Why church is so dangerous !!!

[bruto]

Church isolates and separates and destroys like non-integrated science that you were taught and yet still espouse.

Not that I'm any great friend of churches, but I think you also have it backwards, in that churches, like you, are guilty of NOT separating science from faith, attempting instead to subsume it under their religious ideas and deny or corrupt it when it conflicts.

Please keep this thread about the dam church system rather than science. Although you can mention that the dam church system fights true science and true knowledge..... just as the education system does.

It really isn't up to you to specify what can be discussed in a thread, even it if is one you started. If you yourself tout your knowledge of science in this thread, you cannot fault others for picking up the gauntlet.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For those of you who rarely take trips into the abyss that is the Conspiracy Theories subforum, DJJ has been over there spewing his drivel in support of MIHOP/LIHOP drek. Just to give you an idea of the mindset we're dealing with here.

 

[Bododio]

Unless used as a hand-to-hand weapon.

Might be a little unwieldy unless grasped by the steeple. I think a church key is a better weapon. And when you get done vanquishing, you can quench your thirst.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ok, did anyone else just spray their monitor?

Yep

DR

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Churches aren't dangerous.

Maybe not, but cathedrals can be.

Four dead, killed by Il Duomo San Franceso di Assisi in 1997.



DR

Churches don't kill people. Steeples kill people.

 

[bruto]

Churches don't kill people. Steeples kill people.

You have to watch out for drowning, too!

The babe, with a cry brief and dismal
Fell into the waters baptismal.
Ere they'd gathered its plight,
It had sunk out of sight,
For the depth of the font was abysmal.

(Edward Gorey)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think the diarrhea cup has truly runneth over

 

[Davidjayjordan]

For those of you who rarely take trips into the abyss that is the Conspiracy Theories subforum, DJJ has been over there spewing his drivel in support of MIHOP/LIHOP drek. Just to give you an idea of the mindset we're dealing with here.

This is my mindset, as I hate wasting time, and so may put this on-line.... learned when being HERE...

True scientists look for connections, the CAUSE of the EFFECT. They use logic and reason and hope to find a truth thru experimentation via a theory that continually works.

False skeptics deny everything and stand for nothing but worship skepticism as they are afraid to back up anything and so stay in the safety zone of saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing but complainers and whiners.

Real skeptics discern truths and eventually make decisions on what they experience and see and read and determine. Real skeptics have courage, yet false ones are whimps and haven't got a clue because they have absolutely no basis for discernment. Why because they know no laws, or have no standards. For a law or principle or a standard or a truth is what gives someone the ability to discern further other potennial truths.

False skeptics .... groaning, complaining, whining skeptics are not skeptics at all, just those without backbones who can not make decisions and are afraid to make a stand on anything.... and hence are afraid to connect up the mysteries of life. true skeptics have no FEAR, false skeptics are full of doubts and FEARS.

Why, again because false skeptics are lazy and prefer to be on the sidelines and afraid to work and get real and have real experiences and achieve real individuality. Real skeptics do not need the support of anyone else, they will go it alone if need be. But false skeptics love the cozy pews of group mockery because they need the support from fellow false skeptics. For together, they prop up their faith in believing in nothing and standing up for nothing. They hate connections, cause and effect. because they don't want to do the hard job of figuring out what caused what effect.

False skeptics are not true skeptics, There is a huge difference between the two. True skeptics will not accept the answers of others, but will respectfully interrogate any and all iuntil they come to an ANSWER or THE ANSWER they are seeking. For they seek, they don't just sit and criticise those that are seeking and they don't just sit and criticise those that are trying to delve into the mysteries of life. They WORK !!!

Real skeptics REALLY work hard at solving the mysteries of life, and dissipating the lies that are taught to them or others. Because real skeptics care about others as well. They are concerned not just about themselves and their own actions but about others. They are not in their own little selfish world like the false skeptics who only come out at night to complain and harass any on the road to discovery. True skeptics care and want progress and have a goal. False skeptics are lazy and want to go no where and do nothing except be follish and mock those that are passing them by.

So let's make it very clear that there is a HUGE difference between TRUE SKEPTICS and FALSE SKEPTICS.

