Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Define God


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 4:38:40 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

And, another thought, Esinn----
Your points aren't worth refutation because you're actually making arguments based on emotion that you're trying to post-it-note scientific reference to as an afterthought. 
Sounds a lot like the tactics of some of the groups that you're sniping at. 
Davan 


I think it was post #37.

It is the most verbose post in this thread.  I would bet $10 the top 500 most verbose posts on CM.  I quoted the words.  Except for that I explained ideas modern science agrees upon, have tested and agree with.  None of the words came from the people involved in any of the studies.

I provided links out of necessity in hopes of having an intelligent conversation.  The links demonstrated the information which I was discussing was not pulled from my ass.  If we were having a face to face discussion I would have been unable to offer verification of my claim.

So there was absolutely no cut and pasting.  IF there was I am confident it was less than 1% of the post.

This is the 5 or 6th time you have told me, "Nay Nay Poo Poo - you have no clue what you talking about."

Yet, you have refused to address any of the claims which I made and evidence I cut and past in their support..  I am really at a loss for words.  You pretend as if you want to have an intelligent conversation but run out of the room.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 4:44:24 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Esin...

Why are you correct?



Why am I not?  What have I said up until this point that you believe is wrong, invalid, deceptive or misinformed.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

And what evidence do you have to support this conclusion?

I will gladly allow anyone the opportunity to demonstrate me as incorrect.  However, it is impossible to do when you give me 5-6 words to work with.

I believe I have clearly outlined my position in this thread taking into consideration the OP and Post #37(I believe).  IF you disagree...  Well, not I no longer have the ball.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 4:50:26 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

ORIGINAL: Esinn
I am trying to understand what god is so we can speak intelligently about it in other threads.


Actually, I don't think you are based on the responses you've given some respondents.  While they've stated their beliefs, you've taken stabs at people/been condescending to those who don't go in the direction you desire.  That really doesn't make for open dialogue, it just makes people think that you're a jerk/that you have an axe to grind/etc. 
Davan
(Who firmly believes that one can be godless and discuss god with polite people who believe in god without being rude)



It is established by science that supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain.  Any euphoric or spiritual feelings arising from discussion or personal prayer are internal mechanisms at work - not external.  I showed this through detailed explanation, documented peer reviewed journals and by providing links which discuss existing medical technology used in the studies.  I discussed the modern understanding of Psychology and belief dating back to Freud.

I also discussed  the 3 laws of logic which we humans call upon as frequently as we breathe.

If I am mistaken or you feel some info I presented is intentionally deceptive let's discuss it.  If you think presenting facts which logically challenge & criticize belief makes me a jerk,  keep in mind although I understand the material the data collected is not my own.

Thus far only one person whom I have not addressed yet seemed to put any thought into their reply.

If you think me calling someone who is obviously incorrect incorrect or unable to defend their position in a logical fashion makes me a jerk again the problem is yours. 

Sometimes it is fun to make a point stick.  Has not master or yourself chosen specific words to do so?  If my choice or arrangement of words have truly hurt someone accept this be my apology - if my message has I offer nothing



First and foremost, NEVER speak down to me.  It shows much of your character that you would presume to speak down to someone and reference their identification as submissive (Which, in my case, is an erroneous supposition on your part, boy) in a negativistic fashion as part of doing so.  You show your stripes:  misogynist. 
Additionally, you mention psychology and Freud.  As luck would have it, I have a post-Masters' education in psychology.  I'm licensed and have been acknowledged to testify in Federal Court as an Expert witness.  So, my dick's bigger.  Your selective utilization of psychology, referencing an important figure who dates back less than a decade fails to take into account the roots of psychology that are in philosophy and of which religion/theology is a part. 
And, your apology that is actually a non-apology further secures my impression of you and I assure you, I remain unimpressed.  Rather makes me wish to crack open the DSM-4R; I'm thinking Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 
There are those of us who engage on the boards in disagreements with others without beating them down.  I engaged you politely yet you showed your inability to bring civility to the fore. 
You do those of us who are non-religious a disservice; you are not a benefit to our ranks. 
Davan


That is it. I am calling the hospital now.  Someone is going to get hurt - internet threats.

quote:

First and foremost, NEVER speak down to me.
I have addressed the reason I choose Freud.  Yet,  5-6 messages later you still wish to harp on it.

