March for Life

[JoltinJoe]

I'm only hostile to those who pretend to be better read than they actually are, present company suspected.

why would you even care..?

Because the pseudo-learned mock genuine efforts to find God in this great universe, even though with a higher level of learning, they might themselves find the proclamations of the "rational Godless" to be irrational.

[Chizzang]

Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him...

The real point is:
Can one construct an intelligent argument ?

So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible
they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe
poorly read indeed

and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll

Joe
You need to own your own bullsh!t

[JoltinJoe]

Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him...

The real point is:
Can one construct an intelligent argument ?

So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible
they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe
poorly read indeed

and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll

Joe
You need to own your own sh!t

If you went to a Jesuit school, you would never posit any syllogism this flawed or flimsy.

Let's go through this.

First theorem: "Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him... " This includes an assumption that is not based on anything that I have thought or said. Instead, you are drawing a conclusion by drawing the opposite inference from what I wrote. However, that I have a problem with the "poorly read" who disagree with me does not necessarily imply that I am fine with the poorly read who agree with me.

Second theorem: "So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe. Poorly read indeed." See above. Also, false use of statistics. You just made up that "90%" figure.

Third theorem: "and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll."
Whether you "stifle" me or not is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, here you are assigning motivations to me without evidence. The reason I call you a pseudo-intellect is because it is obvious that you have far less familiarity with philosophy and theology than you try to represent.

Conclusion: I need to own my sh!t. Then are you my sh!t? Because I just owned you.

[89Hen]

So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible
they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe
poorly read indeed

Kind of like the 99% of Americans who have never actually read the Constitution and its Amendments?

I'll wait here for your answer.

[UNI88]

Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him...

The real point is:
Can one construct an intelligent argument ?

So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible
they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe
poorly read indeed

and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll

Joe
You need to own your own sh!t

If you went to a Jesuit school, you would never posit any syllogism this flawed or flimsy.

Let's go through this.

First theorem: "Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him... " This includes an assumption that is not based on anything that I have thought or said. Instead, you are drawing a conclusion by drawing the opposite inference from what I wrote. However, that I have a problem with the "poorly read" who disagree with me does not necessarily imply that I am fine with the poorly read who agree with me.

Second theorem: "So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe. Poorly read indeed." See above. Also, false use of statistics. You just made up that "90%" figure.

Third theorem: "and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll."
Whether you "stifle" me or not is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, here you are assigning motivations to me without evidence. The reason I call you a pseudo-intellect is because it is obvious that you have far less familiarity with philosophy and theology than you try to represent.

Conclusion: I need to own my sh!t. Then are you my sh!t? Because I just owned you.

3 points to Joe. Chizzy, you're up ...

[Chizzang]

Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him...

The real point is:
Can one construct an intelligent argument ?

So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible
they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe
poorly read indeed

and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll

Joe
You need to own your own sh!t

If you went to a Jesuit school, you would never posit any syllogism this flawed or flimsy.

Let's go through this.

First theorem: "Joe has no problem with the poorly read that happen to agree with him... " This includes an assumption that is not based on anything that I have thought or said. Instead, you are drawing a conclusion by drawing the opposite inference from what I wrote. However, that I have a problem with the "poorly read" who disagree with me does not necessarily imply that I am fine with the poorly read who agree with me.

Second theorem: "So the some 90% of American Christians that haven't read the Bible they believe in a book they have never bothered to read - are all "A-Okay" by Joe. Poorly read indeed." See above. Also, false use of statistics. You just made up that "90%" figure.

Third theorem: "and somehow I'm suspicious
because I come up with counter arguments that stifle Joe
so clearly I'm a pseudo intellectual internet troll."
Whether you "stifle" me or not is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, here you are assigning motivations to me without evidence. The reason I call you a pseudo-intellect is because it is obvious that you have far less familiarity with philosophy and theology than you try to represent.

Conclusion: I need to own my sh!t. Then are you my sh!t? Because I just owned you.

Congratulating yourself in advance I see...

Joe,
you've selected a safe space to land regarding your fellow followers
and there are many kinds of assumptions Joe - mine is a pretty safe one

but if my assumption is wrong
Then I look forward to you explaining to me how I am wrong
and that you do consider your poorly read fellow followers to be frauds - please do continue

and 90% is a proper estimate
Ask damned near any American Christian a simple question from the Bible and they have no idea
congregational bible polls would be an embarrassment to the faith if anyone took them seriously

[JoltinJoe]

Wow, you are really cranky today, Cleets.

[Chizzang]

Wow, you are really cranky today, Cleets.

This isn't even our preferred debate...



typically we get twitchy about "what can be known" and what cannot be known
thats the one that seems to get you the most active

And honestly
I am pretty sure I respect you a hell of a lot more than you respect me
and that's probably as it should be

[AZGrizFan]

and 90% is a proper estimate
Ask damned near any American Christian a simple question from the Bible and they have no idea
congregational bible polls would be an embarrassment to the faith if anyone took them seriously

That is a "JSO-like" use of statistics there chizzy. 90% ain't even close to what you represented.

[JoltinJoe]

Wow, you are really cranky today, Cleets.

This isn't even our preferred debate...



typically we get twitchy about "what can be known" and what cannot be known
thats the one that seems to get you the most active

And honestly
I am pretty sure I respect you a hell of a lot more than you respect me
and that's probably as it should be

I wouldn't waste time talking to if I didn't respect you. I just am trying to challenge you to rely on your intuition more.