True skepticism is a thing of honour and courage, False skepticism and pretense is dishonourable and disgusting and shameful.

True skeptics try to discern and figure out the truth behind those that CONSPIRE CONSPIRACIES against them and others. True skeptics are going somewhere, false skeptics are afraid to go anywhere.

Which are you ?

 

[Zep]

Uh huh.

GET HELP, DUDE!

 

[bruto]

This is my mindset, as I hate wasting time, and so may put this on-line.... learned when being HERE.....<snip>
Which are you ? (snipped by bruto for economy of space, since this same polemic has been sufficiently cross posted already)

I think the first thing a true skeptic is unafraid of is doubt itself.

If you cannot accept that some things cannot be answered with certainty, then you have compromised your skepticism from the start.

You say a true skeptic will not accept the answers of others, but expect everyone to accept your answers, even though they are fraught with obvious, howling errors in the most basic areas of science, math and logic, inaccurately, selectively and tendentiously researched, and even though you are so careless and sloppy in their presentation that you cannot even bother to proofread the web pages with which you so proudly spam the board.

You say a true skeptic would "try to discern and figure out the truth behind those that CONSPIRE CONSPIRACIES against them," oblivious to the obvious first step that a true skeptic must take, which is to determine whether or not the conspiracies exist.

For you, it seems, skepticism means doubt of everything but your own preconceptions. That's a very bad start.

As always, your diatribe shows a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of almost everything it concerns.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

True skeptics will not accept the answers of others, but will respectfully interrogate any and all iuntil they come to an ANSWER or THE ANSWER they are seeking.

Bolding mine. Speaks for itself, I think.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The No True Moron Fallacy

No True Moron could possibly post this drivel. You are having us on.

This is my mindset, as I hate wasting time

You lying sack of Democrat, your "432" thread needs to be bronzed as the ultimate waste of time.

True scientists look for connections, the CAUSE of the EFFECT. They use logic and reason and hope to find a truth thru experimentation via a theory that continually works.

So far, so good. This cannot be DJJ posting. Who are you, and what did you do with DJJ's body?

False skeptics deny everything and stand for nothing but worship skepticism as they are afraid to back up anything and so stay in the safety zone of saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing but complainers and whiners.

Whiners are a class unto themselves, some whiners are skeptics, but not all whiners are skeptics. Some skeptics are whiners, but not all skeptics are whiners.

Whiners suck. (There, I said it.)

Real skeptics discern truths and eventually make decisions on what they experience and see and read and determine. Real skeptics have courage, yet false ones are whimps and haven't got a clue because they have absolutely no basis for discernment. Why because they know no laws, or have no standards. For a law or principle or a standard or a truth is what gives someone the ability to discern further other potennial truths.

Hey, DJJ, wimp has no "H," no silent "H," and your No True Skeptic line is lame. Remember where you are posting, on a board filled with skeptics, and the occasional cynical old fart like me.

False skeptics .... groaning, complaining, whining skeptics are not skeptics at all, just those without backbones who can not make decisions and are afraid to make a stand on anything.... and hence are afraid to connect up the mysteries of life. true skeptics have no FEAR, false skeptics are full of doubts and FEARS.

No True Skeptic, reprise.

Why, again because false skeptics are lazy and prefer to be on the sidelines and afraid to work and get real and have real experiences and achieve real individuality. Real skeptics do not need the support of anyone else, they will go it alone if need be. But false skeptics love the cozy pews of group mockery because they need the support from fellow false skeptics. For together, they prop up their faith in believing in nothing and standing up for nothing. They hate connections, cause and effect. because they don't want to do the hard job of figuring out what caused what effect.

No True Strawman. Damn, did you think you would get away with this?

False skeptics are not true skeptics, There is a huge difference between the two. True skeptics will not accept the answers of others, but will respectfully interrogate any and all iuntil they come to an ANSWER or THE ANSWER they are seeking. For they seek, they don't just sit and criticise those that are seeking and they don't just sit and criticise those that are trying to delve into the mysteries of life. They WORK !!!

Iuntil? Is that a legume?

