Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[mjw47]

Exactly. And what people like that do is go into a defensive mode where, because they feel inferior, and because they recognise their position is flawed, they attack others - usually their intelligence - and try to bring them down to the level of inferiority they themselves feel. And they'll even mistake polite and reasonable discussion for arrogance.

 

And MJW continues to prove my point with his previous posts.

 

And there you go again proving my point for me.

 

The whole discussion/argument from my viewpoint was extremely straightforward and should have been understood and accepted by anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

 

Instead of which, you and your buddies keep arguing the toss about the fact that a word can't be used in isolation, without some reference to one or the other of the other two options.

 

This is patent nonsense but on and on you go thinking that you know best and exhibiting a desperate need to be agreed with.

 

What else is to explain this neediness other than some form of desperation to have people think that you're clever?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAgnosticism&ei=yzjKVNXZPKOC7gaq24GoBA&usg=AFQjCNGShXnvStu94C3ftDHENuiHbMCRLQ&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Read down to the section headed Variations of Agnosticism and read the first description.

 

That is what I have claimed to be all along and you lot can't get it into your heads because of your obvious strange compulsion to tell other people what you think.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGoQ1ScwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Flife%2Fthe_spectator%2F2010%2F06%2Fan_agnostic_manifesto.html&ei=XD7KVOmkDqiy7QbNm4CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGx2ZrE_KiW4deRZfNh4_FMtFjDww&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Also read that and the first explanatory piece referring to skepticism.

 

Again proves the point despite all your comments.

 

I particularly enjoyed his later observation about 'Faith based Atheism' that is exactly how it comes across at times.

[teeny]

Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D. is the catholic churches well kept secret !! has anyone heard of him and his work ?

[SnailyBoy]

Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D. is the catholic churches well kept secret !! has anyone heard of him and his work ?

 

He's a Christian apologetic.

[teeny]

He's a Christian apologetic.

 

yes he is but far more than that he has answered lots of the questions that you guys on here have been asking !!

have a read at this http://sacredheartjesus.com/documents/2014/8/JCritic1.pdf

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2015 at 17:02 ----------

 

maybe watch some of this too http://www.scottmsullivan.com/why-the-new-atheists-are-not-so-bright-after-all/

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting. Not only are there numerous contemporary philosophers and scientists who strongly disagree with their views, but the arguments offered by people like Dawkins and Hitchens are very poor. Willliam Lane Craig does a great job of pointing this out:

Edited January 29, 2015 by teeny

[SnailyBoy]

yes he is but far more than that he has answered lots of the questions that you guys on here have been asking !!

have a read at this http://sacredheartjesus.com/documents/2014/8/JCritic1.pdf

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2015 at 17:02 ----------

 

maybe watch some of this too http://www.scottmsullivan.com/why-the-new-atheists-are-not-so-bright-after-all/

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting. Not only are there numerous contemporary philosophers and scientists who strongly disagree with their views, but the arguments offered by people like Dawkins and Hitchens are very poor. Willliam Lane Craig does a great job of pointing this out:

 

William Lane Craig a presuppositional Christian apologetic.

 

Have a look at some Christopher Hitchens' debates on YouTube.

Edited January 29, 2015 by SnailyBoy

[teeny]

William Lane Craig a presuppositional Christian apologetic.

 

Have a look at some Christopher Hitchens' debates on YouTube.

 

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting.

 

which is exactly whats been going on here on this thread one of my friends is a mod on here and has pointed that out to me snailboy !

[Baz1]

William Lane Craig a presuppositional Christian apologetic.

 

Have a look at some Christopher Hitchens' debates on YouTube.

 

I think WLC is a very good apologist- whose arguments have not successfully been debunked.

 

Since you brought up Hitchins, you can enjoy this over a cup of tea..

 

[Ryedo40]

And there you go again proving my point for me.

 

The whole discussion/argument from my viewpoint was extremely straightforward and should have been understood and accepted by anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

 

You are proving my point quite well. Some more examples from you:

 

"Are you a complete moron?"

"Can you see how absolutely stupid that remark of yours is?"

