RunRyder RC
 30  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     373     ( 374 )     375     NEXT    >> ] 319464 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
08-03-2011 10:22 PM  6 years agoPost 7461
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Where is the requirement that others read other religious books?

There is none.

So, your statement that it is "illogical" is illogical in itself.
What on earth made you think of such a ''requirement''?

The logic in my statement, is that it is illogical to believe that any particular religious book that has a creator God is true, and all the others are wrong, when one has not read any of them. When the ''evidence'' ( i.e. the ''creation'' ) is the same, and all we have to go on are the books themselves.

I think I've pretty much said that though, and I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

I didn't expect you to be able to understand that in the first place though, as my post wasn't directed at you.
Get over yourself dusty.
Try reading a little more slowly next time, and remember there's no need to be rude, just because you don't understand.

I hope you're feeling a bit better after letting out some of your pent up anger and frustration. Have you thought about taking up fishing as a form of relaxation? If you do, be careful you don't fall into the pond.

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-03-2011 10:23 PM  6 years agoPost 7462
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Oh I know it was gearboy

heres a link for you. It shows a ape skull 20m years old.
You didn't think he would actually notice, did you?

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-03-2011 10:54 PM  6 years agoPost 7463
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What on earth made you think of such a ''requirement''?
By your implication.

duh

Listen up dusty.
The logic in my statement, is that it is illogical to believe that any particular religious book that has a creator God is true, and all the others are wrong,
If one truly believes in the God in his "Book" is true and others are not, that is not illogical. Thats simply a belief that a person chooses. Its a choice. There is nothing illogical about that choice at all. If it affected or harmed others in some negative way, then it might get into the area of illogical.

Therefore, your implication that to say they are "illogical" to make that choice implies an invalid and/or irrational/unreasoning action. Not so. Its just a choice.

Therefore, your statement is not logical.
I didn't expect you to be able to understand that in the first place though, as my post wasn't directed at you.
Neither was this one directed at you:
Oh I know it was gearboy

heres a link for you. It shows a ape skull 20m years old.
You didn't think he would actually notice, did you?

Dusty
Get over yourself dusty.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-03-2011 11:30 PM  6 years agoPost 7464
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You're still not getting it.

You would be choosing between something you have read, and something you have not read. How would you know which is correct?

Perhaps you are having trouble relating to this, if you do not believe that the Bible is literally true, like Thomas and BDIS do, who my post was directed to, in the first place.
Neither was this one directed at you
So what?

You don't even understand why I pointed out that my post wasn't directed at you, do you?

Wow, just wow. No wonder they call you DEET.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-03-2011 11:48 PM  6 years agoPost 7465
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You're still not getting it.

You would be choosing between something you have read, and something you have not read. How would you know which is correct?
You wouldn't, because you have not read the other. Thats not illogical by your implication. Its just a choice to not read the other based on a belief system or otherwise.

Possibly, a person might like the bible on his or her first read and go for the gospel of it in full force. Thats not illogical by your implication simply because they have read the other bible. Its called "Freedom Of Religion"

Get it?
So what?

You don't even understand why I pointed out that my post wasn't directed at you, did you?
And you didn't understand why I pointed out that your post was not directed at you, do you?

Wow, just wow. Now I know why they call you dusty. Your brain cells are covered with dust which slows down your cognitive thinking powers. Thus, your nickname.

Now, if you want "Illogical", you have already defined that by insisting a new born baby is something other than a brand new person unique to his/her lineage. THAT, my friend is illogical.

Get it?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 12:14 AM  6 years agoPost 7466
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You wouldn't, because you have not read the other. Thats not illogical by your implication. Its just a choice to not read the other based on a belief system or otherwise.

Possibly, a person might like the bible on his or her first read and go for the gospel of it in full force. Thats not illogical by your implication simply because they have read the other bible. Its called "Freedom Of Religion"
It's not about which one you ''go for,'' it's about which one is correct. So the question remains. How do you know which is correct, when you have only read one?
Get it?
Obviously, you do not.
And you didn't understand why I pointed out that your post was not directed at you, do you?
Of course I do. As Thomas might say, it was a case of ''tis for tat''

But, you still do not understand why I pointed out to you, that my post was not directed at you, do you?
Wow, just wow. Now I know why they call you dusty.
No, you do not.
you have already defined that by insisting a new born baby is something other than a brand new person unique to his/her lineage
Wrong again. How you can get everything SO wrong, every time you post, beggars belief.

Every human being is unique, and our ''lineage'' is called, ''the human race.''
Get it?
Sometimes I wonder if you ever will.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 12:29 AM  6 years agoPost 7467
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's not about which one you ''go for,'' it's about which one is correct. So the question remains. How do you know which is correct, when you have only read one?
Already answered.

It has nothing to do with which is "Correct" Nor does it have anything to do with "illogical" by YOUR implication.

Its called "Freedom Of Religion"

Thats something atheists have a hard time with. And, at times refuse to recognize, or forget entirely.

Got it?
Of course I do. As Thomas might say, it was a case of ''tis for tat''
You still don't get it. Duh

No matter. That point is unimportant.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 12:56 AM  6 years agoPost 7468
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It has nothing to do with which is "Correct"
If one book is correct, and the others are wrong, then it has EVERYTHING to do with which one is correct.
Got it?
You still do not.
You still don't get it. Duh
Now you're being blatantly, and outrageously dishonest. Of course it was a case of tit for tat. You expect us to believe that it was just coincidence that you mentioned outhouse's post was not directed at me, right after I told you that my post was not directed at you? Pull the other one.
No matter. That point is unimportant.
No wonder, you try to excuse why you do not explain your outrageous and blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 02:50 AM  6 years agoPost 7469
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If one book is correct, and the others are wrong, then it has EVERYTHING to do with which one is correct.
Then who determines which one is correct?

The reader, of course. But, only if he/she reads the others, and of course, based on his own choice.

Thus; "Freedom Of Religion"

Nothing "illogical" about that. But, rather prudish and hypocritical on your part to say there is.

Get it yet?

Now you're being blatantly, and outrageously dishonest. Of course it was a case of tit for tat. You expect us to believe that it was just coincidence that you mentioned outhouse's post was not directed at me, right after I told you that my post was not directed at you? Pull the other one.
No dishonesty. There was no coincidence. No tit for tat. Its about your hypocrisy. I was only pointing out your blatant hypocrisy at pointing out a post I responded to that was not directed at me but that you were doing the very same thing. Pointing out your hypocrisy is rather fun and truly not that difficult to catch.

If there is a rule on that issue, then point it out in your weeny little prudish oxford dictionary and we will kick it around some more.

Hey, I said the point was unimportant. But, you insisted on keeping it going. If you still insist, then go for it.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 09:51 AM  6 years agoPost 7470
Dusty1000rrApprentice - Glasgow, U.K. - My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Then who determines which one is correct?

The reader, of course. But, only if he/she reads the others
You miss the point, yet again. The point is, that he/she is NOT reading the others. So, how would he/she determine which one is correct?

I'll let you out of your misery.

It would be impossible to logically determine which one is correct when he/she has only read one. That, should be immediately obvious.

In case you still don't get it, I'll spell it out. Many people who have only read one religious book, do claim that it is correct, and all the others are wrong. To decide that one is correct and all the others are wrong, when he/she has only read one book, is an illogical decision.

All of your harping on about freedom of religion blah blah blah, is irrelevant, and does not change the fact that such a decision is illogical.
Get it yet?
Do you understand yet?
No dishonesty. There was no coincidence. No tit for tat. Its about your hypocrisy. I was only pointing out your blatant hypocrisy at pointing out a post I responded to that was not directed at me but that you were doing the very same thing. Pointing out your hypocrisy is rather fun and truly not that difficult to catch.
Once again, in an act of desperation, you are outrageously and blatantly intellectually dishonest, in your attempt to spin words and their definitions. What you have just described IS tit for tat. Tit for tat is responding in a like manner. That is exactly what you did, and it is blatantly and outrageously dishonest, to try to pretend that you didn't.
Pointing out your hypocrisy is rather fun and truly not that difficult to catch.
You are obviously still having trouble understanding the words that you use. While you're looking up tit for tat, I suggest looking up ''hypocrisy,'' and you will find that merely pointing out that you had responded to a post that was not directed at you, does not fit the definition of hypocrisy.

