Pics For Sharing & Debating

So this is your God ....

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnXAJD742Dl_fc9fstrcZ9TyVnl9nK7 hNmU05COFBxNECyW0VC (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=d_YVdB5Uta_IeM&tbnid=juuFtD7rKUYd8M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwonkette.com%2F535551%2Fjesus-was-a-capitalist-is-really-the-title-of-this-tea-party-nobodys-rant-against-the-pope&ei=_YDjUuurJIXOyAGsjYCADQ&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNEbFyzcIVXlLwGJf3J8lY8qVdsOMg&ust=1390727718587259)

I'm an Atheist, I don't need one.

An argument I was losing?!?! There you go knocking chess pieces over again. I'll probably find a steamer on my kitchen floor too.

You're trying to make Science = Religion or Religion = Science.

This will help you understand the difference:

Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-religion-is-natural-and-science-is-not/201308/the-ultimate-conflict-between-science-and-rel)

Humans are naturally inclined to look to agents, their states of mind, and their actions as the bases for explanations. Such inclinations of mind importantly contribute to the attraction of religions and to the attraction of religious explanations – explanations not only of matters of social and psychological import but of the origins and foundational principles of the cosmos.

And

Although not typically recognized as such, the emergence of the cognitive and brain sciences over the past fifty years marks the beginning of on-going scientific enterprises that often eschew explanatory appeals to agency and intentionality in us! This is not to suggest that contemporary social, cognitive, or even brain science has ceased to refer to agents and their mental states, but only to say that the broader trend is clear within these sciences and within modern science more generally.
Critics of religion have usually underestimated the cleverness and creativity with which new generations of theologians have managed scientific challenges, but the historical pattern to which I am pointing may signal far greater challenges ahead. Accommodationist theologies that abandon all reference to agents are unlikely to have much popular appeal.

Science doesn't tell you that your choices will condemn you to a painful or pleasant afterlife dependent on your adherence to some choices made in this life. Science is pure, it has no bias.

Is that what your secondary argument was supposed to explain, JR?

???

It's like when a surgeon performs lifesaving surgery on someone and people call it a miracle. Give the surgeon credit for his or her hours of education and effort and let the superstitious nonsense stay in your empty little head.

I was actually baiting JR on the Internet story, but he's more sensible sometimes than I thought.

You're trying to make Science = Religion or Religion = Science.

Nope. Just blatantly wrong. Your inability to grasp the precepts of rhetorical logic is stunning.

It's like when a surgeon performs lifesaving surgery on someone and people call it a miracle. Give the surgeon credit for his or her hours of education and effort and let the superstitious nonsense stay in your empty little head.

I was actually baiting JR on the Internet story, but he's more sensible sometimes than I thought.

I am the essence of sensibleness.

http://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/71502_465830376872236_2100975012_n.png

Is this really surprising? I think not.

http://i.imgur.com/f37UhTF.jpg

Nope. Just blatantly wrong. Your inability to grasp the precepts of rhetorical logic is stunning.

Then we'll agree that your explanation was inefficient, communication is key.

What 'just blatantly wrong' do you refer to? Construct complete, coherent sentences, please, that way you can't change direction when you get shown to be wrong.

More bait, JR. Push back!

http://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/p320x320/1535525_543009832462103_956183507_n.jpg

Then we'll agree that your explanation was inefficient, communication is key.

What 'just blatantly wrong' do you refer to? Construct complete, coherent sentences, please, that way you can't change direction when you get shown to be wrong.

More bait, JR. Push back!

LOL --

My statement was, as previously explained, intended as bait for the logically impaired. A trait that, for someone critiques others so fiercely for their failures of the same, you seem to be oblivious to in yourself.

Complete sentences? Why .. you just impose whatever meaning is convenient to your point regardless of context, ignore arguments you can't refute and, generally, pretend the rules of rhetoric are inapplicable to every pearl of wisdom you dane to share with us poor uninitiated.


lol ... always a pleasure.