I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
--CONVERSATION 1--
ProLogos: What's your point?
Bohemian: Civil liberties don't end at need.
ProLogos: No, moron. What's your point in stating that? Looks like you're just rambling.
--CONVERSATION 2--
ProLogos: Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
Bohemain: And...?
ProLogos: That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
--LATER--
ProLogos: I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
It's just noncombative, which makes your dispute nonsensical.
No, it doesn't but I tire of arguing semantics with you. In any case I'm not sure what you mean 'non-combative'. I posted, as we now both agree, relevant information in a gun control debate so your contention is what exactly?
But the implication of it was the explanation.
If all you are going to do is reiterate your claim, and ignore my questions and avoid the meat of my rebuttal this is conversation is not going to go anyway.
To see the implication is a simple step by step process. You want rhetoric effect.
I'm not sure what you think rhetoric effect is or what I meant by it, but it does not depend on whether or not you are personally persuaded. The 'Effect' was emphasis, not persuasion. I don't go into any debate expecting to persuade the opposing side. That's a fool's errand. Debate nearly always cements the opposition more firmly in their position, there are psychological reasons why this happens. Even if someone realizes their position is wrong mid-debate they will continue to argue as if it is correct.
You dont think so because you get off on the idea of being attacked.
I suppose 'moron' and 'dipstick' are terms of endearment?
That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. It's the perfect argument in a gun control debate
Bwhahahahahahahahaha! I suppose perhaps it might be a high-caliber argument for you, but it would not survive (and hasn't thus far) the most cursory critical examination. If Need were the critical factor to determine whether some consumer product ought to be highly restricted then we'd have to, by the extension of that logic, treat every non-necessity in an identical manner.
We'd have to ban, or highly restrict garden gnomes, puzzles & board games, grills, fish-tanks, comic books, swimming pools, movies, coffee mugs with snarky sayings on them, unicycles, television sets, collectible knick-knacks and doodads, video games, furniture, clothes for cats, mansions, luxury cars, tattoos, all beverages besides water, paintings, french doors, entertainment systems, theater, Roller coasters & water parks, and virtually all leisure activity and accessories/peripherals etc...
Of course we don't need any of these things, but need is entirely besides the point.
When people stop wanting Guns, the demand goes down , and less guns are being put into the world.
Because people only want things they need?
Again, you guesses wrong. I banned you from the other debate because the only thing you had to say was "Your argument is terrible."
I said a bit more than that, as did some of the other users you banned.
You were clearly condemning insipidity.
But then said something insipid.
For the apparent fact that you say so.
That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
If you do not grasp the relevance of Constitutional Rights in a debate about gun control, your incomprehension is self-imposed, and I can do nothing to remedy that. That being noted, I fail to see how this in anyway answers my question.
Now you get it, Dipstick
So let me see if I understand this correctly. You have a problem with "cussin", but calling your opponents morons and dipsticks unreciprocated, is just fine with you?
How did you reach that conclusion?
Because you said: "'I'm not persuaded' is implied. So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect."
To say that one is 'not persuaded' is the definition of personal incredulity. Then you went on to infer ("So it is an explanation...") from personal incredulity that an explanation was therefore made.
Why not?
Because simple declarations of personal incredulity are not explanations. If someone claims that Western Silverback Gorillas Have a propensity towards tool use more similar to chimpanzees than to Eastern Silverback Gorillas, and someone else responds "I'm not persuaded" has that person made an explanation as to why the aforementioned statement is untrue?
No, Slowhumian, I was simply stating an exception.
I don't think you were but I won't dwell on it.
Then nobody knows what your point is, including you.
I think my point is pretty apparent; "You don't need guns" is a terrible argument in a gun control debate. Had this been your debate, I'm guessing you would have banned me already.
It was to point out your insipidity.
That may have very well been your intent, but the question was nevertheless still nonsensical.
Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
And...?
"I'm not persuaded" is implied.
So implied personal incredulity is tantamount to explaining why something is wrong?
So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect.
It's still not.
None of that is true here
Apparently it is, or you'd not have spent the effort you have to remonstrate over my choice of words.
except maybe your admittance to vulgarity.
Do you believe that I have cause to deny vulgarity? Vulgarity is no substitute for wit but it is a fantastic addition to it. Any who have seen and read my posts will are aware that I have no shortage in my lexicon, and yet I still occasionally find good use of words the prudish are too reticent to use.
So your point here is to argue that you have rights?
Er.. no, it was more a rejection of your advice that I refrain from "cussin".
Its not my conclusion...its exactly what you said in response to my question.
Your question was nonsensical.
It was a counter example. A sound argument will not equally support false conclusions to true ones. We know that the user nobodyknows is not your god, ergo by using an equivalent argument to come to a known false conclusion he has effectively demonstrated the unsoundness of the argument you just put forth (e.g., "what is your evidence that there is no evidence" ...).
No, moron. What's your point in stating that?
You said "You don't need all those guns", I was pointing out that need is irrelevant when it comes to constitutional rights. I don't think I can elucidate my position any more clearly than that.
Good for you! But I just explained why it has no rhetoric effect.
You said it makes me look mad, which is not the same as saying it has no rhetoric effort, nor is telling someone that something has no rhetoric effect equivalent to explaining why it has no rhetoric effect.
And since rhetoric effect is what you're aiming for, then don't be cussin.
Saying that something is "fucking insipid" adds flavorful emphasis in a way that "very insipid" will never achieve, and I use it mostly to that effect. When used selectively can be a useful rhetorical tool, though can lose its distinctiveness when overused (much like fully capitalized words, I might add). Like it or not I reserve the right to swear, and anyone whose sensibilities cannot bear the sight of adult language I would advise to close their eyes.
Insipid means " Civil liberties don't end at need". Gotcha.
I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion based upon what I have said.
What's your point?
Civil liberties don't end at need.
Don't be cussin like a sailor now, cuz it makes you look mad.
I reserve the right to swear for rhetoric effect.
Also, what does insipid mean if "but I have a right to nevertheless.", isn't insipid?
It means precisely what I've already stated. Civil liberties don't end at need.
Unless I lose my sight or become shaky, the same goes here, one or two would be enough.
Unless you become shaky? Like under the psychological distress that comes with being in a real life or death situation? Is that what you are referring to? The perfect situation in which to be stingy about ammo. Perhaps the sensible legislative response would be to limit the legal round capacity of firearms for every citizen based upon what AlofRI presumes that he personally would be able to confidently deter a single home invader under ideal conditions. If a study by the FBI is to be believed, 80% of shots fired by law enforcement officers (nationally) miss their target, and in NYC specifically that figure is closer to 85%. Most of these gunfights happen within 20 feet of the assailant. If this situation should ever arise with a home invader, you better hope that your aim is better than the average Law Enforcement Officers (who conducts marksmanship training on a regular basis), most of whom have service pistols with 13 or 15 round capacities. And if there is more than one home invader all bets are off. Far be it for me or anyone else to question the alleged unreasonableness of owning firearms with more than a 7 round capacity.
I've hunted all my life, and NEVER shot more than two rounds at a time. What do conservatives do when THEY hunt .... spray the bushes!??
I believe he already responded to this:
"If an intruder broke into my house, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS! Guns are not just for hunting!"
So at least you admit you are irritated. That's good
If your goal is to be irritating, then I have great news.
because maybe you will wake up and see the danger you are in and get saved from Hell before it's too late
You seem to confuse irritation for persuasion.
at least I don't see you cussing
When it comes to debate I find that cooler heads prevail.
but it still seems like you are bitter and grumpy
You confuse my irritation at you specifically as a general attitude about life. On the contrary, I am quite content with my station in life. I have done quite well for myself. I've had the distinct opportunity to learn from those smarter than myself, to help those less fortunate than myself. I've crossed oceans and continents, run half marathons, and hiked at least one mountain. Not bad for a poor boy raised by a widowed mother. I can sit in my reclining chair, feet on my coffee table, and read my books about history. That is bliss.