Real skeptics REALLY work hard at solving the mysteries of life, and dissipating the lies that are taught to them or others. Because real skeptics care about others as well. They are concerned not just about themselves and their own actions but about others. They are not in their own little selfish world like the false skeptics who only come out at night to complain and harass any on the road to discovery. True skeptics care and want progress and have a goal. False skeptics are lazy and want to go no where and do nothing except be follish and mock those that are passing them by.

Real strawmen invest in Nomex(TM). So do NASCAR drivers.

So let's make it very clear that there is a HUGE difference between TRUE SKEPTICS and FALSE SKEPTICS.

Yes, I wear a kilt. It prevents chaffing.

True skepticism is a thing of honour and courage, False skepticism and pretense is dishonourable and disgusting and shameful.

So is bullshi77ing a bullshi77er, pal, and you are indeed trying that on for size. Yes, that dress makes you look fatuous.

As my uncle once said: That dog won't hunt.

True skeptics try to discern and figure out the truth behind those that CONSPIRE CONSPIRACIES against them and others. True skeptics are going somewhere, false skeptics are afraid to go anywhere.

I redundantly repeat that your are full of bovine fewments.

Which are you ?

A life form, which is more than I can say for you.

Truth time, brother DJJ, whose sockpuppet are you? A sock is not a sentient life form.

DR

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Darth, allow me to repost above, all the relevant thoughts you had.

Are you sure your Rotor is rotating ?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Prophetic Timeline Challenge

.....

 

[bruto]

You're mistakenly conflating two things here. Your being wrong does not depend in any way on someone else being right. You can be wrong, as you usually are, flamboyantly, obviously and laughably wrong, quite by yourself.

If you make an assertion it is up to you to provide the argument. It stands or fails on its own merits, whether or not a better alternative exists. This isn't "king of the hill."

 

[Davidjayjordan]

You're mistakenly conflating two things here. Your being wrong does not depend in any way on someone else being right. You can be wrong, as you usually are, flamboyantly, obviously and laughably wrong, quite by yourself.

If you make an assertion it is up to you to provide the argument. It stands or fails on its own merits, whether or not a better alternative exists. This isn't "king of the hill."

If you ever make an assertion about anything Bruto that will show you actually believe something and have come to a conclusion about something which might show a ferw connected neurons, but seeing you can't claim anything, we can only assume you know nothing.

I mean even ten year olds can understand church is bogus and is filled with lies, so if you can;t even discern this, it is obvious you haven;t got the slightest bit of discernment, obviously because you obviously haven;t the courage to stand behind any discernment.

Now back to churches are dangerous and WHY. We have to leave this that haven't taken STEP ONE behind. Its sad but true. If you don't know churches are dangerous, you really do live in a dream world.

 

[bruto]

If you ever make an assertion about anything Bruto that will show you actually believe something and have come to a conclusion about something which might show a ferw connected neurons, but seeing you can't claim anything, we can only assume you know nothing.

I mean even ten year olds can understand church is bogus and is filled with lies, so if you can;t even discern this, it is obvious you haven;t got the slightest bit of discernment, obviously because you obviously haven;t the courage to stand behind any discernment.

Now back to churches are dangerous and WHY. We have to leave this that haven't taken STEP ONE behind. Its sad but true. If you don't know churches are dangerous, you really do live in a dream world.

I'm quite willing to agree that churches are dangerous, and if your reading comprehension were even a little better than your comprehension of anything else, you'd have noticed that. I just don't think you have figured out why, and I don't think you have either the wisdom of the communication skills to explain it adequately.

I think churches are dangerous in part because they indulge in the same kind of nonsensical attempts to subsume science under mystical faith, and because of that, they suppress science and, just as you do, they always allow their preconceived notions of how things ought to be to trump the evidence of how things actually are.

Churches are dangerous because they use their institutional power to propagate the same kind of flamboyantly anti-rational error, and do it with the same kind of supercilious arrogance, as you.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I think the diarrhea cup has truly runneth over

That would have to be "runnethed" (the present perfect takes the past participle.)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

*claps*

DR

Me 3. But "walrus" anyway. Oh. "Nope" too.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Its called truths, reality but it appears you can't think and don't even know from experience that churches are dangerous. Hence you must be in one, like the church of atheiology. Different name but churches will be churches as they hate free thinkers and liberation.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Pope would like to talk to you.