You are still in able despite your masters to identify the exact areas of post #37  and OP you disagree with, why you disagree and offer evidence or opinions why you disagree - this is how we have a dialogue.

All you have been able to do is hurl insults rather than present anything meaningful.

Why don't you take that degree and clearly demonstrate to my how my logic is flawed - it might be.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 4:52:33 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
Hey, I need to get for a few hours.  I will be back. . .

_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 5:09:40 PM   
pyroaquatic


Posts: 1535
Joined: 12/4/2006
From: Pyroaquatica
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Esin...

Why are you correct?



Why am I not?  What have I said up until this point that you believe is wrong, invalid, deceptive or misinformed.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

And what evidence do you have to support this conclusion?

I will gladly allow anyone the opportunity to demonstrate me as incorrect.  However, it is impossible to do when you give me 5-6 words to work with.

I believe I have clearly outlined my position in this thread taking into consideration the OP and Post #37(I believe).  IF you disagree...  Well, not I no longer have the ball.



I simply asked why were you correct. Let's do this again... Why do you think you are correct? Trying to analyze what exactly you are trying to say is more difficult than pulling teeth out of an amoeba.

I thought my babble was bad.

Ah, Respect goes to NZ for having intelligent posts that make me think. It needs to happen more often.


(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 8:44:34 PM   
DavanKael


Posts: 3072
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
Esinn,
I read your supposed replies to me and still I return to the fact that you don't answer directly what is directed toward you, you go off on paranoid rants about threats that don't exist and then hack and slash the English language in ways that render what you're saying even less intelligible and less intelligent than it would be if you had a rudimentary command of the words you attempt to use: perhaps part of why you prop yourself up with citations like a sycophantic student google-eyed over his professor, out to prove that he's one of the Big Dogs, academically speaking, when his very need to attempt to prove shows that he's not even in the same ballpark let alone league. 
Several of us have attempted to engage you in intelligent dialogue. 
You simply blather on. 
At this point, I simply choose to say: shut up. 
  Davan

_____________________________

May you live as long as you wish & love as long as you live
-Robert A Heinlein

It's about the person & the bond,not the bondage
-Me

Waiting is

170NZ (Aka:Sex God Du Jour) pts

Jesus,I've ALWAYS been a deviant
-Leadership527,Jeff

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 8:51:35 PM   
pyroaquatic


Posts: 1535
Joined: 12/4/2006
From: Pyroaquatica
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Esinn,
I read your supposed replies to me and still I return to the fact that you don't answer directly what is directed toward you, you go off on paranoid rants about threats that don't exist and then hack and slash the English language in ways that render what you're saying even less intelligible and less intelligent than it would be if you had a rudimentary command of the words you attempt to use: perhaps part of why you prop yourself up with citations like a sycophantic student google-eyed over his professor, out to prove that he's one of the Big Dogs, academically speaking, when his very need to attempt to prove shows that he's not even in the same ballpark let alone league. 
Several of us have attempted to engage you in intelligent dialogue. 
You simply blather on. 
At this point, I simply choose to say: shut up. 
Davan


<3

Define God:

Something that none will ever agree on.