While you're at it, I suggest looking up another word that you keep throwing around, but which you also misunderstand: ''prudish'' - then try and explain how that word can be applied to an object.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 02:19 PM  6 years agoPost 7471
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Still Determined ?????
To hang on to the spirit of the Anti Christ - looks like a continuous never ending act of desperation.

Endless never ending rhetoric to avoid abiding in the word ????

You need to occupy more and more time censoring the book ..
Please Continue - your finger's are turning blue -

Still no content, no merit, no strength, in your platform and still have not taught any thing to anyone. Make your self at home

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 02:27 PM  6 years agoPost 7472
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

All of your harping on about freedom of religion blah blah blah, is irrelevant, and does not change the fact that such a decision is illogical.
Already mentioned that atheists do not recognize freedom of religion. With this one, its confirmed.

That gives further confirmation to the phrase, "You Cannot Fix Stupid"
While you're at it, I suggest looking up another word that you keep throwing around, but which you also misunderstand: ''prudish'' - then try and explain how that word can be applied to an object.
It was not applied to an object. It was applied to you.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 09:02 PM  6 years agoPost 7473
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

To hang on to the spirit of the Anti Christ
You will find that people who don't believe in Christ, don't tend to believe in an anti-Christ either. You either believe mythical stories are true, or you don't.
Endless never ending rhetoric to avoid abiding in the word ????
I choose my words carefully.
You need to occupy more and more time censoring the book ..
No need, that's already been done.

http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bib...s/dp/0807077143
Still no content, no merit, no strength, in your platform and still have not taught any thing to anyone.
People like you who don't want to apply logic and reason to religion, are unlikely to see the logic and reasons behind why more and more people are realising that religions are all made up stories. You cannot know who might have taught what to anyone else, particularly those who read but don't participate in this thread. No one person will make a big difference, but it is only human nature for each of us to contribute to saving people from the avoidance of reality.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 09:12 PM  6 years agoPost 7474
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Already mentioned that atheists do not recognize freedom of religion.
Yes, we noticed. How you managed equate not recognising freedom of religion, and making a decision on which religious book is correct, based on the content of those books, is anyone's guess. I think you try to spend so much time looking for connections that are not there, that it prevents you from seeing what is right in front of you. You could always explain WHY you arrive at such a conclusion, but that would require you to take a step away from your intellectually dishonest ways, so I won't hold my breath.

You also fail to realise that promoting the idea of choosing between religions, is promoting freedom of religion. Which makes your claim that I ''do not recognise freedom of religion,'' disingenuous, at best.
It was not applied to an object. It was applied to you.
So now you think that I am an Oxford dictionary.

That gives further confirmation to the phrase, "You Cannot Fix Stupid"

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-04-2011 09:27 PM  6 years agoPost 7475
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

so I won't hold my breath.
Well heck.

Don't let little old me hold you back.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-05-2011 07:17 AM  6 years agoPost 7476
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

aah

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-07-2011 01:26 AM  6 years agoPost 7477
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

God Bless Texas !!!
Well Done Houston !!

Thank you for the 1st Priority

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-17-2011 10:10 PM  6 years agoPost 7478
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Had To Give It a SElfless Bump

Just for the entertainment value of laughing at SKS !

Just fun too much fun to watch em squirm - when you toss the Blood of Jesus on Em

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-18-2011 05:40 AM  6 years agoPost 7479
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

you just missed me you old codger lol

why is your god illiterate?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
08-18-2011 06:09 AM  6 years agoPost 7480
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why Yes I Did !

Figured after that last go around ---- and you were ---{( definitely getting some on ya )} It would take you awhile to heal up and sharpen up your point's

Seen you have been giving marital advise - I figure experience count's in that department Never had difficulties )

How about a 1st base shart -- and I'll pitch you a easy one ?????

Then we'll load the base's so you can grease up the flip flop's ???

and Give us a BIG POOF ???

I did miss you Potty Boy - Welcome back to the Living Water's :: Sincerely

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

OUCH - OUCH -OUCH !!! I think you left your flop flip's stuck behind the roll of paper

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     373     ( 374 )     375     NEXT    >> ] 319464 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 30  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, June 24 - 11:56 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online