Replies

"Didn't take you long to descend to the "Neener Neener Neener" level (or, more accurately, it didn't take you long to make it obvious that you have been arguing on that level)."

Let me get this straight. You say something puerile like "game, set, match" and then you accuse me of, what do you call it, "neener, neener, neener"?

On your second post from scripture; there's all kinds of contradictory statements in scripture. That's why the Catholic Church has the Magisterium. But back to you.

Now I remember you. When I was debating with "Physicist" you dropped in to fart out some kind of non-argument and then bailed. Right after I asked you to establish and defend your own moral standards for the governance of a society. Apparently you couldn't hang with that--especially when big words like "determinism" got thrown around.

If you want to argue with me--you state YOUR case. You know mine. Otherwise we're done, chief.

Just so I can keep up, am I to understand that in your worldview, no government can act without a supernatural being? Call me crazy, but I think our government has been doing pretty well for 200 years without constant guidance from the Big Guy. W's and Ashcroft's pithy christianity aside, our governance is (and should be) devoid of any christian rhetoric. Oh, but wait, you're looking for MORAL governance. Geeze, and I thought we Freepers were looking for LESS government...and now you suggest the government plays mommy a little bit more. Hmmmm... not confidant in your own parenting skills there, HV? The day our govt tries to tell me what morals I should follow, is the day dump the NRA for the GOA.

but perhaps my "farting around" has missed your point...

On your second post from scripture; there's all kinds of contradictory statements in scripture. That's why the Catholic Church has the Magisterium.

What ever does this have to do with the fact that I have posted a counterexample, and others have posted other counterexamples, to your claim that communism is necessarily atheistic? (There is also the other problem that, even if your claim were true, "all A are B" does not imply "all B are A".)

Care to 'fess up that you goofed on this point?