"And you are still incapable of comprehending."

"I don't care what you think, I am convinced that you and your mates have a mental aberration"

"Obviously, you would need to be completely stupid to continue the debate..."

"you are so obsessed by your fascination with the subject that you mistakenly believe you are an authority on"

"I ignored this post originally as being too daft to bother with."

"As it's the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time"

"You, and only you, are right. Go ahead oh delusional one, fire away."

"I know this is hard for you to grasp, constrained as you are by limited thinking.."

"And you are a simpleton but that does not come as any surprise."

"You are an idiot if you continue to hold to that view but then again it does not surprise me."

 

Nobody else is behaving that way except for you. And if they do it's in retaliation.

 

Instead of which, you and your buddies keep arguing the toss about the fact that a word can't be used in isolation, without some reference to one or the other of the other two options.

 

We discuss it because we don't agree with your views on agnosticism and atheism. And even though we disagree, we aren't insulting your intelligence - or thinking we are more intelligent than you. But you keep making other peoples intelligence an issue - making it obvious you have some sort of complex going on. And the next quote is another example of that:

 

This is patent nonsense but on and on you go thinking that you know best and exhibiting a desperate need to be agreed with.

 

What else is to explain this neediness other than some form of desperation to have people think that you're clever?

 

Your arguments keep straying from agnosticism and atheism into "you think you're more intelligent than me. You think you're an authority on it. I don't like that. I'll call you names to make myself feel more intelligent than you."

Edited January 29, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

You are proving my point quite well. Some more examples from you:

 

"Are you a complete moron?"

"Can you see how absolutely stupid that remark of yours is?"

"And you are still incapable of comprehending."

"I don't care what you think, I am convinced that you and your mates have a mental aberration"

"Obviously, you would need to be completely stupid to continue the debate..."

"you are so obsessed by your fascination with the subject that you mistakenly believe you are an authority on"

"I ignored this post originally as being too daft to bother with."

"As it's the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time"

"You, and only you, are right. Go ahead oh delusional one, fire away."

"I know this is hard for you to grasp, constrained as you are by limited thinking.."

"And you are a simpleton but that does not come as any surprise."

"You are an idiot if you continue to hold to that view but then again it does not surprise me."

 

Nobody else is behaving that way except for you.

 

 

 

We discuss it because we don't agree with your views on agnosticism and atheism. And even though we disagree, we aren't insulting your intelligence - or thinking we are more intelligent than you. But you keep making other peoples intelligence an issue - making it obvious you have some sort of complex going on. And the next quote is another example of that:

 

 

 

Your arguments keep straying from agnosticism and atheism into "you think you're more intelligent than me. You think you're an authority on it. I don't like that. I'll call you names to make myself feel more intelligent than you."

 

So you took the trouble to search all that out? Your obsession is frightening.

 

every single one of those remarks was earned by a blinkered ignorant inability to accept reality, and also my enjoyment at being able to precisely describe people who are apparently besotted with descriptions.

 

Now, what do you have to say about these links backing up my contention that my description of myself as an Agnostic pure and simple was correct from the beginning, and you and your equally obsessed mates haven't a clue?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAgnosticism&ei=yzjKVNXZPKOC7gaq24GoBA&usg=AFQjCNGShXnvStu94C3ftDHENuiHbMCRLQ&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

First description under variations of agnosticism

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGoQ1ScwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Flife%2Fthe_spectator%2F2010%2F06%2Fan_agnostic_manifesto.html&ei=XD7KVOmkDqiy7QbNm4CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGx2ZrE_KiW4deRZfNh4_FMtFjDww&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Don't try to deviate, what is your explanation for the fact that these separate sources both back up my original point and that all the nonsense spouted by you and your mates was exactly that, nonsense?

Edited January 29, 2015 by mjw47

[SnailyBoy]

I think WLC is a very good apologist- whose arguments have not successfully been debunked.

 

Since you brought up Hitchins, you can enjoy this over a cup of tea..

 

 

Lol, seriously?

 

His arguments are full of presuppositions.

Edited January 29, 2015 by SnailyBoy