now it's to be read not for what it actually says and means but what those charged with the sacred duty of up holding the spirit of the law think it should mean in today's day and age. That is not how it is supposed to work. There is a mechanism built into our constitution for that, it is to be amended. Not enforced through judicial fiat. That's how we get idiots taking schools to court because the boys had a prayer before the big game. Anyway I'm not much interested in that angle of my beliefs at the moment. More interested in defanging all the nitwits who are reproducing the New Atheist's ignorant arguments.

[warrior1972]

[/quote]
Ok a lapsed Catholic then, whatever. Blameless for what?


For the conflict between religion and science.


What hobby horse have you hopped onto now?


The "hobby horse" of the conflict between religion and science.


Me dogmatic? ya OK. I'm a Presbyterian, that's not a secret.


Maybe not, but I didn't know. Thanks for the info. And when I say you're dogmatic, I am not referring just to religion.l


What I believe I believe for rationally sound well thought out reason.

You always say that, but forgive me for saying that, like everybody else, it isn't always true.

I can in fact rationally defend my faith using my God given ability to understand logic and reason. That life begins at conception has not been disproved by science, by the by. Sometimes you seem to forget just how extremely well read I can be when posting on a topic. Don't tell me there is no war on Christians or those of faith in pop culture. We are the only religious group those morons feel comfortable mocking, aka the piss christ. Violent zealots they openly embrace. Want me google some pics and audio from the OWS folks?


The persecution complex of Christianity is a thing of wonder.

Christianity is, far and away, the largest religion on the planet. Catholicism, a denomination of Christianity, is larger than most other religions.

It is also the dominant religion of western civilization, thanks to the Roman Empire making it thier official religion, which made Chistianity the religion of the Romans, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, and every other major European power and it's colonies, including the United States.

...And when Christians were not persecuting other repligions as "pagan" and "heathen", Christians were and are persecuting EACH OTHER.


Every religion on the planet has been persecuted by somebody, somewhere, at some period of time. All you need for persecition is for two groups of people to have different point of view and for one of those groups to have a bigger stick than the other one.


The New Atheists is the latest atheist movement. Men like Dawkins who not only claim that for Christians to allow their children to pray before a school event is wrong if it happens on school property. They claim to even allow those parents to pass on their own religious convictions is tantamount to child abuse. That where ever and whenever possible the state should discourage people from having or expressing a religious belief. And something that certainly should not be allowed in polite and intelligent circles. You want to debate the constitution? OK the document means exactly what it says and what the founders who wrote it understood it to mean. No where in the Constitution is there a "right to have an abortion". It simply isn't there. It's not in the penumbra or in the mixture of other gasses surrounding the document. The left has invented a new way of reading the constitution. Now it's to be read not for what it actually says and means but what those charged with the sacred duty of up holding the spirit of the law think it should mean in today's day and age. That's how we get idiots taking schools to court because the boys had a prayer before the big game. Anyway I'm not much interested in that angle of my beliefs at the moment. More interested in defanging all the nitwits who are reproducing the New Atheist's ignorant arguments. [/quote]


They are entitled to those arguments, even as you and I are entitled to ours, whether you and I agree with them or not.

And Christianity, in the world in general, and this country in particular, is in no danger.

None, whatsoever.

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 10:11:10 GMT -8 warrior1972 said:

Ok a lapsed Catholic then, whatever. Blameless for what?


For the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between religion and science


What hobby horse have you hopped onto now?


The "hobby horse" of the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They do not address the same questions.


Me dogmatic? ya OK. I'm a Presbyterian, that's not a secret.


Maybe not, but I didn't know. Thanks for the info. And when I say you're dogmatic, I am not referring just to religion.l

Me thinks it's the other way round, but then I would, wouldn't I?


What I believe I believe for rationally sound well thought out reason.

You always say that, but forgive me for saying that, like everybody else, it isn't always true.

No, it's true. Not infallible and am often wrong about this or that. If someone can enlighten me when I'm wrong then I'm grateful.

I can in fact rationally defend my faith using my God given ability to understand logic and reason. That life begins at conception has not been disproved by science, by the by. Sometimes you seem to forget just how extremely well read I can be when posting on a topic. Don't tell me there is no war on Christians or those of faith in pop culture. We are the only religious group those morons feel comfortable mocking, aka the piss christ. Violent zealots they openly embrace. Want me google some pics and audio from the OWS folks?


