Why is the Bible exactly like primitive society and totally unlike an omniscient god of love?

The Missouri Prophet yarn???

It's really odd to call it a quote and put it in quotes when this isn't actually a quote. But it does show the level of intellectual care and honesty you have as a person that you would do that.

Exactly what I was doing was giving credit where credit is due. I stopped the quote where my interpretation began. Those are his precise ideas about religion, and to not quote and credit would have been wrong.

You're in over your head. Imagine how naive I was coming on here thinking the debate would actually be about ideas, and about what religion is and what role it fills, and has filled, for eons of ignorant, superstitious, blood drinking people. I was writing about it, 451 sources, that F-451 thing, and thought there might be SOME latitude and critical thinking aloud in the true believer mindset.

I used to make a distinction between sincere and insincere religious people. I don't any more. It looks to me like 100% of the time, when they get cornered, they reveal that they have no seriousness about ideas, but only their dogma, doctrine, and insincere apologetics deceptively, mostly self-deceptively, brandished.

It's just pitiful. One time say, "Oh, there is a real problem with this, yes."

Oh boy. Newb poking the bear.

This should be fun.....

1. The list is far from exhaustive.

2. The items that are listed are not necessarily mutual exclusive.

No ... the thing is ending. I really came on naive. I learned. If the Bible said 2 + 2 = 5, or say, mass murder is loving, or stoning women and children is loving, they are in a position where they have to defend it. I showed that it can only be apocryphal, that I am willing to at least try to apply critical thinking and reality testing to the big questions, and they proved that they are not. It's in black and white. It's okay to kill witches. Today. Because it says so in a superstition book from thousands of years ago. Amen.

LOL. They are not "his precise" ideas about religion. They are your interpretation of his ideas about religion. You have rephrased and re-ordered his ideas into your own framework. He presented his framework in an essay. If you wanted to quote that essay, you can do so and that would be a quote. If you want to use your ideas about what he wrote, it's no longer a quote.

You literally don't even understand what it means to quote someone.

No, it's going to be quote boring. He's just an assertion machine. At least people like MB would try to defend their statements, even if they are factually wrong. Fella's approach is far more along the lines of a conspiracy theorist. Every new post is a new opportunity to make another mindless assertion. He's literally "quoting" Einstein without actually having a quote.

It's way less interesting.

Behold, the primitive religion game: "Us versus them ... with the same respect for reality in general that is has for the reality of its doctrine."

* I think I improved it a little.

Who are you quoting?

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...4dUDCAw&uact=5

[QUOTE=Aaron W.;56134686]Who are you quoting?


Jeezus you ijjit. Sometimes when we refer to words, such as I was doing there, we use quotes. There are many uses of quotation marks which are not directly quoting anything. You know, it really sounds like you need to go edit the internet for grammar ... because that is exactly what you are doing here instead of refuting any of the salient points germane to the content of the actual debate. You chose to become an anal grammar bytch instead. Do you think that might be a tell as to how weak you know your case is?

Really, go edit the internet for punctuation. It is so important.!!?:;"";;'' LOL religitard polluting the discussion.

Actually, I'm a skeptic machine and the religious are the assertion machines. That's really not debatable.

Did you win your bet?

Oh... so when you "refer" to "words" you put them in "quotes" because you don't know what else to do?

Behold, a statement: This is a statement.

Just reading some of the last few posts from FellaGaga-52 reminds me why I got tired of these types of forums. There always seem to be a few trolls suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect that post in these places.

Jeezus ... have you finished editing the forum boards of the world for punctuation yet? Have you asked yourself why you might be doing that instead of debating substantive issues? You aren't the kind of guy that wants to debate at the table the use of the slash in the title of Brunson's book Super/System ... while he plays a circle around you, are you? Are you?

My goal here is to get at the epistemology that says:"""" reality doesn't matter, it's what I believe that matters """"".

Yeah, he really really sucks at something he thinks he's great at doing.

I must say it's fun to watch.

Don't laugh. I can attest to the fact that it's quite painful to realize you're pretty bad at something you feel like you should be good at. Like communicating pithy ideas on discussion forums.

Not a problem for me. I've always known I suck at it. But I keep trying -- and keep proving it.

You're right, the problem has always been my delusions of grandeur

Let's start with this:

In reality, is it true or false that Einstein said what you quoted him as saying?

FellaGaga is captured by his conspiratorial mind. When that happens, the surface level issue — in this case organized religion generally and Christianity specifically — is nothing but a domain of projection for the actual irrational conflict of victimhood, good vs evil, injustice, heroism, etc.

[QUOTE=FellaGaga-52;56134731] I have a standing offer for you, FellaGaga: If you ever make a "salient point" I will address it.

Yes, more or less, dozens of times. You have five biographies to read of him it sounds like to me.

And now you start with this:

In reality is it true that drinking blood is a holy thing, and that mass killing and stoning children and non-virgins is loving???

I thought you might go away. Or are the triple question marks more important to your inquiring mind than the utter absurdity of the doctrine?

LOL. "More or less"? "It sounds like" and quoting are two incredibly different standards. I can make jibbersh statements and say it "sounds like" you. Does that make it a quote?

In reality, is it the Einstein statement you gave in quotes a quote or not?