JCC God Exists.

Oh yeah... you and Ramza are awesome, and all. I just have to ask... how many times have we had this ****ing debate?

 

n + 1 times, where n is the maximum number of times you can tolerate it.

 

These threads are always better when the scientists show up.

 

"It's worse than I thought, Jim.....Lord Vivian* is in self-aggrandizement mode!!!!!"

Who let Joe Biden in here???

 

It wouldn't be the JC without it.

 

The audiences ams a fickles mistress, Vivec.

 

This cracks me up:




Tosche, any of these your comments?

 

I sincerely don't know where I stand in regards to an "Almighty", but I definitely subscribe to that creed and have been doing so for quite a few years.

 

No, Mr. Straw-man.

But the real joke is someone thinking that these 'real actors' are reading from a 'real, actual' Christian forum, and not a script penned by Comedy Central's B-Team.

 

#3 can be found here: http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens1.html

If you check this site on the wayback machine, that has been there since at least 2007, which, while not proving it to be from 8/13/98 as it is dated, does at least show it well preceeded that video.

Similarly, #2 also provides a link to where it came from, and that is indeed from a forum post made in 2005.

 

This is why I don't like sites like those.

Try a site like TheologyWeb, where people of all beliefs: atheist, agnostic, Wiccan/Pagan, etc. are allowed to debate/argue topics.

 

Those videos are funny, partisan party-poopery notwithstanding.

 

Everything the Cathedral tells you is 'funny', is funny, by golly!!!!!

 

But they are the complete and exact opposite of straw-men...

 

Straw-Men: as in, "That's how all Christians debate, dur dur dur!!!!"

NO.

Check out TheologyWeb.


Now, talking about funny:

 

On a related note, E_B_B (something you and I discussed last page or so):

Every major religion, throughout it's history , has had an intellectual 'wing' (if you will), and an ANTI-intellectual wing.

 

Things Christians havw written are now straw men? Do you know what a straw man is, TOESAREDELICIOUS? If we made up those comments and then debated against them, they'd be strawmen. However look at actual comments and laughing is not a straw man.

 

All true. I stand corrected.

If it's anything, probably better to call it an over-generalization. Which is why I said in post #912 to check out 'TheologyWeb' as a debate forum re: theology. Boy, I've seen bad forums, but I never thought that Christian debate forums would be THAT cringe-worthy .....I thought it was so bad that to me, it HAD to be parody on a Comedy Central/Jon Stewart level.

And then (bringing up a subject from the last page re: fundamentalism):

Every major religion, throughout it's history , has had an intellectual 'wing' (if you will), and an ANTI-intellectual wing (yes, it bears repeating) Because of that, I think the characterization of 'apologists' as being 'opportunists' (generalization) is uncalled for.

 

I know. What is opportunist is to portray the more intellectual version that is totally disconnected from what people practice in real life as somehow more authentic than the faith of the masses. By all rights, the opposite seems true.

This whole distortion also allows Christians to create some sort of Platonic (hehehe) version of their faith which makes it so that bad actions of followers never reflect on the religion itself because it isn't "real Christianity". It is a defensive move meant to protect the IDEA, the system.

 

E_B_B:

You're conflating two different points here: the doctrine or belief system of a religion, and the practice or practical application of the religion by its followers. The reference to the 'intellectual' aspect vs. 'anti-intellectual' aspects of the religion had to with the doctrinal/belief system (The early church father Tertullian (2nd Century AD) was probably the first of the more 'anti-intellectual' theologians of Christianity, what with his "what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" saying). And I'd like you to reflect on the fact that the intellectual aspect in still a viable option within Christianity, whereas one of the other major religions (I won't say which one) had completely removed the intellectual side of the religion as a viable option for it's followers almost a millenia ago.

Secondly, you're calling it a 'distortion', after acknowledging what I said about both 'traditions' existing since the beginning of the religion(s) (which I said was true of other major religions as well, and not just Christianity). Same goes for the 'defensive move' bit. How does Christianity get justifiably singled out in this respect? This looks more like a case of someone with an axe to grand contra Christianity (who probably grew up in a Christian setting) letting this affect their judgement concerning how Christianity is analogous to other major religions in the aforementioned aspect. I've highlighted in bold all of the words from your post that are tell-tale indicators that you're not giving an unbiased, objective, dispassionate assessment of Christianity. The way you describe it is border-line saying that apologetics (especially Christian) are a conspiracy of some sort.


As for the whole bad actions of followers never reflecting on the religion itself - this applies to ANY philosophical system. Which means that the actions of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao badly reflect on Atheism (big A). And they were the 'intellectuals'....or at least Lenin thought he was.

 

lmao on so many levels rigth now

 

"L MAO"....yeah I just mentioned him..

Edit:

oh, and I meant:
IF ONE IS CONSISTENT with the 'bad followers' reflect on any philosophical system, THEN this means that the actions of Lenin, Stalin, Mao badly reflect on Atheism. And they were 'intellectuals' of the movement...or at least Lenin thought he was.

 

This is delusional idiocy because atheism isn't a philosophical system. You can slap a capital letter in front of any word but that doesn't suddenly make it a philosophical system.

 

That's a delusional devious defense dodge (4 D's) kabuki-dance....because the truth/history makes big A look bad, when consistency is applied.