The persecution complex of Christianity is a thing of wonder.

Oh puleeze already. I worked in retail in the 90's when people would publicly chastise me for wishing customers a Merry Christmas. I've seen the hate and hostility posted on such sites as the History Channel. The idiots got angry this year when a conservative governor declared the "Holiday Tree" to in fact be a "Christmas Tree". Persecution complex? Just exactly where do you get off saying that to me? You think I don't know what real persecution is? Would you like to discuss what the Chinese do to their Christians?

Christianity is, far and away, the largest religion on the planet. Catholicism, a denomination of Christianity, is larger than most other religions.

In fact Christianity is currently the fastest growing religion.

It is also the dominant religion of western civilization, thanks to the Roman Empire making it thier official religion, which made Chistianity the religion of the Romans, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, and every other major European power and it's colonies, including the United States.

...And when Christians were not persecuting other repligions as "pagan" and "heathen", Christians were and are persecuting EACH OTHER.


Every religion on the planet has been persecuted by somebody, somewhere, at some period of time. All you need for persecition is for two groups of people to have different point of view and for one of those groups to have a biugger stick than the other one.


The New Atheists is the latest atheist movement. Men like Dawkins who not only claim that for Christians to allow their children to pray before a school event is wrong if it happens on school property. They claim to even allow those parents to pass on their own religious convictions is tantamount to child abuse. That where ever and whenever possible the state should discourage people from having or expressing a religious belief. And something that certainly should not be allowed in polite and intelligent circles. You want to debate the constitution? OK the document means exactly what it says and what the founders who wrote it understood it to mean. No where in the Constitution is there a "right to have an abortion". It simply isn't there. It's not in the penumbra or in the mixture of other gasses surrounding the document. The left has invented a new way of reading the constitution. Now it's to be read not for what it actually says and means but what those charged with the sacred duty of up holding the spirit of the law think it should mean in today's day and age. That's how we get idiots taking schools to court because the boys had a prayer before the big game. Anyway I'm not much interested in that angle of my beliefs at the moment. More interested in defanging all the nitwits who are reproducing the New Atheist's ignorant arguments. [/quote]


They are entitled to those arguments, even as you and I are entitled to ours, whether you and I agree with them or not.

And Christianity, in the world in general, and this country in particular, is in no danger.

None, whatsoever.

Never thought it was. That does not however relieve me of my duty to speak out against those who are false teachers. [/quote]

[warrior1972]

Nov 22, 2011 10:33:33 GMT -8 cam said:

Nov 22, 2011 10:11:10 GMT -8 warrior1972 said:

Ok a lapsed Catholic then, whatever. Blameless for what?


For the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between religion and science


There is conflict between the people that are devoted to one at the expense of the other....And you know it, so let's move on.




What hobby horse have you hopped onto now?


The "hobby horse" of the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They do not address the same questions.


See above.

Me dogmatic? ya OK. I'm a Presbyterian, that's not a secret.


Maybe not, but I didn't know. Thanks for the info. And when I say you're dogmatic, I am not referring just to religion.l

Me thinks it's the other way round, but then I would, wouldn't I?


Of course you would.


What I believe I believe for rationally sound well thought out reason.

You always say that, but forgive me for saying that, like everybody else, it isn't always true.

No, it's true. Not infallible and am often wrong about this or that. If someone can enlighten me when I'm wrong then I'm grateful.


I would never presume to "enlighten" another man about his faith, and that is all that religion is...faith.

I can in fact rationally defend my faith using my God given ability to understand logic and reason. That life begins at conception has not been disproved by science, by the by. Sometimes you seem to forget just how extremely well read I can be when posting on a topic. Don't tell me there is no war on Christians or those of faith in pop culture. We are the only religious group those morons feel comfortable mocking, aka the piss christ. Violent zealots they openly embrace. Want me google some pics and audio from the OWS folks?


The persecution complex of Christianity is a thing of wonder.

Oh puleeze already. I worked in retail in the 90's when people would publicly chastise me for wishing customers a Merry Christmas. I've seen the hate and hostility posted on such sites as the History Channel. The idiots got angry this year when a conservative governor declared the "Holiday Tree" to in fact be a "Christmas Tree". Persecution complex? Just exactly where do you get off saying that to me? You think I don't know what real persecution is? Would you like to discuss what the Chinese do to their Christians?


