Skip to content
  • Register
    • Advertisement
    If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
    Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

    The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

    1…3031333536…101

    Comments

    • #962
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      Kim is a form of Secular 'god'.

      you realise you've just suggested that a god is a megalomaniac tyrant.

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #963
      PopePalpatine
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,158 PopePalpatine
      ✭✭✭✭


      There's nothing secular about the Kim dynasty!

      This is what the Oxford English Dictionary defines "secular" as:
      Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

      It's high time Boards stopped J C's drivel from wasting server space.


    • #964
      oscarBravo
      Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 oscarBravo
      Mod ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      The answer is here:-
      http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Cain-8217-s-Wife
      So the answer is that incest was morally right until God suddenly changed his mind and made it morally wrong.

      How does it not embarrass you that the answer to every difficult question you're asked is a literal deus ex machina?


    • #965
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      SW wrote: »
      you realise you've just suggested that a god is a megalomaniac tyrant.
      ... a god with a small 'g' !!!:)


    • #966
      Pherekydes
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 Pherekydes
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      Kim is a form of Secular 'god'.

      Seeing as he IS the state, he can hardly be secular, now can he?

      Last week you were claiming to be secular, but it's clear you don't know what the word means. And you've no intention of finding out, either.

      Imagine. That "god-given" brain of yours. And mostly unused. That's a terrible sin.


    • Advertisement
    • #967
      obplayer
      Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 obplayer
      ✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      I respectfully suggest that you read 2 Peter 3.

      Quoting from a book which is 50% fairy tale and 50% barbarian history proves nothing. Nor does your tedious and derisory sermonising. This is supposed to be a debate using reason and sensible argument, if you are not capable of that, and the evidence strongly suggests you are not, then do yourself a favour and stop making a complete fool of yourself. Go to your shrine and cast a few magic spells or something.


    • #968
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      ... a god with a small 'g' !!!:)

      so what? God is a god. You just suggested God (who happens to be a god) is a megalomaniac tyrant.

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #969
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      PopePalpatine wrote: »
      There's nothing secular about the Kim dynasty!

      This is what the Oxford English Dictionary defines "secular" as:


      It's high time Boards stopped J C's drivel from wasting server space.
      North Korea is a Secular State in which the expression of all religion is banned ... and now you appear to be calling on the Boards to 'follow suit' and ban me for expressing my faith.


    • #970
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      North Korea is a Secular State in which the expression of all religion is banned ... and now you appear to be calling on the Boards to 'follow suit' and ban me for expressing my faith.

      Didn't realise you were in favour of banning religious expression, seeing as you are on record claiming to be a secularist.

      The problem for you now is that one of the two things mentioned above must be false. Have fun in the quicksand :P

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #971
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      Pherekydes wrote: »
      Seeing as he IS the state, he can hardly be secular, now can he?

      Last week you were claiming to be secular, but it's clear you don't know what the word means. And you've no intention of finding out, either.

      Imagine. That "god-given" brain of yours. And mostly unused. That's a terrible sin.
      ... the most extreme form of illiberal secularism is a totalitarian state ... and the most extreme form of totalitarian state is one led by a megalomaniac dynasty.


    • Advertisement
    • #972
      bumper234
      Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 bumper234
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      ... the most extreme form of illiberal secularism is a totalitarian state ... and the most extreme form of totalitarian state is one led by a megalomaniac dynasty.

      Seriously, can a mod or an admin request JC stops bolding words in every sentence its getting to a stage where his posts are physically hurt my eyes. I have asked him nicely before and he did cut down but he seems to be slipping back into his old ways again.


    • #973
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      SW wrote: »
      Didn't realise you were in favour of banning religious expression, seeing as you are on record claiming to be a secularist.

      The problem for you now is that one of the two things mentioned above must be false. Have fun in the quicksand :P
      I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.


    • #974
      robindch
      Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 robindch
      Mod ✭✭✭✭


      PopePalpatine wrote: »
      INAPPROPRIATE PROSE DELETED
      None of that, please. Or cards will be ladled out with a ferocity that would leave even the biggest deities of the Old Testament shivering in their brutal, blood-stained sandals.


    • #975
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.

      but you just said a secularist state bans religious expression. If you're a secularist then you must support such a ban by your own definition.

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #976
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      bumper234 wrote: »
      Seriously, can a mod or an admin request JC stops bolding words in every sentence its getting to a stage where his posts are physically hurt my eyes. I have asked him nicely before and he did cut down but he seems to be slipping back into his old ways again.
      I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)


    • #977
      Gordon
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 Gordon
      ✭✭✭✭


      2 Peter 3: "the christian god will come back, could take thousands and thousands of years, but I promise he'll come back, just trust me on this."


    • #978
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      SW wrote: »
      but you just said a secularist state bans religious expression. If you're a secularist then you must support such a ban by your own definition.
      ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
      Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.


    • #979
      bumper234
      Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 bumper234
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)

      No it's definitely your random bolding of words. If it helps I'll put it to you this way. You are causing me physical pain and you are doing it on purpose. Surely causing another human being physical pain for no reason other than your own pleasure is a sin? Why do you continue to sin and torture me?


    • #980
      bumper234
      Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 bumper234
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
      Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.

      Oh sweet baby whathisface :rolleyes:


    • #981
      robindch
      Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 robindch
      Mod ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)
      Well, randomly bolding random bits and pieces of your posts make them look like they have the pox -- your call on whether that's the effect you wish to achieve.

      Doubly so for inappropriate smilies.


    • Advertisement
    • #982
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
      Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.

      so much wrong:pac: Please, JC, put down the shovel :P
      A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion

      Ergo, a secular state cannot ban religious expression. Do take a minute to absorb this data (again. Like really try to let it sink in.) before posting more specious nonsense.

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #983
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      bumper234 wrote: »
      No it's definitely your random bolding of words. If it helps I'll put it to you this way. You are causing me physical pain and you are doing it on purpose. Surely causing another human being physical pain for no reason other than your own pleasure is a sin? Why do you continue to sin and torture me?
      My embolding is deliberate emphasis (nothing else) ... but if it's causing you physical pain I'll try to remember to not do so.


    • #984
      Pherekydes
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 Pherekydes
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.

      You've just shown that you don't know the meaning of secular.

      To wit:
      J C wrote: »
      North Korea is a Secular State in which the expression of all religion is banned ... and now you appear to be calling on the Boards to 'follow suit' and ban me for expressing my faith.

      Seeing how much you proselytize, you aren't liberal, either.


    • #985
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      SW wrote: »
      quote:-
      A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion

      Ergo, a secular state cannot ban religious expression. Do take a minute to absorb this data (again. Like really try to let it sink in.) before posting more specious nonsense.
      ... so religion can be expressed in school ... and in public ... and in private (where children are concerned) in a Liberal Secular State ... just like I have always said.


    • #986
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      ... so religion can be expressed in school ... and in public ... and in private (where children are concerned) in a Liberal Secular State ... just like I have always said.

      Nope. You want religious creation stories made part of the science lesson. This is totally against the spirit of a secular state. So not at all like you said.

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • #987
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      Pherekydes wrote: »
      Seeing how much you proselytize, you aren't liberal, either.
      Liberals (of all kinds) proselytize their liberalism all over the place ... and if they are true liberals they tolerate the proselytizing of other liberals ... even ones with whom they disagree.


    • #988
      J C
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 J C
      ✭✭✭✭


      SW wrote: »
      Nope. You want religious creation stories made part of the science lesson. This is totally against the spirit of a secular state. So not at all like you said.
      Religion can either be allowed to be expressed or not.

      You say not ... so you are illiberal and intolerant towards those with whom you disagree.

      I am a liberal ... and I support the free expression of all religions and none.


    • #989
      Absolam
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 Absolam
      ✭✭✭


      There's a bit of a leap from allowing religion to be expressed, and teaching religious beliefs as science. A leap that might be a little too much for a secular state or education system. Even a liberal one.


    • #990
      Delirium
      Moderators Posts: 52,048 Delirium
      ✭✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      Religion can either be allowed to be expressed or not.
      Good to see you agree that creationism is religion.
      You say not ... so you are illiberal and intolerant towards those with whom you disagree.
      Incorrect. I said that religion shouldn't be taught in the science class. It's disappointing that a self-professed scientist disagrees with that. Worse yet, one that claims to be a secularist.
      I am a liberal ... and I support the free expression of all religions and none.
      What has that to do with teaching science?

      If you can read this, you're too close!



    • Advertisement
    • #991
      gaynorvader
      Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 gaynorvader
      ✭✭✭


      J C wrote: »
      {...}

      ... and I have no problem discussing Darwin 'keeping it in the family' by marrying his first cousin.:)

      This is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. You constantly bleat about being the subject of them, yet don't hesitate to use them yourself. :rolleyes:


    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register
    Advertisement