“
Abandon the truth? Renounce exposing nonsense?”
Your brazen pretentiousness is not surprising. Goebbels would be proud of you.
“I've seen nothing remotely resembling your description here.”
To “see,” one must look. To quote our FRiend, Boop; “. . . the use of ad hominum attack is a diversionary tactic designed to conceal the paucity of actual understanding of the issues in dispute, or of any good-faith willingness to engage them at all.”
Hands over eyes! Don't look!
“LOL, it would now seem that if we understand metaphysics, we can accept that donkeys can talk, snakes can charm and humans can stay alive inside fishes”
“Indeed, and that diseases are cured by casting out evil spirits...(by those who have been given special powers)! I wonder what evil spirit causes the flu...? :)”
the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and Zeus make an excellent argument against the existence of God.
Scholars that believe the Bible are “biased fundies” but those who don’t believe the Bible are “honest” and doing “accepted scholarship.”
"If Adam was the perfect creation of the perfect Creator, why did he fall?
“I have led a more Godly life in my Agnosticism than you have in your Bible-thumping one.”
“the cult may demand your membership card back.”
“Are we damned? Unloved? Doesn't it sound a bit cultish (in the insane way, not the nice way) to say that”
“Did God imbue us with rational minds just to waste them?
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine,” and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“Let's be honest and admit that not even the most religious—save for a handful of nutjobs—seek to be "healed" by having “demons” chased out of their bodies. :)”
“I believe unicorn farts smell like gardenias - prove that they don’t.”
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine”, and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“The difference is that I am not obligated to believe fantastic tales and you may be, by virtue of the religion you profess, even if your reason may tell you otherwise. I am free.”
“Coming from a source whose very name is a fraud.”
“If you type louder, will it become true?”
“Culthood is not the glamorous life that you may think it is. I strongly suggest that you abandon any plans that you may have to join the Hare Christians.”
“your post was a hazing ritual for cult membership!”
“In my experience, most people who hold nutty quasi-religious beliefs are way too whacked out to even consider studying science.”
“Don’t forget those evil ‘Geologists’ And them ‘Physicists.’ And don’t even get me started on them damned for all time ‘Astrophysicists’ and ‘Chemists.’”
“Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me I’m damned to hell?”
“Racism and Creationism have been frequent bedfellows.”
“a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders”
“To which ‘God’ do you refer? The name ‘God’ has been applied to numerous deity constructs, many of which are mutually exclusive.”
“Perhaps the intelligent designer [God] is a really late term abortionist.”
“Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation.”
“Can you say American Taliban?”
“all your great billowing clouds of smoke strongly suggests you are confused and in doubt on this subject . . . ”
You are not speaking a truth; only expressing your fondest hope. Again, why do you continue to tell me something you know I know?
By the way, quit stealing my lines; go find your own. LOL!
YAHOS: "These “fans” mock Christians with sneering references to “Demonic” possession and accusations of the adoption of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition."
Your word "fans" here refers to your post #81, regarding Richard Dawkins, where you challenge: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR..".
When I responded that I'd never seen such fans, you shape-shift to saying: "these 'fans' mock Christians..." and then produce a totally un-sourced listing of 27 alleged "mockings" of Christians.
Of course, I don't condone mocking Christians (or Christians pretending to feel "mocked" by normal conversations).
But none of your 27 quotes can be identified as a "fan" of Dawkins, only three refer to "demons", and none to the repetition of lies.
Furthermore, you never reveal what provoked each response, so we might reasonably assume there was a good deal of mocking going the other way as well.
Here's what I'd consider a traditionalist's "mocking" of science in general and evolution specifically, from the article above:
"After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit.
The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes."
I'd call that "mocking" as serious as anything YHAOS can copy and paste from previous Free Republic threads.
Indeed, its strident language fairly invites a, ahem, spirited response.
But you won't find that same level of vituperation being returned by non-traditionalists, because generally, that's not the kind of people we are, FRiends.