What is not blissful is listening to some pigheaded old man cocksure of his own rightness, launching torrents of indignities and vitriol at any unfortunate enough to cross his path that do not share his narrow dogmatic views. You do more to slander Christianity than anyone else here could ever hope to do. I come to createdebate because I see debate as a competition of wits and intellect, and as a competitive person I enjoy it, but there is no sport in "debating" with you because you don't debate. It's like playing chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules, and just knocks the pieces about.
I don't much read your stuff anymore
And yet you continue to reply. Sometimes multiple times. Sometimes to posts that are several days old.
You don't want evidence
If I don't want evidence then why am I asking for it and why are you refusing to provide it?
you want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell
As much as you appear to want me to agonize over my rejection of Christianity, I don't, no more than you agonize over your rejection of Hinduism.
As Jace so aptly put "For not being your problem, you seem much more concerned about it than I am."
Hell wasn't the point of my contention, so you can insist all you like, but I'm going to need you to present evidence for your claim, which you said was so easy to find. Your inability to present it, tells a very different story.
You don't want the evidence or you would use your lazy ignorant fingers and do a little googling of "science against the big bang and billions of years of time".
I want evidence, which is why I asked for it. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have asked for it, and also why you never ask for evidence. Because you have no intention of reading any material that might challenge your dogmatic view point which you've delicately balanced your sense of meaning, self-worth, and existential purpose on which is why you will never think critically about it. You claimed to have scientific evidence that the Universe cannot be more than a million years old, and you claimed that it was easy to find. So from where comes you hesitation?
If you want to talk about that start another debate, or unban me from the one you already started and I'd be happy to discuss it. I'm asking for evidence for a specific claim you made in this thread. You either have evidence for that claim or you don't.
As far as Saint. I think you are selling him short on his science knowledge.
His 'disproof' of evolution was the absence of eyewitness testimonies of people morphing into monkeys. I'll let that speak for itself.
And as far as providing sources, not more than 4 minutes ago, he made a claim and then insisted that it is my burden to disprove because "Your rejection of truth does not make [it] my burden of proof".
Most of his "arguments" are him telling people they are going to hell. He does not belong anyway in a top debtors list.
Yes. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. I've been in real moderated debates between two debate teams in academic settings, and that is always how it goes. The person making the claim has the burden of proof; Not the side that claims to be the surest. That's not how debates work. Claiming to have evidence, and then refusing after being requested to provide that evidence will cause you to lose any real debate or at the very least cripple your argument beyond repair.
Is that the order?
Yes
Notice the sun is older than the earth, which makes a great deal of sense if you understand Galilean cosmology, unfortunately the authors of the Bible did not. They were long before Galileo, before even Ptolemy. The biblical authors were working from pre-ptolemic Jewish Cosmology. From that perspective the order of creation as written in Genesis makes perfect sense. It only stops making sense when you impose Galilean cosmology onto ancient writers.
And at what years in evolution did they have their mark?
I don't know what you're asking.
https://m.youtube.com/
The order as presented in this video is not at all what contemporary science says, not even remotely. Birds before land animals? The first land animals appears in the fossil record some 200+ million years before the earliest bird. Photosynthetic plants before the sun? Again, not at all what contemporary science says, and indeed not even what common sense would say. This video is so riddled with factual errors, I don't have the time or patience to address them all.
The day woke them to care for all their things, their livelihood, their families, their flocks, their food sources, and especially their vegitation! Yet the author has the sun after vegitation filling the earth.
Yes, because the author is wrong.
I'm sorry but how exactly does the 'order of days' demonstrate advanced knowledge of anything when you have to suppose a different order of the days than what is expressly written? This is like declaring you have the winning lottery ticket but claiming the ticket must have a typo because the numbers are in the wrong order.
For some reason every other civilised country has less to no mass shooting- correlation?
Well, as long as we are drawing correlations, allow me to draw one. Nearly all other civilised countries have been ruled by a dictator, some of them multiple times.
.
.
.
António de Oliveira Salazar - Portugal
Francisco Franco - Spain
Georgios Papadopoulos - Greece
Benito Mussolini - Italy
Wojciech Jaruzelski - Poland
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Mao Zedong - China
Napolean Bonaparte - France
Oliver Cromwell - England
Erdogan - Turkey
Engelbert Dollfuss - Austria
Joseph Stalin - Russia
Vidkun Quisling - Norway
Alexander Lukashenko - Belarus
Óscar Carmona - Portugal
Todor Zhivkov - Bulgaria
Hirohito - Japan
Ioannis Metaxas - Greece
Miguel Primo de Rivera - Spain
Marcelo Caetano - Portugal
.
.
Most of these countries have a history of authoritarianism that runs through the blood of their political systems, the state of freedom of speech is worrisome to say the least. Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Denmark and various other civilised countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Gun prohibitions, confiscations and other similar laws are symptomatic of that vein of authoritarianism.
Ohhhh I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the whole point point
The video was cited as your supporting evidence, so he got at least one of your points, whether or not there are other points you think he should have also addressed.
How come every other well developed country in The world combined (Europe and Australia) don't have the same amount of mass shootings in the last five years as the great USA has in the last 6 months?
How come mass shootings have spiked in recent years, despite two decades of consistent overall decline in gun violence? The simple answer is that we don't know but it is probably a combination of factors.
You don't need guns at all
I don't need a 42" HD television, or a couch, or a Kayak, but that is hardly an argument for prohibition. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
and there inclusion in everyday life leads to death and misery
I'm going out on a limb and guessing that your experience with firearms is very limited. I personally know of at least a dozen or more people with firearm collections and in the entirety of my life none have died from any of them less maybe deer or rabbit. This speaks more to the point. Where someone lives is a good predictor of their attitudes on firearms.
Those who live in urban centers and mentally associate firearms with crime tend to have more restrictive attitudes towards firearms, and those from rural areas who associate firearms with hunting and sport shooting tend to have less restrictive attitudes.
Because these weapons aren't shields they require special threat assessment training to anticipated a threat and act before it happens.
Like a CPL course perhaps?
Someone who already has a gun drawn will always kill these "good guys" your not goddamm cowboys of the west
Well, no, not always. The perpetrator may be breaking into a house, in which case a home owner might have enough forewarning to retrieve their own firearm. The perpetrator might only be armed with a knife, or the "good guy" might not be the target of a crime but rather a capable bystander or good Samaritan coming to the aid of another person. The "good guy" might be going into a dangerous situation prepared -- a walk home at night, a midnight train, etc.. all of which are things that have actually happened at some point or another.
which disporortiontaely happens in favor of law enforcement officers in this context.
This is because of the legal metric involved. In these kind of cases, the mens rea rests upon the perceptions of the officer accused. More precisely the proceedings of the court will follow not whether an officer acted unjustly, but whether the officer believed he/she was in danger. Emphasis placed on "believed". In court cases police officers are generally treated as credible witnesses, unless they have a proven record of deception (and most don't), and given that danger is not an unusual part of an officer's duty the jury will nearly always find plausible an officer's claim that he FELT he was in danger (whether or not he actually was). This is why it is extremely difficult to prosecute police officers.
Prior to Isaac Newton we didn't really understand planetary motion.
This is what Ptolemy said about Planetary motion, “I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
For Ptolemy, having lived over a millennia before Newton, the movement of the planets was an unknowable mystery only understood by the gods. History is replete with things that we will never be know, that with time were eventually known, and when you resign God or gods to such gaps in human knowledge they dwell in increasingly small gaps. The temptation to assign the cause of things we do not currently understand to the supernatural is an ever present one, and an intellectually perilous one at that.
Even if you do change Hell to sheol in that passage, there's still a fire burning there from God's wrath implying sinner there will feel the heat of God's wrath
No, the verse states "...and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains". The earth is not consumed with fire. The verse is prophetic, it is saying This will happen someday. Sheol was a place that both righteous and unrighteous went upon death (Isaiah 38:10, Genesis 37:35, Job 14:13).
I cannot offer you anything that will spare you from death, which is what you want. Death is inevitable. This is as hard a fact as there will ever be. Death is inevitable. That is the truth whether you like it or not. Death is the fate of everyone, that is not some arcane pontification in some old book, that is an everyday reality. It is undeniable. To deal with this discomforting fact you've grasped onto some ancient mythology, the dominant one of your culture as many others have to ease your anxieties. Which is well enough, if it makes you feel better, believe whatever you wish. But you have doubts, I can tell, which is why you are so insecure about it. If other people believe the same you would feel more confident about what you believe, but the trouble is that many people --intelligent people even -- don't believe. These people exacerbate your anxieties so you lash out at them.
Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Sounds to me like Hell is clear in the Torah.
In Hebrew the verse says SHEOL, not Hell. Sometimes the KJV translates Sheol as 'grave' and sometimes as 'Hell'. The Jews believed that EVERYONE goes to Sheol at death even the righteous, thus it cannot be considered synonymous with the Christian Hell, despite what deceptive translations might have you believe.
It was that blatant gender discrimination that I wished to dispute. Too often I've seen the fact of a wage gap asserted as itself being evidence of systemic gender discrimination, especially vocal among those in the universities (with the infamous 77 cents figure which is a bit deceptive for the reasons I've already outlined). Of course dating preferences, career choices, and individual choices have their own alliance of causal factors, but they are different factors and call for a different sort of assessment. If there are those on the left who echo my sentiments, I have not heard them, but I welcome them nonetheless.
Interesting how there is no Hell anywhere in all of the Torah, no mention of it whatsoever. The Jews had no concept of hell whatsoever until they came into contact with the Greeks. In fact almost all of the early works just called it Hades. The term 'Hell' etymologically stems from the Germanic-Norse pagan underworld HEL, notice it has only one 'L'. In Norse Tradition Hel was not only the realm of departed souls, it was also the name of the Goddess who ruled over it. This Hel predated the Christian Hell by a few centuries. This borrowing of ideas and language is what social scientists call Cultural Diffusion.
The concept of Hell is distinctly pagan in origin.
You don't get the message......I'm not interested in your insistence that you are as god or better than God.
You are losing your grip on reality, you have this penchant for imagining me saying things and then criticizing the things you imagined me saying.
I tried to be nice to you, that worked for about a minute
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "worked", but if you want to convince someone of some proposition try providing supporting facts and arguments. Being nice while appreciated is not going to convince anyone of anything, and as you've learned nor is being an intolerable cunt. Glad to see that being nice is just a ploy for you to get what you want.
you have been nothing but a jerk as if being a jerk
Yes, generally, I am not kind to those who are not kind to me. I don't know why you think you can insult my family and still expect me to be nice to you. Didn't anyone ever tell you to not poke the Tiger?
What is your problem?
I don't have a problem. I'm on a debate website, debating.
Just because you can't justify your life
I have no need nor desire to 'justify my life', least of all to you. I think what gets under your skin is that I don't agonize over my rejection of Christianity. It is just one of hundreds of religions. I have encountered no especially convincing reason to think it is any more true than the innumerable other religions that you dismiss outright without so much as a second thought. This seems to bother you. The only reason I have even given it as much consideration as I have is because it is the dominant religion of my culture, and for literally no other reason. I am in fact quite happy and content with my current philosophical and theological predilections.
For now I'll call you Bob. It keeps my mind fresh to remember I'm leaving you behind due to your incorrigibility.
And yet, your activity here shows anything but. You continue to spam all of my posts with sometimes as many as 4 -6 replies to the same post. Does that sound like leaving me behind?
What it boils down to is this, a heterosexual woman seeking a mate will strongly prefer males in lucrative careers. However heterosexual males on the other hand, while they may still consider income of a female mate, it is not nearly as large of a factor for them. One study found:
"“For men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000.” http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/
.
.
.
This effect is amplified in nations with skewed Male-to-female sex ratios. In China for instance, a survey from a popular Chinese dating website found that 72% Chinese women preferred a mate that had nearly double their own salary. In fact the gender wage gap is worse in China than it is in the United States. This creates a tremendous social incentive for men to aggressively snatch up all the high paying careers they can, and indeed that's exactly what happens. It is very unlikely the gender wage gap will go away without imposing draconian "Equality of outcome" policies, or re-engineering the social fabric of society. The gender wage gap is the result of the differing mate-selection strategies employed by the sexes, there is no fact in my OP that can't be explained by this reality.
I don't know why you insist on calling me Bob. It has been pretty well established, that despite your warrantless accusation I am not smilingbob. Smilingbob and I don't even hold the same opinions. The only thing we even appear to agree on is that creationism is bullocks.
so dispute the facts presented.
Don't plagiarize your sources and I will. As you've seen numerous times already, when I present an argument you are unable and unwilling to address it, and you've admitted yourself that you don't want me to respond and have no intention of giving any sort of rebuttal when I do, so this is merely empty remonstration.
Crying "bias" is not putting up an argument
I'm not "crying" about bias, I'm "crying" about plagiarism, in so far as pointing something out equals crying.
I could easily reword it all and claim it as my own
If you were to explain the concept in your own words, then it would in fact be yours. The reason you don't do this is because you don't understand the subject matter well enough to sound like you know what you're talking about.
Why bother?
Integrity?
and try to assassinate my character
You do a well enough job of that yourself.
You insult the source I copy and pasted as "biased"
No, I was merely postulating why you wouldn't cite your source. After all, if you can copy and paste multiple paragraphs then you can copy and paste a url.
yet you totally fail to dispute even the tiniest of the points I presented
I had no intention of doing that. My intention was to chide you for plagiarism and I did exactly that, did I not? To express in fine detail how all of the facets of your plagiarized piece epitomizes a fundamental misunderstanding of geology would not be difficult at all, albeit a bit more time consuming than what I've said here.
The Torah (Old Testament) was written in Hebrew with a few chapters -- Daniel and Ezra -- written in Aramaic. The new testament was written in Greek. I know for Roman Catholics almost everything is done in Latin, not as much anymore..
For Muslims Arabic is a bona fide holy language. That is, if the Quran isn't Arabic then it's not really the Quran, though that may perhaps be the more traditionalist view. In fact many translations will have the original Arabaic, juxtaposed to the translation. This view of the Holy Language may not necessarily extend to other religions. Christians by and large don't recognize any holy language in any similar manner except maybe roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox, perhaps. Whether orthodox Jews view Hebrew in a similar way, I cannot say.
Before I was born my father had sold the house that he and my mother were living in, he bought some property and he and my Grandfather started construction on a house on the land. Both of them had Construction experience, but no experience with house-building specifically. My grandparents at the time were foster parents for the state and my grandfather had enlisted the help of some of the foster boys to help build the house. It took a few years and they finally completed construction. The house was 'different' from other houses, it had plumping, electrical, and other things a house would normally have, but you could tell whoever built it had no experience house-building. It was worse quality than the house they sold so that they could build it. There were a number of serious mistakes that were made during its construction. I have no doubt had my father had built a few more houses he would have gotten much better at it. Years later when someone bought the property they had the house demolished.
Keep in mind this was with 7 people or so, two of whom had construction experience, and a couple years construction time. I can only imagine how it would have turned out with one person with no construction experience.
I dont even know where it came from
Sure you don't. It came from Answersingenesis.
If you are so stupid that you think I'm tyring to pass that off as my own composition
What you're doing is called plagiarism. This is done intentionally because you know your source is incredibly biased.