Would you like to compare somebody giving you a dirty look becuase you said Merry Christmas to the deaths of countless millions down through the history of civilization becuase of their religion?

Damn, get OVER it, already.


Christianity is, far and away, the largest religion on the planet. Catholicism, a denomination of Christianity, is larger than most other religions.

In fact Christianity is currently the fastest growing religion.

It is also the dominant religion of western civilization, thanks to the Roman Empire making it thier official religion, which made Chistianity the religion of the Romans, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, and every other major European power and it's colonies, including the United States.

...And when Christians were not persecuting other repligions as "pagan" and "heathen", Christians were and are persecuting EACH OTHER.


Every religion on the planet has been persecuted by somebody, somewhere, at some period of time. All you need for persecition is for two groups of people to have different point of view and for one of those groups to have a biugger stick than the other one.


The New Atheists is the latest atheist movement. Men like Dawkins who not only claim that for Christians to allow their children to pray before a school event is wrong if it happens on school property. They claim to even allow those parents to pass on their own religious convictions is tantamount to child abuse. That where ever and whenever possible the state should discourage people from having or expressing a religious belief. And something that certainly should not be allowed in polite and intelligent circles. You want to debate the constitution? OK the document means exactly what it says and what the founders who wrote it understood it to mean. No where in the Constitution is there a "right to have an abortion". It simply isn't there. It's not in the penumbra or in the mixture of other gasses surrounding the document. The left has invented a new way of reading the constitution. Now it's to be read not for what it actually says and means but what those charged with the sacred duty of up holding the spirit of the law think it should mean in today's day and age. That's how we get idiots taking schools to court because the boys had a prayer before the big game. Anyway I'm not much interested in that angle of my beliefs at the moment. More interested in defanging all the nitwits who are reproducing the New Atheist's ignorant arguments.

They are entitled to those arguments, even as you and I are entitled to ours, whether you and I agree with them or not.

And Christianity, in the world in general, and this country in particular, is in no danger.

None, whatsoever.

Never thought it was. That does not however relieve me of my duty to speak out against those who are false teachers. [/quote][/quote]


...And that would be anybody who disagrees with you...right?

That's precisely what I mean when I call you "dogmatic".

... In terms of religion and/or polticis, It's all gotta be your way, or no way at all...

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 10:54:23 GMT -8 warrior1972 said:

Nov 22, 2011 10:33:33 GMT -8 cam said:

Ok a lapsed Catholic then, whatever. Blameless for what?


For the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between religion and science


There is conflict between the people that are devoted to one at the expense of the other....And you know it, so let's move on.




What hobby horse have you hopped onto now?


The "hobby horse" of the conflict between religion and science.

There is no conflict between science and religion. They do not address the same questions.


See above.

Me dogmatic? ya OK. I'm a Presbyterian, that's not a secret.


Maybe not, but I didn't know. Thanks for the info. And when I say you're dogmatic, I am not referring just to religion.l

Me thinks it's the other way round, but then I would, wouldn't I?


Of course you would.


What I believe I believe for rationally sound well thought out reason.

You always say that, but forgive me for saying that, like everybody else, it isn't always true.

No, it's true. Not infallible and am often wrong about this or that. If someone can enlighten me when I'm wrong then I'm grateful.


I would never presume to "enlighten" another man about his faith, and that is all that religion is...faith.

I can in fact rationally defend my faith using my God given ability to understand logic and reason. That life begins at conception has not been disproved by science, by the by. Sometimes you seem to forget just how extremely well read I can be when posting on a topic. Don't tell me there is no war on Christians or those of faith in pop culture. We are the only religious group those morons feel comfortable mocking, aka the piss christ. Violent zealots they openly embrace. Want me google some pics and audio from the OWS folks?


The persecution complex of Christianity is a thing of wonder.

Oh puleeze already. I worked in retail in the 90's when people would publicly chastise me for wishing customers a Merry Christmas. I've seen the hate and hostility posted on such sites as the History Channel. The idiots got angry this year when a conservative governor declared the "Holiday Tree" to in fact be a "Christmas Tree". Persecution complex? Just exactly where do you get off saying that to me? You think I don't know what real persecution is? Would you like to discuss what the Chinese do to their Christians?


Would you like to compare somebody giving you a dirty look becuase you said Merry Christmas to the deaths of countless millions down through the history of civilization becuase of their religion?

Damn, get OVER it, already.


Christianity is, far and away, the largest religion on the planet. Catholicism, a denomination of Christianity, is larger than most other religions.

In fact Christianity is currently the fastest growing religion.

It is also the dominant religion of western civilization, thanks to the Roman Empire making it thier official religion, which made Chistianity the religion of the Romans, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, and every other major European power and it's colonies, including the United States.

...And when Christians were not persecuting other repligions as "pagan" and "heathen", Christians were and are persecuting EACH OTHER.


Every religion on the planet has been persecuted by somebody, somewhere, at some period of time. All you need for persecition is for two groups of people to have different point of view and for one of those groups to have a biugger stick than the other one.


The New Atheists is the latest atheist movement. Men like Dawkins who not only claim that for Christians to allow their children to pray before a school event is wrong if it happens on school property. They claim to even allow those parents to pass on their own religious convictions is tantamount to child abuse. That where ever and whenever possible the state should discourage people from having or expressing a religious belief. And something that certainly should not be allowed in polite and intelligent circles. You want to debate the constitution? OK the document means exactly what it says and what the founders who wrote it understood it to mean. No where in the Constitution is there a "right to have an abortion". It simply isn't there. It's not in the penumbra or in the mixture of other gasses surrounding the document. The left has invented a new way of reading the constitution. Now it's to be read not for what it actually says and means but what those charged with the sacred duty of up holding the spirit of the law think it should mean in today's day and age. That's how we get idiots taking schools to court because the boys had a prayer before the big game. Anyway I'm not much interested in that angle of my beliefs at the moment. More interested in defanging all the nitwits who are reproducing the New Atheist's ignorant arguments.

They are entitled to those arguments, even as you and I are entitled to ours, whether you and I agree with them or not.

And Christianity, in the world in general, and this country in particular, is in no danger.

None, whatsoever.

Never thought it was. That does not however relieve me of my duty to speak out against those who are false teachers.

[/quote]


...And that would be anybody who disagrees with you...right?

That's precisely what I mean when I call you "dogmatic".

... In terms of religion and/or polticis, It's all gotta be your way, or no way at all...[/quote]

No it isn't everyone who disagrees with me, just most of you. If you or anyone else can spot the error in my reasoning please feel free to point it out to me at anytime. Dawkin's and the New Atheists make intellectually bankrupt arguments. Usually making mince meat out of whatever straw-men they've constructed. Traditional Christian customs have been under attack by secular humanists since I was a child. Back then if you would have said that someday folks would consider it rude to wish them a merry Christmas they would have laughed at you. Atheistic arguments are immensely weak arguments. There is no conflict between faith and science. Modern science is a product of a Christian world view. That the world is well ordered and can be rationally understood.Claiming Atheism is a lack of faith is to fail philosophy 101. To claim that the establishment clause trumps the free exercise clause is hogwash. Children praying before the big game or a local minister giving a benediction at a graduation ceremony is not tantamount to the state establishment of a religion. The argument is fallacious on its very face. I get a wee bit tired of you lapsed Catholic types telling me I'm dogmatic because I refuse to roll over and play dead. My traditional religious customs and practices have come under attack and I don't need you to verify it to justify my vociferous opposition to the abridgment of my freedom of religious expression.

[marinecpl]

This piousness is why I don't like any and all organized religion and/or organized athiestic group. My beliefs, faith, or lack thereof are mine and mine alone. I don't need to be a sheep in a flock(member of a church) to have religion or faith. So, I do my thing and you do your thing and that's just fine by me.

IMO, you take yourselves and your religion, lack thereof, and/or faith way too seriously and then lash out at people who won't follow the mantra sold to you and your flock.

If you wanna believe in the invisible man in the sky and pick and choose which teachings fit your agenda and ignore the other teachings that don't fit your agenda, be my guest, that is what the Constitution guarantees for you. The Constitution also guarantees me to not have to do what you think I should do according to your beliefs.

If you don't like birth control; don't use it. If you don't like abortion; don't get one. If you disagree with evolution; disregard it. If you disagree with athiesm; disregard it. If you don't like gays; don't associate with them. If you don't like gay marriage; mind your own business. If you don't like sex education; ignore it. And so on......

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 12:58:14 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

This piousness is why I don't like any and all organized religion and/or organized athiestic group. My beliefs, faith, or lack thereof are mine and mine alone. I don't need to be a sheep in a flock(member of a church) to have religion or faith. So, I do my thing and you do your thing and that's just fine by me.

IMO, you take yourselves and your religion, lack thereof, and/or faith way too seriously and then lash out at people who won't follow the mantra sold to you and your flock.

If you wanna believe in the invisible man in the sky and pick and choose which teachings fit your agenda and ignore the other teachings that don't fit your agenda, be my guest, that is what the Constitution guarantees for you. The Constitution also guarantees me to not have to do what you think I should do according to your beliefs.

If you don't like birth control; don't use it. If you don't like abortion; don't get one. If you disagree with evolution; disregard it. If you disagree with athiesm; disregard it. If you don't like gays; don't associate with them. If you don't like gay marriage; mind your own business. If you don't like sex education; ignore it. And so on......

Excuse me while you pretend to be above the fray while making childish and immature attacks on those of us with a religious faith. I do not believe in garden gnomes or pixies or anything like your invisible man in the sky. I do believe in the Abrahamic concept of an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator. All you did with that little quip was expose yourself to be exactly what you claim to be above. I can use logic and reason to vigorously defend everything I believe. Do you think you can say the same thing? You don't get to teach other peoples children whatever you dang well please to include over the objections of parents. You don't like it, time for you to get over it.

[marinecpl]

Nov 22, 2011 14:21:05 GMT -8 cam said:

Nov 22, 2011 12:58:14 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

This piousness is why I don't like any and all organized religion and/or organized athiestic group. My beliefs, faith, or lack thereof are mine and mine alone. I don't need to be a sheep in a flock(member of a church) to have religion or faith. So, I do my thing and you do your thing and that's just fine by me.

IMO, you take yourselves and your religion, lack thereof, and/or faith way too seriously and then lash out at people who won't follow the mantra sold to you and your flock.

If you wanna believe in the invisible man in the sky and pick and choose which teachings fit your agenda and ignore the other teachings that don't fit your agenda, be my guest, that is what the Constitution guarantees for you. The Constitution also guarantees me to not have to do what you think I should do according to your beliefs.

If you don't like birth control; don't use it. If you don't like abortion; don't get one. If you disagree with evolution; disregard it. If you disagree with athiesm; disregard it. If you don't like gays; don't associate with them. If you don't like gay marriage; mind your own business. If you don't like sex education; ignore it. And so on......

Excuse me while you pretend to be above the fray while making childish and immature attacks on those of us with a religious faith. I do not believe in garden gnomes or pixies or anything like your invisible man in the sky. I do believe in the Abrahamic concept of an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator. All you did with that little quip was expose yourself to be exactly what you claim to be above. I can use logic and reason to vigorously defend everything I believe. Do you think you can say the same thing? You don't get to teach other peoples children whatever you dang well please to include over the objections of parents. You don't like it, time for you to get over it.

You proved my point for me. Thank you.

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 15:08:06 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

Nov 22, 2011 14:21:05 GMT -8 cam said:

Excuse me while you pretend to be above the fray while making childish and immature attacks on those of us with a religious faith. I do not believe in garden gnomes or pixies or anything like your invisible man in the sky. I do believe in the Abrahamic concept of an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator. All you did with that little quip was expose yourself to be exactly what you claim to be above. I can use logic and reason to vigorously defend everything I believe. Do you think you can say the same thing? You don't get to teach other peoples children whatever you dang well please to include over the objections of parents. You don't like it, time for you to get over it.

You proved my point for me. Thank you.

Ya right, whatever chknsht.

[marinecpl]

Nov 22, 2011 16:59:31 GMT -8 cam said:

Nov 22, 2011 15:08:06 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

You proved my point for me. Thank you.

Ya right, whatever chknsht.

You proved it again. Thanks.

P.S. I love the way you rail on and on about Christianity and yet you fail to follow even the most basic of Christ's teachings.

[cam]

Nov 22, 2011 19:05:43 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

Nov 22, 2011 16:59:31 GMT -8 cam said:

Ya right, whatever chknsht.

You proved it again. Thanks.

P.S. I love the way you rail on and on about Christianity and yet you fail to follow even the most basic of Christ's teachings.

