It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Compared to your bs I am on topic lol
That's really all you've got on me after over 100 pages of this thread? One off-the-cuff throwaway line about Islam that I later retracted?
It's frankly pretty pathetic to keep banging on about it. That seems to be one of your main debating techniques though. The three Rs - repetition, repetition, repetition. I find it tiresome and expected somewhat more of you as an academic. What a pity.
Works for Paxman at exposing idiocy or hypocrisy.
Just address his point and then he wouldn’t need to keep repeating it.
Can we all guess what @Dragonpol’s next post is going to be?
1, 2, 3 - all together now: ‘I haven’t got anything more to offer so I will refrain from posting in this thread again’
Do I win the caravan?
You'd like to remove all religious freedoms of course. You have that in common with fascism and communism. Strange bedfellows perhaps, but that much they agree on at least.
Personally I’d rather live in Germany in the 30s or Russia in the 60s than under sharia law administered by you and @Risico007.
Where did I say that? I'm not opposed to the separation of Church and State at all and I'm certainly no supporter of Sharia law! More lazy stereotypes from the Wiz! Yawn.
It is merely one question you refused to answer, until you decided to retract as you say so you would not answer it and admit bias in favor of Christian credos. I do find the 72 Virgins belief ridiculous, but I don't believe in a parthenogenesis, in a talking snake, in transubstantiation (or consubstantiation, or whatever), in the resurrection, etc.
But if you find assessing truth and plausibility pathetic... Well, I think it's actually essential.
I don't believe in transubstantiation either, not being Catholic. That's one thing we do agree on.
Members of a faith must have some inherent bias towards it, unless they are to convert to another faith or stop believing altogether. Why don't we stop pretending that everything has to be black and white with no nuance at all?
Everything in life has a certain bias if you look at it that way. It's not the plaything of religion solely.
Where did I say that? I merely stated I’d prefer to live under the Nazis or the Communists than you and @Dragonpol being charge, thus highlighting how undesirable living in a Christian nirvana presided over by you would be.
I know it’s difficult when the grown ups are talking but try and keep up.
Says a poster who whines as a child but wants religious people to die yeah your an adult alright and I am the pope
Oh wait- I'm not a mod here...
Please continue the hilarity! ;)
Yes let’s here more from Wiz kid on how Po pots was simply misunderstood
Really, it is a little entertaining to glance through, but why don't you just change the title of the thread to something far more accurate, like: "Religions? All kinds shredded ~ Join in for free-for-all bashing, namecalling, and lack of tolerance." OR "Whack-A-Religion" (you know like the carnival "whack-a-mole" game. Yes, that's more accurate. :)
So transubstantiation could be true, the pope could be the successor of Saint Peter divinely mandated by God but you don't believe in it because it's not in the tenants of your particular brand of faith? At least you're honest but it's not very solid. Why have an inherent bias, especially on something that important? Personally I'd rather rationally establish if beliefs are justified.
Paul Potts, or Pol Pot?
The irony of a bloke who is not even on nodding terms with the concepts of grammar or syntax making quips about people being misunderstood is too much.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion dear @4EverBonded but I’m afraid the genie is out of the bottle regarding respecting religion and it ain’t going back in again.
This thread isn’t just, as you state, a slagging off of religion (although that aspect of it is certainly a lot of fun), we have tried to ask serious questions - Even if one could prove his existence why is God worthy of respect? Why are other people’s irrational beliefs ridiculous but yours aren’t? Why does he permit baby cancer? Where is the evidence for talking snakes? - but it’s not our fault that the religious run away from the debate by concentrating their efforts on obfuscation, biased YouTube videos from dubious sources or simply refusing to engage.
We on the non believing side are here for a debate but sadly there is no one on the other side capable of addressing any of our questions head on.
I'm genuinely fascinated re the response to the invisible dragon. If you go though the bible, step by step, it is jam packed with THE most remarkable stuff. Too many to list here but we are all aware of content. To many , not only are these stories factually true but they deserve respect, even from non believers. They actually happened: full stop.
Others make their own claims to stories which are just as remarkable and they are "slapped down" in terms that they are taking the micky and (this is interesting) that the idea has not been established long enough. More lack of reflection from those of faith:
by defintion, there was a time who Christianity was brand new.
"Jesus was born yesterday"
"Jesus turned water into wine last week"
"Jesus did some other clever stuff last fortnight"
Also, by defintion, these claims/stories were taking seriously and not written off due to their newness. If they had have been, Christianity would have died within a year or so. Killed off by those who would not tolerate claims that had not been established.
This level of scrutiny is not rocket science. It's just basic adult thought processes. But those of faith, yet again, find it impossible to be consistant. Coming up with one rule for their own set of facts and a different rule for other peoples facts.
PS The dragon told me he had has been there for 3 months which I was not impressed with but then I found out that a dragon month is actually one billion years so he is actually very well established.
I think the fact that Christianity has refused to go away and has lingered on for 2000 years like a recurring skin condition also gives rise to @Dragonpol’s desire for it to be given precedence over other beliefs. Again a worse than feeble argument which you immediately blow out the water below:
This is where they are making fools of themselves. Once you cross the line into ‘faith’ you give up all rights to criticise others who postulate alternative but equally far fetched theories hence they try so desperately to shut down any mention of invisible dragons and the FSM because it lays bare the ludicrousness of their own position.
The options open to them are try to suggest the invisible dragon are not the same as proper religions and shouldn’t even be in the debate - a logical non starter which exposes them as hypocrites - or if they cave in and give the invisible dragon and FSM equal billing to their God it lays their faith open to ridicule.
They really have nowhere to go.
In fact, can anyone point me towards any established religion that has gender equality at its foundations? Funny that.
"The cure for poverty has a name: it's called 'the empowerment of women'. Now, name me a religion that stands, or has ever stood, for that."
Hitch
Admittedly they still have to go round wrapped in a curtain and will be stoned to death for adultery but you can’t have everything I suppose.
And the Catholic Church thinks highly of Virgin Mary because she got it without doing it. And three women first saw Christ risen or so Ris believes. But then again he wants to commit adultery with that dirty blonde and a couple of female coworkers. But he wouldn't do that on God's watch. His wife is so blessed to have him. (Sorry I can't get over it: religious devotion is moral bankruptcy).
That "dirty blond" comment, it's hard to ignore. But cut's to the heart of the morality via religion argument.
I would, but my wife wouldn't let me! And also I do not think in my situation extramarital sex would be justifiable. That's how it works for a godless heathen: you need to figure things out by yourself to establish if they are moral and what is the right thing to do. For the believer there's always "God says so". And if you fall into temptation, admit you are a worthless sinner amd ask for forgiveness. You might as well sin all the time.