We live with just five senses.

There are countless objective scientific truths that are unknown to us and countless such truths that will never be knowable to us. We will never know anything about these ultimate truths.

So just trust your intuition. What's so bad about that? Any scientific fact we learn starts with a scientist with an intuition. So why, then, is intuition so unreliable when it comes to theological truth? Why is reason the standard when it comes to theology? How can we reason any way? We have only five ways to experience truth, and yet I'm sure that truth exists that cannot be seen; heard; smelt; tasted; or touched. And how can use reason to reach conclusions, when there are so many truths unknown to us?

Don't we all intuit a personal God who ultimately loves and protects us? Then that God exists. It is really that simple. And I think the more you read of philosophy and theology, the more "reasonable" it becomes to eschew reason for intuition.

[Chizzang]

This isn't even our preferred debate...



typically we get twitchy about "what can be known" and what cannot be known
thats the one that seems to get you the most active

And honestly
I am pretty sure I respect you a hell of a lot more than you respect me
and that's probably as it should be

I wouldn't waste time talking to if I didn't respect you. I just am trying to challenge you to rely on your intuition more.

We live with just five senses.

There are countless objective scientific truths that are unknown to us and countless such truths that will never be knowable to us. We will never know anything about these ultimate truths.

So just trust your intuition. What's so bad about that? Any scientific fact we learn starts with a scientist with an intuition. So why, then, is intuition so unreliable when it comes to theological truth? Why is reason the standard when it comes to theology? How can we reason any way? We have only five ways to experience truth, and yet I'm sure that truth exists that cannot be seen; heard; smelt; tasted; or touched. And how can use reason to reach conclusions, when there are so many truths unknown to us?

Don't we all intuit a personal God who ultimately loves and protects us? Then that God exists. It is really that simple. And I think the more you read of philosophy and theology, the more "reasonable" it becomes to eschew reason for intuition.

Now Joe,
That's pretty much exactly how I experience God

How I do NOT experience God
is through somebody else pretending to know something they don't know (See: Organized Religion)

I believe god reveals itself exactly how we experience it
there is no hidden knowledge
there is no sacred teachings
there is no separation of experience and god
no proper religion

just everything exactly as it presents itself right now
no required leader
no expert interpretation
no historical documentation

[CID1990]

I’m just here to see if we prove Jesus this time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

and 90% is a proper estimate
Ask damned near any American Christian a simple question from the Bible and they have no idea
congregational bible polls would be an embarrassment to the faith if anyone took them seriously

That is a "JSO-like" use of statistics there chizzy. 90% ain't even close to what you represented.

Are you prepared to defend this hill AZ..?
I've got more stats

[89Hen]

and 90% is a proper estimate
Ask damned near any American Christian a simple question from the Bible and they have no idea
congregational bible polls would be an embarrassment to the faith if anyone took them seriously

That is a "JSO-like" use of statistics there chizzy. 90% ain't even close to what you represented.

And don't forget that he said 90% of Christians. That pie looks like all Americans.

[AZGrizFan]

That is a "JSO-like" use of statistics there chizzy. 90% ain't even close to what you represented.

Are you prepared to defend this hill AZ..?
I've got more stats

Well then howsabout you show a graph that actually agrees with your proclamation? Because THAT one surely doesn't.

[89Hen]

I've got more stats

To have "more" you would have already had to provide one.

[JoltinJoe]

I’ll bet it’s low eight figures, of which the lawyer will get 35-40%, but we’ll probably never know.

Well, if you believe Above the Law, the settlement is rumored to be $25 million. So I was way under.

The writer is Joe Patrice, who is a lawyer-turned internet writer. Patrice gets a lot of legal news first, and gets stuff that you don't think anyone should be able to get -- even though his analyses usually suck.

$25 million? The CNN email chains must have been a cesspool of hate. Even worse than I imagined. A number that big for discovery avoidance must mean that the emails would have become a huge embarrassment for CNN when they became public.

[93henfan]

I love seeing CNN get burned for their bias.

[CID1990]

I love seeing CNN get burned for their bias.

I’m a bit disappointed that the plaintiff didn’t force a trial but that’s just how it works I guess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Are you prepared to defend this hill AZ..?
I've got more stats

Well then howsabout you show a graph that actually agrees with your proclamation? Because THAT one surely doesn't.

You throw in the towel on this stinker, Chizzy?

[HI54UNI]

Well then howsabout you show a graph that actually agrees with your proclamation? Because THAT one surely doesn't.

You throw in the towel on this stinker, Chizzy?

Don't be too hard on Chizzy Joe Biden, he's worrying about kids' hot lunches.

[Ibanez]

I’m just here to see if we prove Jesus this time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are so close......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

Well then howsabout you show a graph that actually agrees with your proclamation? Because THAT one surely doesn't.

You throw in the towel on this stinker, Chizzy?

Would seem so. Just like on the mary jane thread where he couldn't find anything incorrect in my posts over 7 years on the subject.

[kalm]

You throw in the towel on this stinker, Chizzy?

Would seem so. Just like on the mary jane thread where he couldn't find anything incorrect in my posts over 7 years on the subject.

[89Hen]

Would seem so. Just like on the mary jane thread where he couldn't find anything incorrect in my posts over 7 years on the subject.

Sorry for the slight.

Just like on the mary jane thread where he nor kalm cold find anything incorrect in my posts over 7 years on the subject.