The only thing being proved here is just how shallow your thinking is capable of being. You presume to chastise me for failing to follow the most basic of Christ's teachings? Which teaching is that? The one where he suffered morons like you willingly? Sorry must have missed that class in Sunday school. You have no clue what you're talking about and pretending otherwise doesn't fool anyone. Oh and by the by, not once have I made a claim to being pious. In fact I hardly ever even attend church. Not saying it's a good thing, it just is what it is. What I know about is philosophy and Christian theology. You have trouble using pious correctly in a sentence. You know neither philosophy or Christian theology so are not in any position to lecture me. That I take offence to arrogant ignorance rudely put is not proof I am a poor follower of Christ's teachings. The kind of Christian you've bumped into here is not the pacifist hippy of your pop culture imaginings.

[warrior1972]

[My traditional religious customs and practices have come under attack and I don't need you to verify it to justify my vociferous opposition to the abridgment of my freedom of religious expression. [/quote]



Some people have the nerve to disagree with your beliefs (NOT "facts". BELIEFS, which, like everybody else's religious beliefs, are based on faith, or in the case of an Atheist, the lack of it.), and you categorize that as an "abridgement" of your freedom of religious expression"?


In other words, if some "non-believer" looks at you funny when you say Merry Christmas, your faith is being threatened?

Mormons "are not orthodox Christians".

Catholics "have always been a little weird". ( And on a more personal note, do not expect an apology from me for being raised and educated Catholic, and then exercising my personal prerogative to do whatever I chose to do as an adult regarding my religious beliefs (and anything else, for that matter) when I grew up. If you do expect such an apology, at the very least, you'd better prepare yourself for a helluva disappointment.)

And any semblence of the ancient conflict between science and religion (do the names Galileo and Copernicus ring a bell?) is the fault of "the new atheists".


"Facts"?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

You'd do well to remember that the same Constitution that guarantees your "freedom of religious expression" also guarantees mine, and everybody else's.

That's the only FACT relevent to this conversation that I'm "dogmatic" about, Cam.


I know, I know.

Sometimes, I ask too much....

[marinecpl]

Nov 22, 2011 19:16:57 GMT -8 cam said:

Nov 22, 2011 19:05:43 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

You proved it again. Thanks.

P.S. I love the way you rail on and on about Christianity and yet you fail to follow even the most basic of Christ's teachings.

The only thing being proved here is just how shallow your thinking is capable of being. You presume to chastise me for failing to follow the most basic of Christ's teachings? Which teaching is that? The one where he suffered morons like you willingly? Sorry must have missed that class in Sunday school. You have no clue what you're talking about and pretending otherwise doesn't fool anyone. Oh and by the by, not once have I made a claim to being pious. In fact I hardly ever even attend church. Not saying it's a good thing, it just is what it is. What I know about is philosophy and Christian theology. You have trouble using pious correctly in a sentence. You know neither philosophy or Christian theology so are not in any position to lecture me. That I take offence to arrogant ignorance rudely put is not proof I am a poor follower of Christ's teachings. The kind of Christian you've bumped into here is not the pacifist hippy of your pop culture imaginings.

You fail to disappoint, you once again proved my point. Thanks.

[cam]

Nov 24, 2011 20:50:12 GMT -8 marinecpl said:

Nov 22, 2011 19:16:57 GMT -8 cam said:

The only thing being proved here is just how shallow your thinking is capable of being. You presume to chastise me for failing to follow the most basic of Christ's teachings? Which teaching is that? The one where he suffered morons like you willingly? Sorry must have missed that class in Sunday school. You have no clue what you're talking about and pretending otherwise doesn't fool anyone. Oh and by the by, not once have I made a claim to being pious. In fact I hardly ever even attend church. Not saying it's a good thing, it just is what it is. What I know about is philosophy and Christian theology. You have trouble using pious correctly in a sentence. You know neither philosophy or Christian theology so are not in any position to lecture me. That I take offence to arrogant ignorance rudely put is not proof I am a poor follower of Christ's teachings. The kind of Christian you've bumped into here is not the pacifist hippy of your pop culture imaginings.

You fail to disappoint, you once again proved my point. Thanks.

Hey I know. Why not instead of trying to impress upon me the narrow minded way you view me. Try instead figuring out how it is you are perceived by me. Personally I don't think you can do it. Ya ya I know, once again I've proven your point. It's a mighty fine point ya got there too. Just try not to cut your finger scratching your head.