bigkahuna;1143395 wrote:I'm not Catholic, so no, the money my Church brings in DOESN'T go to the Vatican.

Keep failing.

It goes somewhere; which was the entire point of that post. This is another logical loophole. Changing your belief structure to fit your argument.

"Oh, I know the Bible says Noah's ark existed, but I don't believe in that, but everything else I believe in, well except for the talking snake, and uh, PROVE ME WRONG LULZ!"

Rotinaj;1143406 wrote:If you don't agree with sleeper on a subject you are poor and stupid! Enjoy!

+1

Well on this subject at least.

Skyhook79;1143405 wrote:Link to your statement as if it is fact?

Oh they definitely are. Which goes back to my point that atheists lie to win votes and influence people. How does it feel to be hoodwinked by people who will say anything just to get your vote?

Skyhook79;1143400 wrote:The cognitive structure of science is a pretty basic principle and Richard Dawkins is hardly humble about what he doesn't know. Nice fail attempt.

He knows more than you and has more money than you. Enjoy!

Skyhook79;1143353 wrote:Not surprised you side with an atheist but I am surprised you side with an atheist who doesn't believe in the cognitive structure of science.

Wait, you think Dawkins doesn't understand science? What next, neither does Hitchens or Shermer or Degrasse Tyson?

GTFO

I Wear Pants;1143416 wrote:Wait, you think Dawkins doesn't understand science? What next, neither does Hitchens or Shermer or Degrasse Tyson?

GTFO

Only God and skyhook's pastor understands science..

Skyhook79;1143400 wrote:The cognitive structure of science is a pretty basic principle and Richard Dawkins is hardly humble about what he doesn't know. Nice fail attempt.

Dawkins is quite humble about what he doesn't know.

He's just not going to tiptoe around people who use bad science or no science to make claims of a deity seem logical. I'm fine with you believing as long as you're willing to admit that it is irrational and that the evidence is against you (or present evidence to back up your point and be willing to debate. Another requirement is that if proof were given that god does not exist, even though that is probably impossible, that you would give up your beliefs. Just as if proof of god were given Dawkins and myself and sleeper would change our positions. Sort of the crux of science and rational thought). When people start claiming that science or logic supports the evidence for a specific deity or version of the creation story is when scientists like Dawkins get terse in their denials of it.

I Wear Pants;1143420 wrote:Dawkins is quite humble about what he doesn't know.

He's just not going to tiptoe around people who use bad science or no science to make claims of a deity seem logical. I'm fine with you believing as long as you're willing to admit that it is irrational and that the evidence is against you. When people start claiming that science or logic supports the evidence for a specific deity or version of the creation story is when scientists like Dawkins get terse in their denials of it.

Agreed. Dawkins is not a militant atheist at all. He's pretty boss actually, I don't know how he stays so calm in the face of ignorance.

sleeper;1143422 wrote:Agreed. Dawkins is not a militant atheist at all. He's pretty boss actually, I don't know how he stays so calm in the face of ignorance.

It's called POT

DeyDurkie5;1143424 wrote:It's called POT

Reps. Would read again.

How did I miss this thread?!

Hilarious read. Sleeper and bigkahuna's exchange about praying to heal on page 3/4 had me dying. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

sleeper;1143407 wrote:It goes somewhere; which was the entire point of that post. This is another logical loophole. Changing your belief structure to fit your argument.

"Oh, I know the Bible says Noah's ark existed, but I don't believe in that, but everything else I believe in, well except for the talking snake, and uh, PROVE ME WRONG LULZ!"

How am I changing by belief structure to fit my argument? I never once said I was Catholic. The only people that "answer" to the Pope are Catholics. Protestants do not. The Pope has no bearing on my church or me.

You're right, the money goes into the bank account of the Church and then back out through the bills. How hard is that to understand? There's no upper management.

Explain to me how that is another logical loophole?

Automatik;1143438 wrote:How did I miss this thread?!

Hilarious read. Sleeper and bigkahuna's exchange about praying to heal on page 3/4 had me dying. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I hope you read what I posted after that. Geesh, you play sleeper's game for a second, and it follows you for life.

bigkahuna;1143441 wrote:I hope you read what I posted after that. Geesh, you play sleeper's game for a second, and it follows you for life.

Yeah I read it.

Good luck with that "plan" when you are aging and frail.

bigkahuna;1143439 wrote:How am I changing by belief structure to fit my argument? I never once said I was Catholic. The only people that "answer" to the Pope are Catholics. Protestants do not. The Pope has no bearing on my church or me.

You're right, the money goes into the bank account of the Church and then back out through the bills. How hard is that to understand? There's no upper management.

Explain to me how that is another logical loophole?

