Why don't creationists get together and start their own town, or their own state?

[Split Rock]

One person cannot rally enough support to impeach the president. There has to be national outcry. There isn't; there is bitterness, but not everyone sees it for what Gracchus does. He believes what Bush has done is murder; most do not think this way.

Actually, there does not have to be a national outcry. There wasn't one when President Clinton was impeached... just a Congress willing to impeach the president. The reason neither Bush nor Cheney has been impeached, is because Congress is not willing to act.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
That's one take on it. I disagree.
To which I disagree.

To which I disagree.



See how pointless that was?

not pointless at all. you had your say, i had mine. Conclusion: we disagree with each other.

...and i had am opportunity to 'share' how nauseating it is for me to see just whining, and no action behind that whine.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

not pointless at all. you had your say, i had mine. Conclusion: we disagree with each other.

...and i had am opportunity to 'share' how nauseating it is for me to see just whining, and no action behind that whine.

So what are you doing about it? Have you started a petition to stop whining or are you just whining?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

QV please.

And I join the chorus of WHUT? Your answer is to refer us to a thread where you don't answer the question then run away? You've been challenged (ahaha) on this on at least three threads I can think of, and are yet to give an answer. I find your lack of credibility ... disturbing.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I join the chorus of WHUT? Your answer is to refer us to a thread where you don't answer the question then run away? You've been challenged (ahaha) on this on at least three threads I can think of, and are yet to give an answer. I find your lack of credibility ... disturbing.

The answer came 11 posts later --- I assume you read all posts 153, ff.?

 

[TheManeki]

The answer came 11 posts later --- I assume you read all posts 153, ff.?

Silly boy! The connection was never made establishing that the folks in that passage were atheists. You've been asked many times to provide evidence that those people were, in fact, atheists, but the only thing you ever have to say is "/thread," like in post #159 there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Silly boy!

Silly boy! If you can't see the answer in that post when it's in writing, how am I going to convince you?

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[searchingsoul]

Running away from one's problems is not going to make them go away. Look at what happened to the Protistants (I think, anyway...) in early America. They started out religious, but it gradually began to decline. Creationists need to spread the word around to those of other faiths. Solitude is not the answer. All you'll be doing is attempting to create the perfect environment, and look where that got Adam and Eve. No one is perfect, and no matter where you go, temptation will follow. What's to stop the kids to try to break free, and move to another state, huh? There isn't any.

 

[TheManeki]

Silly boy! If you can't see the answer in that post when it's in writing, how am I going to convince you?

Hard to tell when you never try to provide any evidence. Time to either give it a shot, AV, or /thread on out. Demonstrate how the Romans 1 passage refers to atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Demonstrate how the Romans 1 passage refers to atheists.

That's up to you if you want to believe it or not. I choose to believe it. Even without that passage in Romans, it's clear to me who sits on the throne of atheists, and what her name is. I always believed that anyway --- even before I read it in Romans.

 

[TheManeki]

That's up to you if you want to believe it or not. I choose to believe it. Even without that passage in Romans, it's clear to me who sits on the throne of atheists, and what her name is. I always believed that anyway --- even before I read it in Romans.

Thank you for confirming that you're merely quoting scripture to justify your own biases to yourself, and not to prove anything. I actually appreciate your honesty here. After all, the first step in changing is to admit you have a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for confirming that you're merely quoting scripture to justify your own biases to yourself, and not to prove anything. I actually appreciate your honesty here. After all, the first step in changing is to admit you have a problem.

Don't forget though --- atheists create that "bias" --- as you call it ---

 

[TheManeki]

Don't forget though --- atheists create that "bias" --- as you call it ---

back at ya! (But no tongue, please.)

Atheists are forcing you to look up random bits of scripture to justify your irrational beliefs to yourself? How odd...

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheists are forcing you to look up random bits of scripture to justify your irrational beliefs to yourself?

Not at all. Bible readers know that sometimes as they're reading Scripture, something will "jump out" at you; and you say to yourself, "I never noticed that before."

 

[TheManeki]

Not at all. Bible readers know that sometimes as they're reading Scripture, something will "jump out" at you; and you say to yourself, "I never noticed that before."

Yup. Sometimes it's truly meaningful, and sometimes it's on the same level as folks who imagine they see the face of Jesus on a piece of toast. The only way to distinguish between the two cases is to string together a logical sequence.

So far we have:
- "Romans 1:21-22 is about atheists."
- "Why?"
- "Because I think so."
- "Why do you think so?"
- "Because."
- "Why?"
- "Because."
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Not exactly a logical sequence. More like an example of "confirmation bias" on your part -- "a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."

But, the first step in recovery is to admit you have a problem. I'm proud you took this step and admitted you suffer from confirmation bias, and wish you well on your way towards a cure.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, the first step in recovery is to admit you have a problem. I'm proud you took this step and admitted you suffer from confirmation bias, and wish you well on your way towards a cure.

Thank you ---

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

The answer came 11 posts later --- I assume you read all posts 153, ff.?

Good assumption. I did. And Split Rock offered your usual "reason" except that I've already asked about how you defend that Rom 1 applies to atheists. As SR said "Seems to me it describes pagans who worship animal-like gods, such as the Egyptians, but hey... what do I know?". Reading in context, the "they" in those verses are "men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" -- that doesn't imply only atheists, unless you are going to claim that only atheists are unrighteous? Or do atheists hold the truth? Hmm.

In the past you've said that it describes these nature worshipers as fools and the fool hath said in his heart etc... But again, I've asked you about that and you've declined to answer.

Once again, your lack of integrity is showing. You've been called out and you'll neither concede nor put forth an argument. It really doesn't look good for you or, by extension, for Christianity. How about you do everyone a favor and act with some credibility.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Wow, a lot happened in the last little while. I guess my last post is now out of date. Excellent, finally we have an admission: "Romans 1 is about atheists because I say so". Great apologetics, AV. Can't argue with that. Except, of course, that God told me that Romans 1 is about you. God said it, that settles it. Bummer for you

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Not at all. Bible readers know that sometimes as they're reading Scripture, something will "jump out" at you; and you say to yourself, "I never noticed that before."

So then how are the atheists creating your bias?

Come on, AV, please grow a spine and just admit that you're wrong. You've been argued in circles and you can't defend your position -- you're not an idiot, you should know what that implies.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the past you've said that it describes these nature worshipers as fools and the fool hath said in his heart etc... But again, I've asked you about that and you've declined to answer.

I've pointed out before that that passage is about those who were once worshippers of God, who then turned their back on God, and the result was a descent all the way down into atheism. In other words, once they got their eyes off of the true God, they became polytheists, and eventually some became atheists.

We see that even today with someone who claims he was once saved, and is now an avowed atheist.

What if that passage said they became auto mechanics, and Psalm 14:1 says auto mechanics change tires? Would you think these priests-turned-atheists in Romans 1 changed tires?

(I know --- anachronism!)