Had I said anything about the earliest days of the American education system that might be a pertinent point to raise, However I did not, nor have you addressed what I've actually said. Should this be regarded as a concession of the points that I raised?
That's still 50+ years of allowing The Pledge of Allegiance
That's neither here nor there. By this logic it should have never been changed in the first place. The pledge had always been 'allowed' it hadn't been revised to include the phrase "Under God" until 1954. To rephrase your question to more accurately reflect history it should read: Why did it take until the 20th century before adding references to Christianity in the Pledge and on currency? And the answer to that question is simple enough, that's when the Cold War happened.
You and I have something in common Saintnow, it is incredibly easily to tell when either of us has copied and pasted something from another website. For you it is when you inexplicably begin using vocabulary and grammar that is well beyond your ability, and for me it's when you see quotation marks and a source. Perhaps you should give credit to Heather from Answersingenesis for writing that piece that you've passed off as your own.
No, I just understand the concept of sunk cost. Poor people rent, and is one of the contributing factors for why many of them will stay poor. The advantages of buying are numerous, as any financial expert will tell you. That some people overexert their finances and take on debt that they cannot handle is no argument that all debt is bad, or that all mortgages are bad. Do your homework first, understand what you are getting yourself into, and for Godssake don't take on debt that exceeds 25% of your income.
Money paid as rent is a sunk cost, never to be recovered. Money paid as a mortgage is an investment in the equity of a house, which is retained by the person paying the mortgage. The advantages of buying over renting are numerous, and for those who cannot afford to buy a house outright, a mortgage might be the only feasible option to buy.
What exactly do you think you are accomplishing here? You're certainly not here to engage in thoughtful discussion or spirited debate. You're certainly not persuading anyone to accept your lord, if anything your belligerent obnoxious self-righteous behavior has scared more people away from your religion. You are doing more harm than good. You've epitomized the 'Christian who couldn't be any less christlike' trope if he tried. The only thing you seem to have succeeded in doing is making an ass of yourself. Fortunately I have Christian Friends, family, and relatives that I have love and respect for, so I know they're not all like you. You are doing more to hurt Christianity than I ever could.
You didn't address my argument at all
That's a funny complaint coming from you. You never respond to my arguments. Instead you seem to obsess over the fact that I'm not a Christian, and bleat on about hell. Something tells me that you live a very sheltered life where you don't come into contact with non-Christians very often. You want me to respond to your argument, fine, I'll responded but then I'm going to need you to start responding to mine. Otherwise you surrender all right to complain. Sound good?
It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about.
I don't think anyone does, yourself included.
I understand the science and how it is used to illustrate belief in evolution.
No, you don't. This has been demonstrated multiple times, not the least of which was you saying so yourself.
.
.
Saintnow: "There have been no sworn testimonials of anybody claiming to actually have seen monkeys morphing into people"
Saintnow: "Nobody really knows what evolution is or how it works..."
Listen, idiot, it was Old Testament Law given to Israel. We live under American law
I understand that, which is the reason I put forth the hypothetical situation. If you were living under levitical law would you or would you not kill a gay person as commanded in Leviticus?
Since you decline to speak against women being cheap to give their bodies away
I'm not declining anything. I will state clearly and concisely that I have no moral objection to faithful sex by consenting adults inside or outside of marriage. My stance on sex is simple: If you are having sex be prepared for the consequences, and if you are not prepared for the consequences then you shouldn't be having it. It's as simple as that.
Despite the fact that we are both non-theists with a more sophisticated vocabulary than you, we are not the same person.
Bob is a moral relativist whereas I am a Consequentialist
Bob subscribes to the 'Christ Myth' view
Bob is an idiot 9/11 Truther.
I've been on this site for 6 years, bob has been here for less than a year.
Now that we have that out of the way.. your aversion to contrary views is already noted. One wonders why you joined a debate forum in the first place as you seem to have no intention to debate anything.