That's part of the problem. It's hard to establish someone's beliefs on an internet forum. I don't know what you believe, because you haven't told me. So naturally, I'm going to lump you in with every other believer out there. Then when I start attacking those positions, you'll simply claim that you don't believe in that etc. Then you'll establish what you believe in, and I'll start attacking those points, and you'll simply change again what you believe in. Eventually, you'll be left with a defensible position, which is the "I don't know provision". Of course, then you'll go on in your daily life believing the same thing except on the internet you'll have a different set of defensible beliefs.

We call that hypocritical and logical fraud.

I Wear Pants;1143416 wrote:Wait, you think Dawkins doesn't understand science? What next, neither does Hitchens or Shermer or Degrasse Tyson?

GTFO

He isn't willing to acknowledge the cognitive structure of science because it goes against his argument.

Skyhook79;1143453 wrote:He isn't willing to acknowledge the cognitive structure of science because it goes against his argument.

I'll admit I have no idea what the cognitive structure of science is. Could you explain?

Skyhook79;1143281 wrote:"This is where the question gets more difficult to answer, because there are many ways to help others, and there are probably some missionaries doing all of them, so I'll just make a list of those things I'm aware of missionaries doing to help others.

• They serve as church planters.
• They serve as doctors.
• They serve as nurses.
• They serve as teachers.
• They serve as pilots.
• They serve as builders.
• They serve as wives and mothers.

And this list is in no way exhaustive."

Listen...I know what missionaries do. I know missionaries. I went to school with them. I am friends with them. I have done missions trips. It's not like you are telling me things I don't know.

To me, "church planters" is not a quality thing to do in the mission field. Churches are a waste of time, money, and resources. The definition of "church" that we go by now -- a building where people gather to worship. Lousy. Guess what, these missionaries are also developing ministers...which second to "churches" are the biggest waste of money in the Christian faith. All the other paid "church" staffing would be right there with them.

bigkahuna;1143439 wrote:How am I changing by belief structure to fit my argument? I never once said I was Catholic. The only people that "answer" to the Pope are Catholics. Protestants do not. The Pope has no bearing on my church or me.

You're right, the money goes into the bank account of the Church and then back out through the bills. How hard is that to understand? There's no upper management.

Explain to me how that is another logical loophole?

Thank God! Wouldn't it be nice if the Catholic church could say the same thing...


And sleeper, learn how to use the "Multi-quote" feature...that way your ignored posts aren't ruining the flow of the thread on my screen. Thanks. It's there for a reason.

OSH;1143460 wrote:Thank God! Wouldn't it be nice if the Catholic church could say the same thing...


And sleeper, learn how to use the "Multi-quote" feature...that way your ignored posts aren't ruining the flow of the thread on my screen. Thanks. It's there for a reason.

No thanks. I'll post how I want. Good to know you have me on your ignore list, I think that is an acceptable solution if you can't win any arguments and can't stand someone you don't like being right all the time.

Automatik;1143445 wrote:Yeah I read it.

Good luck with that "plan" when you are aging and frail.

It wont. I'll have to suck it up and go eventually. Hell, I just went for an eye exam last week to get an updated script on my contacts.

bigkahuna;1143481 wrote:It wont. I'll have to suck it up and go eventually. Hell, I just went for an eye exam last week to get an updated script on my contacts.

Why not just pray for better eyesight? Why are you messing with God's plan?

sleeper;1143450 wrote:That's part of the problem. It's hard to establish someone's beliefs on an internet forum. I don't know what you believe, because you haven't told me. So naturally, I'm going to lump you in with every other believer out there. Then when I start attacking those positions, you'll simply claim that you don't believe in that etc. Then you'll establish what you believe in, and I'll start attacking those points, and you'll simply change again what you believe in. Eventually, you'll be left with a defensible position, which is the "I don't know provision". Of course, then you'll go on in your daily life believing the same thing except on the internet you'll have a different set of defensible beliefs.

We call that hypocritical and logical fraud.

You yourself assumed I was Catholic. You, nor did anyone else ask my denomination I belonged to. Unlike most people on a forum, I'm open about myself if asked. In this entire thread, I've stated my opinion and defended it. Nothing on it as ever changed unless you want to count me going to the optometrist after I said I don't like going to the doctor and taking medicine (i.e pills)

sleeper;1143482 wrote:Why not just pray for better eyesight? Why are you messing with God's plan?

I never thought about praying for better eyesight. I thought that the glasses would make me seem intellectual and obviously hide my ignorance. It was part of God's plan for me to use the tools at my disposal to have better eyesight.

bigkahuna;1143489 wrote:You yourself assumed I was Catholic. You, nor did anyone else ask my denomination I belonged to. Unlike most people on a forum, I'm open about myself if asked. In this entire thread, I've stated my opinion and defended it. Nothing on it as ever changed unless you want to count me going to the optometrist after I said I don't like going to the doctor and taking medicine (i.e pills)

Contacts weren't created by god. Nowhere in the bible does it say "and then on the 5th day, god created contacts and saline solution..." How does it feel to be a hypocrite? Why not just pray for god to heal your eyes so you can see 20/20?

#sleeperwins