Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

OK. Take the first example: Self.
I think the thread should be in philosophy. I will come and see how well you do.

Ok, good example. Now, tell me why it can't be explained? I've been waiting for your explanation but none has been forthcoming.

Blowing hot air?
 
If I call water paani does it change?:shrug:

I believe that all ideas about God are with regard to the same God.

What we see as differences between ideas are just differences in viewpoints about God.

But as a kafir, I understand that notion is also beyond you.

Well, it certainly is a notion. But, I don't swallow notions as easily and quickly as you. Nor, do I make them up as I go along, as you just did.

Why is it then that the differences between ideas contradict or are completely opposing to each other?

And, then could you please explain why the exact same god sent Jesus to earth to deliver the word of god and then years later sends Gabriel to earth with a completely different story?

Really sam, your post count is high for only one reason.
 
Well, it certainly is a notion. But, I don't swallow notions as easily and quickly as you. Nor, do I make them up as I go along, as you just did.

Why is it then that the differences between ideas contradict or are completely opposing to each other?

And, then could you please explain why the exact same god sent Jesus to earth to deliver the word of god and then years later sends Gabriel to earth with a completely different story?

Really sam, your post count is high for only one reason.

How do you compare the stories? Based on what?
 
The use of labels is a very effective way of dehumanisation and degradation. It is a weapon used by people in power to justify oppression.

Its called framing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Anything which sam finds not to agree with her line of reasoning is framing. The problem is that sam doesn't take the time to read anyones posts, and responds accordingly.

Her "labels" aren't framing though.:rolleyes:
 
Anything which sam finds not to agree with her line of reasoning is framing. The problem is that sam doesn't take the time to read anyones posts, and responds accordingly.

Her "labels" aren't framing though.:rolleyes:

I'm not the one reframing concepts to demonise people.

Your words are clearly visible to all.
 
Ah, so you can't explain yourself, as I suspected. Hot air.

Now, go sit in the corner and keep quiet while the adults are talking.

Just because they both begin with G they are not the same person.

Uh, it is YOU who are making the comparisons, sam. :rolleyes:

Nope, I claim the stories are all the same. You claim they are different.
 
Assuming that atheism is an "educational system"? What does this classify as? Re-education?

Atheism is not an education system, that is a completely ignorant thing to assert, clearly indicating you have no idea what atheism is about and that you're following to a tee your own accusations of framing.

Religion is not education. Educating the uneducated is not re-education, it is education.

The fact that you are unable to comprehend these concepts only serves to demonstrate just how much the disease of your cult has affected your mind.
 
I'm not the one reframing concepts to demonise people.

Your words are clearly visible to all.

But, again, you are entirely incorrect due to your refusal to read posts and your inability to synthesize information. I don't "demonise" anyone, a red herring on your part to deflect.
 
Atheism is not an education system, that is a completely ignorant thing to assert, clearly indicating you have no idea what atheism is about and that you're following to a tee your own accusations of framing.

Religion is not education. Educating the uneducated is not re-education, it is education.

The fact that you are unable to comprehend these concepts only serves to demonstrate just how much the disease of your cult has affected your mind.

You do realise that was a response? Do the quotes mean anything at all?

And whats with the contradictions?

You're slipping today :scratchin:
 
Ok, good example. Now, tell me why it can't be explained? I've been waiting for your explanation but none has been forthcoming.

Blowing hot air?
You have now claimed that it can be done. Go ahead show me. You sat on the sidelines on the other definition and seemed very pleased with yourself that it was not explainable. My point was that other concepts - some we take for granted as true - are also very hard to explain. You thought that was absurd. OK, come off the sidelines and show us it is in fact a good litmus test.
 
But, again, you are entirely incorrect due to your refusal to read posts and your inability to synthesize information. I don't "demonise" anyone, a red herring on your part to deflect.

Uh please, you deliberately use negative terminologies against the people who are different from you, you use terms that demean, insult and denigrate. Your entire approach to anyone who thinks differently than you do is to treat them with contempt and derision.

If you cannot see that, you must be the only one on this board.
 
Nope, I claim the stories are all the same. You claim they are different.

And yet, the stories are NOT the same. Your claim is vacuous at best. If they were the same, it would be the same cult.

It's really intellectual dishonesty to make such claims, sam. Are you trolling again?
 
Back
Top