Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

SkyHigh

Members
  • Content Count

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About SkyHigh

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

600 profile views
  1. Geezs, you are so dishonest. I gave specific passages to support my claim, you tried to ignore them, by evoking the new testament by quoting jesus(golden rule), but you're so ignorant to your own holy book you don't even know that jesus was quoting Leviticus. Not to mention you still confuse Hawking and Dawkins(listening to an hour of a debate is a far cry from understanding their perspective) two men very different not only in there field of study, but also in their public personas and when yoy say things like the big bang was an explosion you just prove you know nothing about science. W
  2. 1. How some random people choose to express their atheism is of no consequence to me. Do you think these supposed pastors speak for an entire philosophy? Do you think these random people speak for atheism as a whole the same way the Pope speaks for Catholicism, or how the bishop of Canterbury speaks for the church of England, or better yet do you think the Pope speaks for all Christians? Of course not. 2. Nope, just the answer to one question, is there a god. You either believe there is one(theist) or you don't(A theist) 3. Dogma is defined(merriam webster) as 1a. Somthing held
  3. When you imply I'm somehow demonic or evil, the conversation is over. I'll leave you with some food for thought, you should really at least attempt to understand others perspectives and not simply those who agree with you. Ken ham, eric hovind, ray comfort, etc... are con artists. Try reading anything by Dr. Bart Ehrman, or maybe "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking, or "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins. At least then you won't sound so silly when you talk about people you've clearly never studied.
  4. With all due respect, your knowledge of the bible seems comparable to your understanding of science, wanting. So lets get specific. We could do this same exercise for many of the immoral actions of God in the bible, but lets stick with slavery. Please explain the love thy neighbor part of verses like Exodus 21 or Leviticus 25 and why a moral god wouldn't simply write thou shall not own people as property? Again, the real question is why do we care what the bible says at all? I have read multiple versions of the bible (en deux langues, I was raised by a french Catholic mot
  5. Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the answer to one specific question. Atheists have no dogmas, no rules to follow, no supernatural deities, no sanctified places, no prophecies, no ethical guidelines, no necessary organization, and I could go on.
  6. Even though definitions have nothing to do with country of origin here you go. Capitalism: the ability to create capital through privately owned industry based on individual intellectual property. Socialism: means of production controled by government, but still compatible with democracy and personal liberty. I.e property rights Communism: complete control of the economy including all property, and requires revolutionary acts. Now for definitions of more complex political or economic systems, country of origin can be important. I.e. mixed economy or social democracy, how w
  7. First off, when you say things like "the slime in a pond" or that the Big Bang was an "explosion", you're just showing you ignorance of the scientific method, and to what science actually advocats (even putting aside the fact you confused Steven Hawkins with Richard Dawkins) When it comes to morals, secular humanity is by far a better system, the "God" of the bible is an immoral thug that condones slavery, rape and genocide. Finally the bible, why would an ancient book conceived by ignorant bronze age farmers, that contains numerous historical and scientific errors be a reliable ref
  8. Not "nitpicking" at all This is the same issue ive been trying to adress since being chastised for a response i gave, in which no explanation was given If you feel moderating based on your own personal political view point is acceptable that is your prerogative. I on the other hand take offense when a "moderator" not only decides what he considers relevant to the discussion, but purposefully creates a new "tread" intentionally choosing words ( i say intentionally because i don't question his intelligence or command of language) to disparage not only my comment but an entire peo
  9. Oh, so you do speak french. This is again the perfect example of how this forum, and you specifically are ridiculous partisan hacks You have a problem with people using abbreviations because they may be politically charged, yet see no problem using "récit" to describe a flourishing people's and nation. You and this "political forum" are a joke
  10. Not close enough? I was responding to someone who's whole shtick is the supremacy of the British Empire, who then envoked Nova Scotia ( you might not be aware, but the Acadian people were deported by the British from Nova Scotia) How is that not germain to the topic? The crux of my point (that you didn't touch on) was the use of them term "récit". Again either you speak french and deliberately chose a dismissive word to undercut a founding nation of Canada, or you don't speak french and couldn't be bothered to do anything more than a Google search, indirectly dismissing an ent
  11. First off, I must thank you, it's always satisfying when my assumptions are confirmed by the relevant parties themselves, and by using your attempt to appease those whom you support ( i.e. Argus or Dougie) when their ridiculous, ignorant rantings are challenged by "creating" a completely new thread indirectly(at best) accusing (me in this case) of "thread high-jacking" Ridiculous, and here's why. First, in a thread call somthing like "was canada better before" ( im paraphrasing, but thats close enough) the statement was made that Nova Scotia or Nova scotianers was or were great pre confederati
  12. Im sure I'll get "reprimanded" for speaking out of turn again, and im sure you won't even acknowledge this response, but i grow more and more tired of the lack of productive discourse of this forum anyway. So here goes How is asking what he means by "Nova Scotia traditions" by inquiring about the deportation of the first "nation" to settle in Canada. Particularly when he is defending a British interpretation of said history that the Queen herself apologized for? Or is the truth you now have a personal bias against me and will interject when you feel im one upping someone you agree w
  13. Much like you'd need to already be a sociopath for violence in music or video games to trigger something, seeing two dudes kiss has never caused me to question my love of boobs
×
×
  • Create New...