Greetings!

[Sternwallow]

Bovina wrote

I have made many such. You don't get them. That is your failure, not mine.

No, they can't. Not on matters pertaining to them. So try another argument, Binky.

That statement belongs to the ages or at least the retarded theist quotes thread. Two hundred and thirty billion Christians can be wrong about God (Allah) liking them best or talking snakes or illegal wine manufacture or theft of porcine property or the authenticity of their foundational texts. They can be comprehensively wrong about anything they have not been able to prove in over 2000 years, including the existence of any god.

Try another lame defense, Bovie.

Stupid cow.

[Sternwallow]

Bovina wrote

Try a better line of reasoning than this, Wo.

That is Wohaz paraphrasing YOUR argument, colossally stupid cow!

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

That is Wohaz paraphrasing YOUR argument, colossally stupid cow!

Ahahahahahaha! Lily totally owned by Wohaz!

[Sternwallow]

semiconscious wrote

This is a prime example of atheistic reasoning.

If you go to the dealership and ask for a Tohatsu Rumpet Flutterblast 3000 and they offer you one with an automatic and one with a stick shift, what are you going to do? Call them liars and frauds because they are trying to offer you something other than a car? Something other than what the brand name represents?

Or are you going to be grown up about it and realize that it is in fact the same car with an option that doesn't change it's color, appearance, marque, or definition?

That's about how much sense your Catholic/Anglican transubstantion argument makes.

So, the earlier question, how many differences would it take between what you believe and Roman Catholicism for you to have a different religion? Suppose that beside not having a clutch, the color was different, the appearance was different, the marque was different and the definition was different, what more must be different for you to be shut of those heathens?
How about if the RCC declared Anglicanism a heretical offshoot that was not a religion at all since it did not accept ALL of the RCC teachings? Would that satisfy you that they were not the same religion? Just wondering where the line in the sand is set.

You have driven this limb of the dialog off course when I was only trying to find out what you believe that you were so reluctant to reveal.

Now that your general catholicism is settled, we can proceed to other concrete matters. Do you believe that Jesus performed the miracles attributed to Him in the NT. This is important and relevant because those alleged miracles formed the supposed proof that He was divine.

[Sternwallow]

Kate wrote

[Kate]

[Sternwallow]

semiconscious wrote

Text book logic would probably be what you'd want to say. It doesn't matter though: logic doesn't work on the wilfully ignorant. They will continue to use every logical fallacy in the book (reduction to the absurd, changing the subject, category errors, non-sequiturs) while calling YOU illogical. It's a "scientism" thing. You can't say anything to disrupt their faith.

You betray your ignorance of logic. Reductio ad absurdum, not to be confused with Ad ignorantiam, is a perfectly respectable tool of logic and it is very often effective against unfounded religious claims.

You might get a logic textbook and actually read it before mischaracterizing us.

For example, their default position is to ask me to prove that God exists (never mind the fact that saying "God does not exist" is an irrational position in itself, since it assumes omniscience nobody has).

You repeatedly mischaracterize us (a straw man fallacy). We deliberately DO NOT say that God does not exist, unless the context has already been established that the absolute formal meaning is not intended. We prefer the more correctly understandable "There is no reason to believe that God exists", where "reason" pertains to objective evidence. Thus, when we ask you for evidence that God exists, we are not demanding proof, which is only used in mathematics. Since we have never been shown even a sliver of evidence, we would be happy (not completely satisfied, of course) to see even the tiniest fragment of a cigarette ash worth of evidence. You say you have it, then trot it out.

If you think evolution is off topic, now they want to talk about clutches in cars.

Not too strong in the use of analogs are you? It looks like some more classes in logic are in order before you charge in here with half-assed contentions.

I can prove logically that saying that God exists is a reasonable statement,

Good god, man, don't assert that you can do something, just DO it and we will know that you have done it without the dramatic fanfare. Saying you can do it is not an argument or a proof of anything, silly.

but as you have seen, you can't even argue facts with them, like this JW thing. They are still arguing against reason and against fact that JW's are in fact Christian, and it's not even a debatable point. They just need it that way and that's the way it is.

OMG you are dense. We argue that JWs or anyone else is Christian if they believe they are and if they claim to be.

There is no recognized authority to say they are or aren't. You have merely asserted that there is one but you have comprehensively failed to produce it. If you do produce something you claim is that authority, I suppose you will appeal to the rules of some other sect of self-styled Christians that say JWs are not Christian, and you will probably fail to validate its legitimacy.

There is no United Religions Organization to arbitrate the standing of the ten-thousand gods and their multi-tens of thousands of attendant religions.

You may have heard the very old saying: "Three Jews, four opinions." It sort-of applies to Christian opinions on who is a Christian.

They're impervious to logic, Lily.

We are impervious to bogus and dishonest attempts at logic. Try some logic that won't get you a grade of F- in class.

Get a grip, sleeper.

[Node18]

Kate wrote

I love you for that.

[Sternwallow]

semiconscious wrote

That's bullshit. You claim to know more about this JW controversy than I do, and from talking to you I can tell that I know more about the Watchtower Society than you know about mainstream Christianity (which admittedly isn't saying much).

I have talked to people, and not relatives. I have opened a few books, not websites.

I have looked into this. I am not a one day expert like you are.

You do not know the difference between "all" and "more". That is a shame that you should not display in public, it is unseemly.

Well, I have worked with JWs for years, talked to them for many hours at my front door, I own and have read many of their books. (Same applies to Mormons). I do not know everything about them and do not claim to. I'm betting that you do not own a copy of their Bible.

I do know that they are as sincere, as convinced, as convicted (in the religious sense), as pious, as committed to their Christianity as any Baptist, Catholic, or Anglican I have been able to interview. Now, who do you propose as the judge who will say they are not legitimate Christians, the Lutherans or, God forbid, the Eastern Orthodox?

Get a grip, sleeper.

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

Ahahahahahaha! Lily totally owned by Wohaz!

It is about time that parts of her were parceled out. My own storage bins are full of Bovina and any more might go to waste.

[nkb]

seminarian wrote

That's bullshit. You claim to know more about this JW controversy than I do, and from talking to you I can tell that I know more about the Watchtower Society than you know about mainstream Christianity (which admittedly isn't saying much).

I have talked to people, and not relatives. I have opened a few books, not websites.

I have looked into this. I am not a one day expert like you are.

When did I claim to be an expert? If I ever become an expert on the differences between all your retarded cults, I will off myself.

So, once again, I am reading directly from the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you saying some individuals you have talked to trump the religion's official website?

Weren't you the one saying that we should ignore what laypeople say, and focus on the church's official doctrine? Can you make up your mind?

Is this one of those off topic rabbit holes you were complaining about? Who cares about Loch Ness?

My God in Heaven, are you stupid...

Reductio ad absurdum, not to be confused with Ad ignorantiam, is a perfectly respectable tool of logic and it is very often effective against unfounded religious claims.

Not the way you use it, dumbass.

Weren't you the one saying that we should ignore what laypeople say, and focus on the church's official doctrine?

The JW's aren't "The Church". Are you Sternwallow's brother?

In a rare flash of insight, you noticed that I place a lot of emphasis on apostolic succession. It's one of the ways you know someone posing as a "church" is a wannabe.

Even some Protestant denominations had succession at one time, like the Lutherans, even if they don't have it any longer.

The JW's are a totally fabricated invention of the 19th century and have no heritage, no history, no succession. Period.

It's funny how you clowns can be "skeptical" when it suits you and believe utter bullshit when it suits you.

[Choobus]

seminarian wrote

They're impervious to logic, Lily.

It's funny how you clowns can be "skeptical" when it suits you and believe utter bullshit when it suits you.

what a moron! Semen boy may be a subtle troll, or just a tard. He may not even know himself

[Eva]

semi:
you can be stupid in this forum
you can be hateful in this forum
you can be an idiot in this forum
you can lie in this forum
you can ignore evidence in this forum

but calling Sternwallow a dumbass, well, that is just wrong.
anyways, if he is a dumbass, your dumbassitude must be legendary.

asshole.