plekhanov Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So, barefaced lies shall remain supreme, they are incurable then. Hmmmmm, No! you are wrong. Banning speech you don't like is utterly contradictory to a free and open society. Do you oppose the notion of free and open society? If not how can you propose to ban "organised religion" whilst keeping a free and open society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So, you enjoy the company of barefaced liars. Tell me, what is wrong with truth? I certainly prefer barefaced liars to would be totalitarians who'd criminalise people for disagreeing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viney40 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Firstly, you have no idea of my age, so I'd suggest that you stop alluding to it. Check. And several non opinions where you just make weak attacks on other posters. It's a good job I'm not trying to inspire then. Reply as you like, you're the one who started the tit for tat, don't cry when you loose. So you are accusing me of lying. I've told you that I didn't miss anything, I chose not to extend my example ad infinitum, you saw a simple extension and tried to look clever by pointing it out. You failed. Maybe you can quote a good point from jobee? I suspect not though. You've been insulting and aggressive, I wasn't rude though, Plek was. I can see why though, you're trying to score points, you're a little smarter than jobee, but no less annoying. For me, I made that point quite a while ago, were you just proving that you have contributed, between your posts where you attack other posters? Cyclone 6 - Viney 0. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viney40 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Thats because we weren't there in 42 AD, try and learn something. Good point jobee. Alas, it will fall on deaf ears, unless you point it out to him at least a couple of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So, you enjoy the company of barefaced liars. Tell me, what is wrong with truth? So my nephew who tells me there are monsters under his bed is lying? Or is he just trying to make sense of the world as he understands it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viney40 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So my nephew who tells me there are monsters under his bed is lying? Or is he just trying to make sense of the world as he understands it? Or maybe someone has lied to him about monsters under the bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Thats because we weren't there in 42 AD, try and learn something. I think the problem here (from your point of view) is that I already know far more than you. For example, that organised religion existed for several millennia before Christianity. Thus I don't make silly statements like 'organised religion started in 42 AD'. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad, but it's you that needs to learn about the topic you are trying to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So, barefaced lies shall remain supreme, they are incurable then. Hmmmmm, No! you are wrong. Religion is not supreme, the people that actually believe are not lying, they really do believe in sky fairies (they are wrong, but not lying). Banning religion is wrong on multiple grounds, personal freedom not being the least, nor is it actually possible. So, no, religion should not be banned, nor should the education of children about religion. It's important for them to see how many mythologies exist and to draw their own conclusions from this about the validity of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Good point jobee. Alas, it will fall on deaf ears, unless you point it out to him at least a couple of times. You actually think that there's a point here? When religion became organised in 42 AD with st Peter Organised religion existed long before that (numerous examples) Thats because we weren't there in 42 AD, How is 'we weren't there' any sort of defence to the inaccurate statement 'religion became organised in 42 AD'? And equally, neither was jobee there, so if he can make statements about what happened, I can make them with equal authority, at least on the basis that neither of us were actually there. Of course I do have a whole lot of additional evidence on my side that organised religion existed for several millennia before... But yeah, good point jobee, that wasn't just more idiocy at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viney40 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You actually think that there's a point here? How is 'we weren't there' any sort of defence to the inaccurate statement 'religion became organised in 42 AD'? And equally, neither was jobee there, so if he can make statements about what happened, I can make them with equal authority, at least on the basis that neither of us were actually there. Of course I do have a whole lot of additional evidence on my side that organised religion existed for several millennia before... But yeah, good point jobee, that wasn't just more idiocy at all! Were you in Africa at the dawn of mankind? (the point that you mist, but are so passionate about. Can't win 'em all. 5-0, just deducted a point from your tally instead of adding one to mine. points don't bother me). It's good to hear that you have taken my advice on board. You are now at least reading before replying, and have conceded that jobee's point is good. Well done young fella! enjoy your weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts