Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


Super19

Recommended Posts

Deal with my pain.

So let me get this straight - you have 9 posts and have just joined CDC.

You analyse me and say I'm patronizing - then when I ask you how you would handle it, you say "One should be able to have a discussion without needing to psycho analyse others." Yeah...but...you just did that...

In other words...maybe you should take your own advice or at the very least get to see what is really going on here before chirping in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deal with my pain.

So let me get this straight - you have 9 posts and have just joined CDC.

You analyse me and say I'm patronizing - then when I ask you how you would handle it, you say "One should be able to have a discussion without needing to psycho analyse others." Yeah...but...you just did that...

In other words...maybe you should take your own advice or at the very least get to see what is really going on here before chirping in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't suggest that you did....I asked you what his post count and date joined had to do with his ability to recognize your post as patronizing

.

I realize you lost your marbles long ago, but now it just looks like you've even abandoned your search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how I goaded you by asking you a question. If you're so easily goadable perhaps you should actually take the previous poster's advice and avoid internet forums.

And are you trying to play the victim again??

No, because what does his post count and the date he joined have to do with pointing out to you, that in his opinion, one should be able to have a discussion without psycho analyzing in the patronizing way in which you did?

Again, why did you bring his post count and join date into the spotlight of your response to him? It's just a simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying you threw an emo hissy fit, like a teenage at her sweet 16 party who soiled her dress. I didn't create this thread and I didn't participate till more recently in the thread, and in doing so didn't even address the mindless meanderings offered by Heretic. He addressed me first, if you'll recall. I addressed another poster. But, I suppose those things don't fit your narrative, do they? You may have a sense of humour but you apparently left it in your other purse upon reading a movie quote, which led to your Veruca Salt-esque screed as a response. I get dry dark humour, half my family are English who oft tell their jokes with stiff upper lips and nary a half grin. If you want to redefine humourless into dry, dark and subtle, you may want to let the good people over at Merriam-Webster know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if this isn't a deliberate attempt to provoke me, what is?

Sorry Sharp, but I ain't taking the bait, but feel free to dig that hole you've made for yourself as deep as you can, if you were half as smart as you think you are you'd realize that all you are doing with each post is reinforcing the points I made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If free will was an illusion humanity would be no different than the beaver that builds the dam. We would mindlessly, or instinctively, go about our business without a personal thought. Of course, we both know this to be false. People use their cognitive abilities every waking minute of every day. It is true, people's decisions are "guided" by macro, or structural, conditions. It is within this context that the battle for agency should be fought. Alas, there are those who accept their fate; treating these structural conditions as innate and sanctioned by "G"od. Hence, religion is the opiate for the masses and should be rejected.

But as I alluded to in another post, the rise of Atheism has nothing to do with recapturing the masses agency. I would argue that consumption - Iphones, shiny cars, diesel jeans and so on - has replaced religion as our opiate. I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are God.

If we didn't exist then there would be no purpose for God to exist.

This is why we cannot see beyond ourselves.

Think about it.

Religions only true purpose is to divide us. People just got to start believing in themselves and each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are God.

If we didn't exist then there would be no purpose for God to exist.

This is why we cannot see beyond ourselves.

Think about it.

Religions only true purpose is to divide us. People just got to start believing in themselves and each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...