. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
Are you so willing and quick to defend allsmilies that you won't even realize you're making yourself look foolish here?
It's irrelevant to allsmiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allsmiles
Knight, I told you over and over again that your evidence, regardless of what it was, was not going to persuade me.
If allsmiles told Knight over and over that regardless of whatever evidence Knight would give, it would not persuade him, why would Knight waste his time?
Don't fall into allsmiles trap of throwing one's brains out the window. Seriously, don't you see how stupid this comment this is? When somebody says they won't be pursuaded, regardless of the evidnece, that's an immature translation for "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la la la...I can't hear you!!!' and continue on with my blind belief of something no matter what the opposing evidence is."
"The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan
I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romans 1:16
Are you so willing and quick to defend allsmilies that you won't even realize you're making yourself look foolish here?
His previous opinion of allsmiles is that AS is "a passive take-it-up-the-sphincter kind of guy who's ever ready to let lie absurdity and slander. " That is, unless he believed allsmiles was an Enyart fan.
"I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
"Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot
Slogan/motto:
It is a good time to be a jester when the world is a joke.
Reputation:
September 26th, 2006, 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly
If allsmiles told Knight over and over that regardless of whatever evidence Knight would give, it would not persuade him, why would Knight waste his time?
It's not about persuasion, it's about Knight's ability, or any other Christian's ability, regardless of the reaction of a skeptic, to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus in our historical timeline.
Can you provide evidence to support the belief that Jesus existed? What evidence can you provide? We can start with either a simple "yes I can provide evidence" or a simple "no, I cannot provide evidence".
Quote:
Don't fall into allsmiles trap of throwing one's brains out the window. Seriously, don't you see how stupid this comment this is? When somebody says they won't be pursuaded, regardless of the evidnece, that's an immature translation for "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la la la...I can't hear you!!!' and continue on with my blind belief of something no matter what the opposing evidence is."
There are no traps here Poly. My requests have been unequivocal and concise from the very beginning. Also, all of this tripe:
Quote:
When somebody says they won't be pursuaded, regardless of the evidnece, that's an immature translation for "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la la la...I can't hear you!!!' and continue on with my blind belief of something no matter what the opposing evidence is."
...can be directed right back at you. As I have said over and over and over again, I won't be persuaded by your evidence just as you will not be persuaded by any evidence I certainly can provide to the contrary of yours.
This has nothing to do with me. You're deliberately trying to confuse things and it's no wonder the pathetic analogies and ad hominems abound on your side of the "debate" when you realize that I won't play your childish games.
You can't confuse me with your BS Poly, so you might as well stop trying and make with the evidence.
The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.
You are already confused. You are in the dark. You can't see the truth for your pride. You know everything. Nobody can teach you. You've let your cult-of-a-school dictate the rest of your life. And now you're trapped here in the TOL Zone agreeing only with the same bonehead losers you went to school with. I call that inbred thought. You aren't investigating. You are bitter. You aren't searching. You are fermenting in your own juices. Do something different for a change.
"If you look upon ham and eggs and lust, you have already committed breakfast in your heart." - C.S. Lewis
to be honest ive used somewhat similar wording toward satans type before. i say things like:
evidence points toward the creator and only interpretation differs .. but even if you came to me with unarguable hard data .. i would still reject your evidence in favour of my faith.
...
but i still think satan is a loser and im not .. contrary to all otherwise asserted opinion .. *grin*
Slogan/motto:
It is a good time to be a jester when the world is a joke.
Reputation:
September 26th, 2006, 09:08 AM
On Fire, if you can provide evidence for the existence of Jesus in our historical timeline I'll take you off of ignore.
Don't fool yourself into believing you know anything about me. Use whatever excuses you want for being a failure, but don't make like you know me, you really don't, it's pathetic to see you trying to read me, and it's also predictable. I'm attacking the notion of your savior's very existence, it's no surprise to me you're as venomous as you are, I'm also not surprised at your lack of accuracy in describing me as a person.
The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.
Are you so willing and quick to defend allsmilies that you won't even realize you're making yourself look foolish here?
It's irrelevant to allsmiles.
If allsmiles told Knight over and over that regardless of whatever evidence Knight would give, it would not persuade him, why would Knight waste his time?
Don't fall into allsmiles trap of throwing one's brains out the window. Seriously, don't you see how stupid this comment this is? When somebody says they won't be pursuaded, regardless of the evidnece, that's an immature translation for "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la la la...I can't hear you!!!' and continue on with my blind belief of something no matter what the opposing evidence is."
I wouldn't have put it the same way Allsmiles did, for exactly this reason: You've misunderstood what he meant. Whether that's Allsmiles' fault or yours is a matter of opinion (unless I am mistaken, in which case Allsmiles should clear it up).
See, the thing is, the topic being argued is nothing new. Allsmiles has very likely studied it at great length. He's probably searched for the same truth Knight is ineptly trying to provide, with no luck. He has come to a conclusion based on extant evidence, most or all of which he has likely seen. Moreover, he knows that unless new evidence surfaces, he'll stick to that conclusion. So when he says that Knight can present no evidence that would persuade him, that doesn't mean he cares nothing for the facts, but rather that he knows no more evidence exists for Knight to present.
It would be a bit like me saying, "There is no evidence you can present which would convince me the holocaust didn't happen." I can say this with confidence because I've seen all the most convincing arguments against it already, and they don't hold water.
What Knight could do is spin the evidence in a new way, but considering what he has to work with there's not much hope for that.
Allsmiles' comment wasn't particularly clear, but it wasn't idiotic, either.
By the way, if I was a bit rude to you before I didn't mean it. I've grown bitter over Knight's sanctimonious bigotry.
His previous opinion of allsmiles is that AS is "a passive take-it-up-the-sphincter kind of guy who's ever ready to let lie absurdity and slander. " That is, unless he believed allsmiles was an Enyart fan.
Not really. I clam up verbally, can't drive a car and bring down everyone around me. And I always had to wipe off the bowl, because I never figured out how to take a dry hit.
Quote:
Apparently you do.
Not at all. I get very paranoid and embarrassed. Besides, I gave up criminal activity years ago.
Quote:
Then why do you feel so compelled to converse with them?
Why would I refuse to talk to someone because he or she has a different metaphysical view?
Quote:
Says the moron
I've never called anyone names, which seems to be common practice for some.
EDIT: By "never" I mean not under this username. I may have done so under my previous username, but if so it was rare.
Quote:
whose only reason for posting here is to make rude insults.
I have made some rude insults, sure, but they have only come as a direct response to even more offensive (and more infantile) treatment.
Quote:
Typical liberal hypocrite.
I'm not a liberal--at least, not in the way I suspect you think.
Quote:
What was your old one?
Hatsoff.
Quote:
By the way, I like your new username 'bj', it suits you.
That's not my username. "Bestofjars" was a geocities site name I used to host a collection of good Jars Of Clay tunes. They're an amazing band; you should check them out if you haven't already. With Geocities goes Yahoo, and so I used that email to re-register here. And now I get to piss and moan. Yes, I know it's a bit childish, but who ever completely grows up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuySmiley
Wow bestofjars, you've hung around long enough to fit into the above mentioned category!
That just doesn't make any sense, even as sarcasm.
Linear Mode
