Evidence? It's all around you in this very thread!

Prove me wrong by answering the question in my last post, or by responding to some of the other stuff you deliberately ignored on page four.

Okay, here's another piece of evidence straight from the horse's mouth. Even your "humorous" anecdotes are filled with bizarre reasons to condemn Christians.

I'm not certain what obscure point you thought you were making about the pamphlets, but it comes across like more of your typical "right-wing Christians are stupid" crap.

You refused a blessing from somebody who obviously meant well. Yeah, you're a regular Robin Williams. :rolleyes:

whooboy.

"Prove me wrong by answering the question in my last post, or by responding to some of the other stuff you deliberately ignored on page four."

What did I ignore?

"If you're morally superior to me, I want to know why. Give me at least one good reason why I should want to be more like you instead of just ripping on my beliefs."

hohum,

Because you should be concerned with rational consistency in morality, not faith in an authority. An immediate benefit would be finding yourself actually arguing against another's views, rather than just getting mad.

[hint: Everything following "an immediate benefit" is "one good reason."]

If someone said people are going to die if comics geeks post on a comic book message board about religion, this whole thread is evidence, but that doesn't mean jackshit considering the hypothesis is dumb as all fuck.

What have you ignored? Most of this post, just for example:

I deleted the parts you did address and bolded several paragraphs in the hopes that you might actually read them and respond to them this time.

I also clarified one sentence so you wouldn't waste time splitting hairs about the fact that you finally got around to addressing one of the points I actually made.

I've already offered an alternative: god and Christianity add nothing to the moral questions, so should be dropped for parsimony. (See numerous references to Plato's critique of morality resting on a god's will.) This, of course, doesn't mean that no particular Christians have added anything to the moral discussion, only that one can just as easily get to the same correct moral views without the added foundational obscurantism of belief in a deity.

A Christian who's a determinist is more consistent than one who's not if he believes that an allknowing, allseeing, allpowerful god created everything. Free will is impossible in such a situation. That, too, has been pointed out again and again by me. Bergson , Teilhard de Chardin , and Hartshorne are more interesting Christians for this reason, conceiving of God as a creative force, rather than as a tinkering, controlling engineer.

The religious right is about power, control and the restriction of others' rights. That much is obvious to everyone but the theocratic sympathizers (who just can't understand the concept of others' rights).

As for particular doctrinal differences, who utlimately cares? They're all wrong. I'm interested in Christianity as long as it states something worth considering despite the religious connotation, not because of it.

That covers it (again).

Now, was that so fucking hard?

This part, though is the kind of shit I'm talking about:

Sources? Facts? How did you reach this conclusion? Did fifth dimensional imps talk to you through the fillings in your teeth or something? How could you possibly expect anybody other than Cisco Bunny or eldritch11 to take a statement like that at face value?

The insulting part there at the end about sympathizers doesn't exactly help your case. Who would they be, exactly? Me and Porta? If so, bite me.

As I keep having to remind you, I understand the concept of others' rights.

I am, however, convinced that your opinions about me have about as much merit as Cisco Bunny's.

In other words, less than none.

My!

K

Nice going admitting to being a stupid deluded jerk-off.

You think you somehow "kicked my ass" because you're deluded.

By all means, keep including me in your misconceptions that I now participate in your little comic nerd ego slapfights. Be sure to zero in on the one typo you find as if it requires a gram of cleverness.

Present your arguments to me, again, Charles. I'm not going to respond to any of them, again, but just want you to repeat them, again.

Next up: why do you have such stock answers to all these questions I ask (again and again), Charles?

Did we ever learn from Dumas about the Catholic persecution of King James I for daring an English translation of the Bible or are we still waiting?