(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:35:02 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Esinn,
I read your supposed replies to me and still I return to the fact that you don't answer directly what is directed toward you, you go off on paranoid rants about threats that don't exist and then hack and slash the English language in ways that render what you're saying even less intelligible and less intelligent than it would be if you had a rudimentary command of the words you attempt to use: perhaps part of why you prop yourself up with citations like a sycophantic student google-eyed over his professor, out to prove that he's one of the Big Dogs, academically speaking, when his very need to attempt to prove shows that he's not even in the same ballpark let alone league. 
Several of us have attempted to engage you in intelligent dialogue. 
You simply blather on. 
At this point, I simply choose to say: shut up. 
Davan


I agree.  There is no more reason you should attempt to speak with me.  After this post I will no longer respond to anything you post on CM.  I will allow you the last word.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:38:22 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Esinn,
I read your supposed replies to me and still I return to the fact that you don't answer directly what is directed toward you, you go off on paranoid rants about threats that don't exist and then hack and slash the English language in ways that render what you're saying even less intelligible and less intelligent than it would be if you had a rudimentary command of the words you attempt to use: perhaps part of why you prop yourself up with citations like a sycophantic student google-eyed over his professor, out to prove that he's one of the Big Dogs, academically speaking, when his very need to attempt to prove shows that he's not even in the same ballpark let alone league. 
Several of us have attempted to engage you in intelligent dialogue. 
You simply blather on. 
At this point, I simply choose to say: shut up. 
Davan


<3

Define God:

Something that none will ever agree on.



I agree.  I am almost compelled to say I agree with absolute certainty.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:40:31 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Ah, Respect goes to NZ for having intelligent posts that make me think. It needs to happen more often.

Why, thank you. That is much appreciated.

And....trying to tie together this discussion:

I'm having trouble finding the slip in conversation, Esinn. I say this because whether or not I think they would follow along in complete lock-step with each of my views on theism, I think both Davan and pyro would not (and have not) reacted to my comments quite as defensively...and yet I'm about as 'hard-atheist' as I've come across (except for my views on nixing the permissibility of religion/theism, where I differ froms sorts like Dawkins).

I'll see if I can't go back in the discussions to see where the problems came up...

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/3/2009 9:42:23 PM >


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees


NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:43:24 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Esinn,
I read your supposed replies to me and still I return to the fact that you don't answer directly what is directed toward you, you go off on paranoid rants about threats that don't exist and then hack and slash the English language in ways that render what you're saying even less intelligible and less intelligent than it would be if you had a rudimentary command of the words you attempt to use: perhaps part of why you prop yourself up with citations like a sycophantic student google-eyed over his professor, out to prove that he's one of the Big Dogs, academically speaking, when his very need to attempt to prove shows that he's not even in the same ballpark let alone league. 
Several of us have attempted to engage you in intelligent dialogue. 
You simply blather on. 
At this point, I simply choose to say: shut up. 
Davan


<3

Define God:

Something that none will ever agree on.



The premises of my post were true.  It logically follows my argument was correct as it was valid.




_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:44:57 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Ah, Respect goes to NZ for having intelligent posts that make me think. It needs to happen more often.

Why, thank you. That is much appreciated.

And....trying to tie together this discussion:

I'm having trouble finding the slip in conversation, Esinn. I say this because whether or not I think they would follow along in complete lock-step with each of my views on theism, I think both Davan and pyro would not (and have not) reacted to my comments quite as defensively...and yet I'm about as 'hard-atheist' as I've come across (except for my views on nixing the permissibility of religion/theism, where I differ froms sorts like Dawkins).

I'll see if I can't go back in the discussions to see where the problems came up...


Please post your findings.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 9:54:23 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957

I don't really think of the Goddess/God I believe in in a visual sense, but more in a feelings/presence sense.  One will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of diety, but for me it's a way to explain the existence of everything else, myself included.  Also it gives me a sturdy (in my mind anyway) set of beliefs and ethics to operate from.  "An it harm none, do what ye will" is what I try to live by.  Pretty simple on the one hand, yet it can be difficult at times too.  Keeps me on my toes.


LOL?  You are kidding right?


I think this is an example of what irritates people. Neopagans are some of the nicer folks on the theism side of things. Frankly, I think we'd be quite happily well off with neopagans in place of most other flavors of theists. Plus the Wiccan Rede is the most formidable base of any quality ethical construct.

She responded with a clear undestanding (it seems) of where her beliefs cannot hold up under scientific and/or materialistic scrutiny, yet still describes how it works functionally for her and makes her happy. Your response kind of waved a hand of dismissal towards it.

There are people who seek to use their theism and the dogmas attached to it to restrain the freedoms and liberties of others based on the faulty morality wrought from it...and those are certainly the sorts to have a more "fangs bared" attitude towards, but there are some who have a very passive and poetic view of their metaphysical thoughts...and I don't find reason to treat those any differently than other forms of personal 'art' (in a sense).

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/3/2009 10:01:02 PM >


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees


NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:09:24 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Atheist Becomes Theist


5 Proofs for the Existence of God

Just some links i found interesting.


LOL - I just spit my grilled cheese on the monitor when I read your 5 proofs for god.

All of those arguments have been refuted thousands of times for well over 150 years and you trumpet them like they are new.

If you want to open a new thread I will gladly discuss and demonstrate why they are wrong.

I doubt you are even in the mood for logical or rational discussion though.


I may have to agree here. It could likely be tedious to show the (now) age old flaws in both the links posed as support for theism...but then again you did start the thread.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees


NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:18:26 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

LOL?  You are kidding right?


I think this is an example of what irritates people. Neopagans are some of the nicer folks on the theism side of things. Frankly, I think we'd be quite happily well off with neopagans in place of most other flavors of theists. Plus the Wiccan Rede is the most formidable base of any quality ethical construct.

She responded with a clear undestanding (it seems) of where her beliefs cannot hold up under scientific and/or materialistic scrutiny, yet still describes how it works functionally for her and makes her happy. Your response kind of waved a hand of dismissal towards it.

There are people who seek to use their theism and the dogmas attached to it to restrain the freedoms and liberties of others based on the faulty morality wrought from it...and those are certainly the sorts to have a more "fangs bared" attitude towards, but there are some who have a very passive and poetic view of their metaphysical thoughts...and I don't find reason to treat those any differently than other forms of personal 'art' (in a sense).


quote:

I don't really think of the Santa Clause/Demons/Cyclopses/Dragons/Unicorns/Flying Teapots I believe in in a visual sense, but more in a feelings/presence sense.  One will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of diety, but for me it's a way to explain the existence of everything else, myself included.  Also it gives me a sturdy (in my mind anyway) set of beliefs and ethics to operate from.  "An it harm none, do what ye will" is what I try to live by.  Pretty simple on the one hand, yet it can be difficult at times too.  Keeps me on my toes.


All you have to do is change one word in the sentence to make it laughable.  We have people who are locked in mental institutions for believing the above statement.

The existence of 99% of the gods which millions have claimed existed are now extinct and any reasonable person knows they were inventions of the human mind.

The fact someone seems sweet, genuine or chooses to substitute the word god with any mythological thing does not make their comment off the market for harsh criticism.

*I do not think she is a neopagan though.  We can ask her?





_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:22:20 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
all i did was post two links, saying no more than they were interesting. i did not give a view point on either. seems more than religious feathers were ruffled by this thread. which is why i mentioned some time back that religion isnt ever a good thing to debate with so many people.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:27:39 PM   
sweetsub1957


Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/28/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957

I don't really think of the Goddess/God I believe in in a visual sense, but more in a feelings/presence sense.  One will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of diety, but for me it's a way to explain the existence of everything else, myself included.  Also it gives me a sturdy (in my mind anyway) set of beliefs and ethics to operate from.  "An it harm none, do what ye will" is what I try to live by.  Pretty simple on the one hand, yet it can be difficult at times too.  Keeps me on my toes.


LOL?  You are kidding right?


I think this is an example of what irritates people. Neopagans are some of the nicer folks on the theism side of things. Frankly, I think we'd be quite happily well off with neopagans in place of most other flavors of theists. Plus the Wiccan Rede is the most formidable base of any quality ethical construct.

She responded with a clear undestanding (it seems) of where her beliefs cannot hold up under scientific and/or materialistic scrutiny, yet still describes how it works functionally for her and makes her happy. Your response kind of waved a hand of dismissal towards it.

There are people who seek to use their theism and the dogmas attached to it to restrain the freedoms and liberties of others based on the faulty morality wrought from it...and those are certainly the sorts to have a more "fangs bared" attitude towards, but there are some who have a very passive and poetic view of their metaphysical thoughts...and I don't find reason to treat those any differently than other forms of personal 'art' (in a sense).


Thank You NZ.  ~big hugs~

_____________________________

Member: Lance's Fag Hags.

"That's not just a chip on her shoulder, that's the whole potato!" ~Lady Angelika~

In lowering yourself to talking behind my back, you're perfectly positioned to kiss my ass.

An it harm none, do what ye wilt.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:31:55 PM   
sweetsub1957


Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/28/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

*I do not think she is a neopagan though.  We can ask her?


Go ahead and ask me, Esinn.  Yes, I am a Wiccan.  He took note that I cited the Wiccan Rede in my post.  Plus, in a different thread, I answered that I am.

~edited to add the last sentence~

< Message edited by sweetsub1957 -- 8/3/2009 10:39:22 PM >


_____________________________

Member: Lance's Fag Hags.

"That's not just a chip on her shoulder, that's the whole potato!" ~Lady Angelika~

In lowering yourself to talking behind my back, you're perfectly positioned to kiss my ass.

An it harm none, do what ye wilt.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:33:32 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

all i did was post two links, saying no more than they were interesting. i did not give a view point on either. seems more than religious feathers were ruffled by this thread. which is why i mentioned some time back that religion isnt ever a good thing to debate with so many people.


It is a pain in the ass, I do agree.  Christian VS Atheist forums that I have visited typically provide for a more moderated discussion.  EVC allows discussion amongst 2 people or who ever initially agrees to participate in the discussion.

As I have mentioned quite a few times a forum of this nature on Collarme.com was not my expectation.


_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Define God - 8/3/2009 10:33:35 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

All you have to do is change one word in the sentence to make it laughable.  We have people who are locked in mental institutions for believing the above statement.

It's only laughable if the main intent is to create the appearance of a disproportionate sense of self-adorned grandeur. It is logically unsound, yes. Humans, however, are strange creatures that can actually fundamentally thrive on unsound notions ("love", for instance)...and thrive well.

There's nothing "laughable" about whether what they believe is illogical. It would simply not qualify under logic. If people continually try to thrust their metaphysical idea into the box of science or even empirical reality, then those attempts can be laughable. However, metaphysical beliefs are similar to kinks and personal dynamics in that the prime point of their existence is to be a functional part of that person's life.

Some people use their theism and faith as an addict uses a heroin needle, true. But even in either of those cases, I don't find any ethical reason to prevent someone from doing with their body (which includes the mind) as they will. And if it makes them smile more often, more power to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

The existence of 99% of the gods which millions have claimed existed are now extinct and any reasonable person knows they were inventions of the human mind.

I'd comfortably say 100% to the part where they are inventions of the human mind. But, basically: yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

The fact someone seems sweet, genuine or chooses to substitute the word god with any mythological thing does not make their comment off the market for harsh criticism.

Of course it does. As much as (and I have a harder time with this...) people who adore boy bands should autmatically merit harsh criticism (perhaps just moderate criticism...).

Criticism of the harsh variety used upon a system or idea that does not inherently hurt the freedoms of others is a wasted criticism. There are weirdos who would prevent same-sex couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples based off ludicrous moral-religious concepts. I'm not going to waste that good harsh criticism on ladies who might enjoy skyclad firedancing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

*I do not think she is a neopagan though.  We can ask her?

She referenced the Wiccan Rede. Wicca is a modern form of neopaganism.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/3/2009 10:34:13 PM >


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees


NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.133