Dumbing down in Britain

SouthernN'Proud said:
And again, one is correct and the other false. Place eggs in basket as you see fit. I have.
Click to expand...

False is not the opposite of correct, you know. Semantics, I'll agree, but given the subject matter I think the distinction is important.

Of course, once again it boils down to a question of faith, which cannot really be discussed in a meaningful manner by those possessing differing levels of it. The arguments can be entertaining though...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
So it ain't just 'Mercans that are getting stupider every day.
Click to expand...

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=512876&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Click to expand...

ShariaG0702_468x300.jpg
 
"Two and two are four
Four and four are eight
Eight and eight are sixteen
Sixteen and sixteen are thirty-two"
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
There's a book that addresses all that, ya know...
Click to expand...

hmmm yeah certainly an unbiased source of advice on that, too. :erm:

you know i used to have this professor - now he was a christian with a ph.d. in theology from yale - and he always insisted that folks answer questions like these based on the merits of the argument and without reliance on scripture. i think he was on to something.
 
spike said:
Seems a lot of people go through the motions of a religion "just in case".
Click to expand...

Bingo! The only game in town as it were.

There was a group who worshipped Satan and, when asked why, they stated this:

"If God is the true God and he is as good and loving as He is supposed to be then He will surely forgive us for worshipping Satan.

"However, if Satan is the true God and He is as cruel and nasty as He is supposed to be then He will never forgive us for worshipping God."

Drunken logic knows no bounds.
 
2minkey said:
hmmm yeah certainly an unbiased source of advice on that, too. :erm:
Click to expand...

Amazing how the internet has replaced "straight from the source" with "that's not an unbiased source..."




you know i used to have this professor - now he was a christian with a ph.d. in theology from yale - and he always insisted that folks answer questions like these based on the merits of the argument and without reliance on scripture. i think he was on to something.
Click to expand...

I quoted any scripture?

Or is it now illegal/unethical/biased to even mention said source, even without naming it?




Scramble scramble scramble. I thought you employed more sophisticated debate skills than did our resident bandaged primate, or recently departed tweaker.
 
spike said:
Seems a lot of people go through the motions of a religion "just in case".
Click to expand...

And yet profess to hold faith in such a gullible deity. :shrug:

In my experience, there are as many opinions about religion as there are people. Interestingly, I don't know of anyone who thinks their take is incorrect. :D

The ones I don't understand are the ones who say things like, "I belong to religion X, but I don't agree with this part or that part." Sounds more to me like they don't really belong to religion X, they just find it convenient to say so. :shrug:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Amazing how the internet has replaced "straight from the source" with "that's not an unbiased source..."

I quoted any scripture?

Or is it now illegal/unethical/biased to even mention said source, even without naming it?

Scramble scramble scramble. I thought you employed more sophisticated debate skills than did our resident bandaged primate, or recently departed tweaker.
Click to expand...


actually at this point i think you're absolutely brilliant.

you've managed to reference markjs, and assert that someone else bears similarity, by using a false negation of markie's own tactic of suggesting the other as less than sophisticated. (and the 'internet wisdom' comment was pretty good, too.)

and you suggest others 'scramble' while denying that you were referencing scripture, when you did - not chapter and verse - but the whole fucking book. hmm, that seems to qualitfy? nice scramble.

very, very nice work.

gee, i thought you were more sophisticated than those other chimps!

:roll:
 
jimpeel said:
He not only cares, He demands it.

Continue to march.
Click to expand...

hmmmm. well, if it is, then, a jealous god, you can keep it. cuz that shit's pretty fucking weak.

"hi, there. i'm, all powerful, but i'm also kind of a 12 year-old at the same time. worship me or it's eternal hellfire."

*no sale*

*next contestant, please*
 
So the very mention of a book, even without title, is "referencing" it? Is quoting scripture from it?

You got better reach than Tyson dude.
 
2minkey said:
you gotta wonder, though, does "god" give a shit if you believe in s/he/it? really. and does the human punyness of some act of declaring specific belief really impact much? I doubt it. or, if god really cares about something - in the sense of granting admission through the pearly gates - so teeny weeny in comparison to leading a life full of ethical choices and compassion (where appropriate), than that god is, well, pretty stinking petty. and likely underserving of worship.
Click to expand...

SouthernN'Proud said:
There's a book that addresses all that, ya know...
Click to expand...

yes, in context, it's abundantly clear that you're referencing a certain chuck o' scripture, as prescriptive no less. :erm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top