Passenger killed by air marshall

Perhaps the word CFLarsen is looking for is "deist"?

Whatever. I can't believe this thread is nearing thirty pages. Hilarious read, though.
 
Perforatu said:
Whatever. I can't believe this thread is nearing thirty pages. Hilarious read, though.
Click to expand...
Whenever I see a thread this long that involves Larsen, I for some reason think of the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Hopping on one leg, the other leg and both arms already cut off...refusing to admit defeat..."The Black Night always triumphs! I am INVINCIBLE!"
 
Freakshow said:
Whenever I see a thread this long that involves Larsen, I for some reason think of the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Hopping on one leg, the other leg and both arms already cut off...refusing to admit defeat..."The Black Night always triumphs! I am INVINCIBLE!"
Click to expand...

You sure spend a lot of time describing how much you ignore me. Thereby showing how much you pay attention to me.

It's very odd.
 
CFLarsen said:
If you can't answer the question, then it is possible to be religious without belonging to a specific religion.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
What religion is Martin Gardner?
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia he describes his own beliefs as philosophical theism(Philosophical theism is a belief that God exists (or must exist), independent of the teaching or relevation of any particular religion).

So there you go, no religion at all.
 
Grammatron said:
According to Wikipedia he describes his own beliefs as philosophical theism(Philosophical theism is a belief that God exists (or must exist), independent of the teaching or relevation of any particular religion).

So there you go, no religion at all.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that he believes in God, but that he has no religion?
 
Perforatu said:
Whatever. I can't believe this thread is nearing thirty pages. Hilarious read, though.
Click to expand...

It's easy. Just look at the way certain posts and questions -- like the last few from Upchurch -- are completely ignored. To do this without being too obvious, you have to pick other posts and churn the water in the desperate hope that activity is mistaken for responsiveness.

No mention will be made of the failure to answer my Democracy questions -- again -- and fingers will be crossed in the hopes that no one has the tenacity to keep bringing up inconvenient points. In that respect, it is similar to an old poster, lucianarchy, who always hopes that he could outlast you and that eventually, no one would care enough or have enough time to keep pressing the same points. Then you "win."

It is absolutely necessary -- to do this -- that you keep asking questions and keep changing terms to try and stay on the offensive.
 
As an example of the tactics being used, look back a couple of pages to this exchange:

(p 27)

Upchurch:
Do you understand that the US government is defined by the US Constitution as a secular government?
Click to expand...

CFLarsen:
Yes. That doesn't preclude religion to permeate the US government.

Are you saying that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how the US looks today? It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Two sentences, both of them set up similar shifts in meaning -- using the ever-famous questions to do so (partially so that one can deny actually taking a position or making a claim with the "I only asked a question" ploy).

In the first, the whole secular/religious debate -- which had been going poorly -- has now been changed, as the position morphs to 'well, the government may be secular, but it can be "permeated" by religion.'

Fantastic. Since no one knows what that means -- and you get to define the permeation any way you like -- you either end debate or claim that any connection to religion proves your point (Example: In Denmark, the Queen of the country is in the official state religion, there for the secular government is, in reality, permeated by religion.)

The second one is even better. You are given two choices: either the Declaration of Independence is as important and crucial as CFL believes, or it has "nothing to do with how the US looks today . . . It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever."

Beautiful false dichotomy set up with yet another question. It eliminates all middle ground and takes away all but two choices: CFL's position or "no relevance." It also tries to shift the debate from whether the DOI is a "founding" document or has any legal standing (etc) to whether it has any relevance to "how the US looks today."

A shift in language worthy of lucianarchy. Truly, this thread has been educational.
 
CFLarsen said:
Why?

You can't be religious without adhering to a specific religion?
Click to expand...


Not really. Can you provide an example to support your assertion that one can be religious without a religion? Or is this another of your "I know better, don't question it" points?

Tell me something, what religion is Martin Gardner?
Click to expand...

I can tell you with absolute certainty what religion your queen is. It's mandated by your "secular" constitution, remember?
 
One can be "spiritual" without being "religious" and without belonging to an organized religion.

It all depends upon how we define the word "religious". The problem is, words can mean anything these days, and blurring the meanings of words is a useful tool for muddying the waters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom