Religion

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)

12. Yawn.

Reply to humblebum (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 04:57 PM

Feb 2012

You were saying something? Sorry, I tuned out at the letter A.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Archbishop takes on atheist Dawkins [View all] rug Feb 2012 OP

Dawkins: "the time has come for People of Reason to say 'enough is enough'" -nt NAO Feb 2012 #1

Williams: "I value unity because I believe we learn truth from each other in this process." rug Feb 2012 #2

One cannot learn any "truth" from religion. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #5

The "truth" is that religion does exist and many find some very obvious human humblebum Feb 2012 #6

Hi, humblebum. Welcome back from your time-out. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #7

And I must say, neither has yours. We are still allowed to question and humblebum Feb 2012 #11

Yawn. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #12

I've heard that before edhopper Feb 2012 #8

What are you suggesting as alternatives? MarkCharles Feb 2012 #9

"Other ways of knowing" You know, Magic. mr blur Feb 2012 #16

I saw magic once, in my long life MarkCharles Feb 2012 #19

Just be content to exist inside your little box then. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #22

I'll be content to use some "other ways of knowing", darkstar3 Feb 2012 #23

We have been through this time and again, with example after example. humblebum Feb 2012 #24

Your examples were worthless, and your sources lacked rigor. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #26

So do your posts. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #28

How clever. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #29

If you actually gave "example after example" or anything similar, we wouldn't keep going over this. laconicsax Feb 2012 #30

Then you no doubt slept right through it. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #32

So educate me. n/t laconicsax Feb 2012 #33

So do a search and find out for yourself. Not into reliving the past. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #34

You're just desperate to avoid giving the answers, clearly. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #35

You're putting in way more effort dodging the issue than addressing it. laconicsax Feb 2012 #36

Sorry. "Other ways of knowing" has been thoroughly discussed, explained, debated, defined, humblebum Feb 2012 #38

And right on cue, your other typical and oft-repeated skepticscott Feb 2012 #39

Not nearly as "oft-repeated" as what you are displaying here. You know as well, or better humblebum Feb 2012 #40

Hahahaha! Retreat! Retreat! cleanhippie Feb 2012 #42

Truth. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #46

True fail is the truth. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #47

What a surprise! You avoided the issue again! laconicsax Feb 2012 #48

You brought up the subject, you supply the info. All been laid out for you. Start humblebum Feb 2012 #50

Actually, the subject was brought up well before I joined this thread. laconicsax Feb 2012 #51

Must be hidden in there somewhere, cause i don't see it. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #57

LOL! It's your own post! laconicsax Feb 2012 #58

Well, the only thing I see there is myself pointing out how categorically shallow humblebum Feb 2012 #60

Don't play coy, you aren't very good at it. laconicsax Feb 2012 #76

Yeh, uh huh. You humblebum Feb 2012 #78

I do know that the topic has been discussed many times before. laconicsax Feb 2012 #80

You have now exposed yourself as totally dishonest. humblebum Feb 2012 #85

There's this great phrase I read recently...hmm...what was that... darkstar3 Feb 2012 #81

Been there done that. If it is explained to you again, you will deny it ever happened again.nt humblebum Feb 2012 #83

No link. Guess it didn't happen. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #84

Another fine example of radical atheist reasoning. nt humblebum Feb 2012 #86

Another fine example of ignorant theist circular logic. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #94

deleted humblebum Feb 2012 #82

I just came up tama Feb 2012 #55

I think we disagree on the definitions of "good," "sensible," and "answer." laconicsax Feb 2012 #59

The "truth" is: Astrology and Numerology exists, too! MarkCharles Feb 2012 #10

"truth" is limited to what one can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch AlbertCat Feb 2012 #88

Where you see contradiction, he sees confirmation. Thats a direct quote. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #92

You really don't have a clue, do you? humblebum Feb 2012 #98

depends on truth DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #17

Now hold up a sec. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #21

Psychology can do a good job DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #45

He can believe that all he wants, it doesn't make it true. ;) darkstar3 Feb 2012 #14

nor does your saying you don't believe it make it un-true. ;p Bluerthanblue Feb 2012 #101

Two great minds. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2012 #3

If I find a link to the livestream I'll post it. rug Feb 2012 #4

Please do, and I hope this thread gets kicked right before hand. cbayer Feb 2012 #13

two overrated minds DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #18

you lost all credibility with Penn Gillette. Goblinmonger Feb 2012 #25

Damn right. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #27

But he sure is loud! laconicsax Feb 2012 #31

You forget one point DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #43

Way to move the goal posts. Goblinmonger Feb 2012 #44

half point DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #49

And Dawkins gave us the concept of the meme. Full point. Goblinmonger Feb 2012 #53

possible DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #54

Jillette is clueless about feminism muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #63

Jillette may be DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #69

You state an opinion.. rexcat Feb 2012 #64

the dead DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #66

You missed my point entirely... rexcat Feb 2012 #67

You would not understand DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #70

Don't confuse me with a religious person... rexcat Feb 2012 #72

dismissing the educated? DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #68

Thanks for the laugh. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2012 #37

Might be interesting! LeftishBrit Feb 2012 #15

Dawkins always wins these things Gore1FL Feb 2012 #20

Will it look something like this? jaded_old_cynic Feb 2012 #41

Debates prove nothing. Deep13 Feb 2012 #52

Debates prove tama Feb 2012 #56

Well, debates like this are not really about skepticscott Feb 2012 #61

Excellent point! rexcat Feb 2012 #65

Good point DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #71

That's part of what I mean. Deep13 Feb 2012 #73

While you are quite correct that no minds will probably be changed, cbayer Feb 2012 #75

Science doesn't usually prove anything either. Jim__ Feb 2012 #62

As a practical matter, science has a record of establishing the truth. Deep13 Feb 2012 #74

I was responding to what you said: "Debates prove nothing." Jim__ Feb 2012 #77

Debates, like trials, are momentary events skepticscott Feb 2012 #87

I have no respect for Rowan Williams. kwassa Feb 2012 #79

?!? Dawkins says over and over in the Guardian, he is a "Liberal," not an Atheist! Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #89

He reiterates it here. rug Feb 2012 #90

This supports your earlier point: that atheists need another central word, focus. But "secular"? Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #91

I think it is spot on. Most atheist are not anti-relgious, but just want secular societies. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #93

Yes. But on the other hand? Any compromise will be taken as near-complete capitulation Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #95

Let them be smug, I could care less. Their ideology is no longer resonating with intelligent people cleanhippie Feb 2012 #96

i'm what could be called a 'believer' and i have NO problem with a secular society. Bluerthanblue Feb 2012 #102

No, he explains it clearly muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #97

Interesting point/contextualization; thanks Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #99

Brief write-up here: muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #100