This statement makes no sense. In order for someone to be a liar or insane, they have to exist. Somebody can't lie if they don't exist. Either you admit Jesus existed or he did not, you can't have it both ways.
Too funny!!! Aphie back in top form!!!! What GG and Longshot don't seem to grasp is the definition of the word "faith". What is so hard about this? It's a rather simple word to define. It's in the dictionary in case there is any confusion. Accepting that others can have "faith" is really necessary for us all to coexist in the real world. No matter what one's own feelings are. This is part of what defines another word: "society". I myself do NOT have theological faith. But I have NO problem understanding and accepting that others do. And realizing that maybe they are right and I am wrong. My feeling is it really won't matter in the end. If there is no heaven or hell, I am gonna be ok. If there is, I don't think you need to qualify with "faith" to get into either place. Assuming there is a heaven, it has to be assumed as well (IMO) that to gain admittance one must live a life not without sin, but without whatever it is that excludes you from entry. We all "sin" according to one set or religious laws or another. I would think this would just be a matter of being a generally decent person. Being "God fearing" shouldn't be a factor Being of the proper brand religion is too far fetched for me to accept. That would exclude too great a percentage of everyone who ever lived or ever will. So while I do not believe in any organized religion, I would say that the Ten Commandments and "Golden Rule" are probably pretty good guidelines for earning one's way into heaven if there is such a place. No one is born with a specific religious conviction. That is all learned behavior. So I just can't believe in religion at that level. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. I don't believe in prayer in school. However, I know what is real for some people. So when I was teaching school (to avoid the draft), I used to tell my students right before they would start a test: "If you want to pray, now is the time". This offended no one. It got laughs from some students and was taken seriously by others. The main thing is it hurt no one. And it was NOT a violation of my own beliefs that there is no place for religion in the classroom. I saw no conflict of thought with what I did. If one kid wants to pray without using his or her larynx (silent prayer), what possible detrimental effect could it have on the next kid? GG, Longshot; "Faith" exists. Deal with it. It doesn't' have to be part of your belief system. You have complete "faith" that you are right. And Maverick, why do you say that either you believe or you don't....that you "can't have it both ways"? Why can't you just NOT KNOW? And know that you don't know? Why is this not an alternative to believing or not believing? I think this is a very real choice for a lot of people. Peace, RS
Yes, you can have it both ways, but GG was trying to say that someone was a liar or is insane without acknowledging their existence. If he said I don't know if Jesus existed or not, that would be fine. But when he said that and at the same time calling Jesus a liar or insane, well, he is just contradicting himself.
you let in this one squirrel and the door is open for more.. pretty soon your whole head is full of squirrels and you can't think rationally no more ! a life without reason is not worth living. :-/
This is just classic ... When I saw the headline, I immediately knew it was gordon gekko back with an atheistic vengeance to shoot down the theists. The kicker here is that roovenwood jumps in as his sidekick to back up his claims with more pyscho-babble. So how many threads have we now managed to start concerning how incorrect theists are? What amazes me is how all of the atheists have glowing, irrefutable proof that god does not exist. I was a really confused theist before gordon, longshot, roovenwood, et. al., convinced me that atheism is the sure bet. Thanks guys. The other 500 threads you started didn't sink in, but this thread was the kicker that sent me over the edge into atheism. I'm glad you guys helped to clear up my confusion. My reply: I'm agnostic. If you're too stupid to differentiate between atheist and agnostic then you're too stupid as usual. You're rife with confusion. Buy a dictionary. __________________
I'm with you. After believing in a simple 2000-year-old message of peace and love, I can see now how wrong I was. And to think that I finally found the truth on a trading site. What a miracle, and what a blessing that people of such maturity and brilliance should show me the error of my ways.
how anyone can buy into this fantastik tale without so much as batting an eye is beyond me.. grand claims REQUIRE lots and lots of PROOF. and THIS claim ..TONS!! signed, dazed and confused
Yeah, well Mav, you know that you cannot debate this issue rationally with GG. I think GG is so carried away with his anti-religion campaign as to be questionably sane ..... Sort of like you with GWB Both of you are bright guys. Both of you have level headed observations and opinions that you express here on ET. But not regarding your pet issues. So while you and GG differ in your opinions here, the two of you really should have a lot of empathy for one another. You both exhibit the exact same behavior. Just on different topics. âThe definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.â ~ Albert Einstein Will you, Mav, convince any of the "liberals" here to admire GWB? Will GG convince any practicing Christians here to turn to atheism? How's the weather in Chicago today? I heard it was pretty nice and had warmed up to about 40 degrees. It was 83 here today. I washed my car. Said no prayers, and voted for no one. A fine Sunday afternoon. Hope yours was as well!!! And don't take the insanity comment as an insult. It applies to us all equally. If ART or myself think we can get YOU to see what is so clear to us, then we are guilty of the same behavior. And equally "insane". Part of being an ET "netizen" I suppose. Welcome to the on-line Cuckoo's Nest. Peace, RS
RS, I think you are reading too much into some of my posts. For one, I am not really trying to convince anyone of anything. someone once said, in all the years of civilization, an argument has never been won. I believe this to be true. I like to poke fun of a lot of guys on ET just because its fun. I can tell a lot of people get rattled by some of the things I say and it's fun to watch them jump back at me and get upset. ahhh, one of the guilty pleasures of an anonymous internet message board. You know the funny thing is, and I have said this a few times, but I think people think I am joking when I say this, I am not the right wing extremist people like to think I am, although I have to admit it's fun to play that role on here because I know it drives guys like ART crazy. Yes, I am a republican, and I would like to think a fairly moderate one. I am liberal on some issues believe it or not and yes, I find many many faults with GWB. However, having said all that, the nature of message boards is for people to be extreme. Such as people claiming they took 40 pts out of the NQ's on Friday, or someone claiming they are daytrading TASR for easy gains every day, or that they have verifiable proof that there is no God, whatever. It's all the same. I think it's entertaining for people. But I also think in terms of politics, that people tend to take the extremes on here because its more fun to argue the extremes then the middle of the road. So when ART starts pushing his socialist America routine, it forces me to go way off to the right as well. If you want to go back to game theory, its the same logic. When two people are arguing, there is an optimal outcome for both sides. Obviously both sides want to win the argument completely but this can't happen. Let me show you why. Say we assign a value of 0 to 10 based on one's political views with 0 being the far left and and 10 being the far right. The optimal strategy for both parties is to argue the extreme, say me being the 10 and ART being the 0, that way, the outcome ends up being in the middle for a 5 with both of us eventually conceding some points to the other. However, lets say I give in and try to be nice and argue a 5 trying to be a moderate. Now ART could also argue a 5 but that is not his optimal choice, his best choice is still to argue 0, that way he wins and the result is 2.5. Same scenario if ART tried to be nice and give a moderate argument and does a 5, then for me, the optimal response is still to argue a 10, that way I win with a 7.5. So what you have here, if both players make the right moves, both should argue the extremes because they have to assume their opponent will do what is best for them. That is why I always argue a 10 and ART always argues a 0. It's not that I really feel that a 10 is where my real argument should be, it's just that that is the best strategy for me. Is this making any sense? Truth is, if we are discussing this at a bar over drinks, you would find me to be a lot more moderate then you would imagine. But like I said, don't expect me to do that on here. LOL. BTW, RS, what subject do you teach?
absolutely wrong, longshot. western civilization owes it very existence to the BELIEF in a deity. your athiest friends are truly confused on the issue. surfer