Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
I proved that you were wrong concering the freedom to propagate religion and what happened? You start going ad hominem on me. Is that your pride or what?
Its your pride that prevent you from seeing that articles 15 has never say banning evangelism is unlawful
you have never provided proof until now and still shamelessly insist on it
you are trolling you know
Originally posted by laurence82:
Its your pride that prevent you from seeing that articles 15 has never say banning evangelism is unlawfulyou have never provided proof until now and still shamelessly insist on it
you are trolling you know
laurence,
Unlike you that base your argument from silence and what the court has yet to do, I am basing my argument from what the Constitution says.
And yes, name-calling tactic again when you can't defend your case. Classic ad hominem tactic.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
Unlike you that base your argument from silence and what the court has yet to do, I am basing my argument from what the Constitution says.
And yes, name-calling tactic again when you can't defend your case. Classic ad hominem tactic.
u are pulling my legs right
one moment u say the law is silent one moment you claim this is what the constituition say
u are trolling arent u?
Originally posted by laurence82:u are pulling my legs right
one moment u say the law is silent one moment you claim this is what the constituition say
u are trolling arent u?
Are you playing daft?
You can read English? Please tell us in simple layman English what Article 15(1) says. I can't believe it has to come down to this. We are now going back to day 1!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Are you playing daft?
You can read English? Please tell us in simple layman English what Article 15(1) says. I can't believe it has to come down to this. We are now going back to day 1!
If you want to revisit, dont be lazy and ask people to quote
In any case, you have not proved that Constitution says banning evangeism is unlawful
Originally posted by laurence82:
If you want to revisit, dont be lazy and ask people to quoteIn any case, you have not proved that Constitution says banning evangeism is unlawful
This is getting boring. *Yawn*
For the thousandth time, the Consitution provides for the freedom to propagate religion. That's all that needs to be said as far as I am concerned. I don't have to prove that the Constitution did not say that banning evangelism is unlawful. It's a common sense thing if you have even studied any law at all. To disallow what the Constitition permits is unconstitutional and unlawful. If we take this matter to court today I will win hands down. You can bet on that. All I need to prove is that evangelism per se is a freedom protected by the Law. And that I have done. Thank you very much.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:This is getting boring. *Yawn*
For the thousandth time, the Consitution provides for the freedom to propagate religion. That's all that needs to be said as far as I am concerned. I don't have to prove that the Constitution did not say that banning evangelism is unlawful. It's a common sense thing if you have even studied any law at all. To disallow what the Constitition permits is unconstitutional and unlawful. If we take this matter to court today I will win hands down. You can bet on that. All I need to prove is that evangelism per se is a freedom protected by the Law. And that I have done. Thank you very much.
Thanks for agreeing that the
Originally posted by laurence82:
Thanks for agreeing that the
- Constitution did not state that banning evangelism is unlawful
- Courts and Parliaments are venue of the rightful process to define anything in the laws
- You are a troll
Putting words in people's mouth and name-calling eh? Well done dude, well done. I'm glad we had this bout of exchanges, really show the true colours of how some atheists can go about things. Oh, and I bet in the next five posts you will say something nonsensical and ad hominem.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Putting words in people's mouth and name-calling eh? Well done dude, well done. I'm glad we had this bout of exchanges, really show the true colours of how some atheists can go about things. Oh, and I bet in the next five posts you will say something nonsensical and ad hominem.
i am not
u just did all these
i have to appreciate and applaud u for doing so
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
You are ridiculous. You have NO issue with Christian sources but you take issue with me quoting from Christian sources?
I do check myself on what I say. Question is, do you?
BIC
Are you
1. Intentionally not reading
OR
2. Really so bad in reading?
"I dont have issues with christian sources. My issue with you is - YOU QUOTE FROM MOSTLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES, or your sources are OVERWHELMINGLY christian.
I would have issues with an atheist who quotes only from "atheist books" or a muslim quoting from mostly muslim sources too."
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Are you
1. Intentionally not reading
OR
2. Really so bad in reading?
"I dont have issues with christian sources. My issue with you is - YOU QUOTE FROM MOSTLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES, or your sources are OVERWHELMINGLY christian.
I would have issues with an atheist who quotes only from "atheist books" or a muslim quoting from mostly muslim sources too."
Tcmc,
The same argument applies. There is nothing wrong with quoting from atheistic sources or Muslim sources predominantly. It's IRRELEVANT to the merits of the argument itself. If the argument is valid and logical, then so what if it is Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? Beware the genetic fallacy. You keep falling into that.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
The same argument applies. There is nothing wrong with quoting from atheistic sources or Muslim sources predominantly. It's IRRELEVANT to the merits of the argument itself. If the argument is valid and logical, then so what if it is Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? Beware the genetic fallacy. You keep falling into that.
Lol.
Your way of "sourcing objectively" is indeed very strange and unheard of.
I am sure you have not attened tertiary educational institutions or done a research paper. QUite sure. If you had, then you mustbe lying here about your method of sourcing here.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Lol.
Your way of "sourcing objectively" is indeed very strange and unheard of.
I am sure you have not attened tertiary educational institutions or done a research paper. QUite sure. If you had, then you mustbe lying here about your method of sourcing here.
Until now you still have not responded to those two articles that refute your charge of Christians using the Bible to prove the Bible. When are you going to get down to doing that instead of complaining that they are written by Christians?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Until now you still have not responded to those two articles that refute your charge of Christians using the Bible to prove the Bible. When are you going to get down to doing that instead of complaining that they are written by Christians?
I have refutted and responded.
You refuse to either read them or acknowledge them. You can click back and read again.
Again i say, your way of sourcing is very strange and will fail all standards academically speaking
Originally posted by Tcmc:I have refutted and responded.
You refuse to either read them or acknowledge them. You can click back and read again.
Again i say, your way of sourcing is very strange and will fail all standards academically speaking
Originally posted by Tcmc:I have refutted and responded.
You refuse to either read them or acknowledge them. You can click back and read again.
Again i say, your way of sourcing is very strange and will fail all standards academically speaking
yes dun bother expecting him to reply to your questions, because he wont. this is called deflecting questions and then divert you to his questions and answers instead. this is called deflect and divert strategies. he only reply to what he wants to reply, same with reading.
Originally posted by Rooney_07:yes dun bother expecting him to reply to your questions, because he wont. this is called deflecting questions and then divert you to his questions and answers instead. this is called deflect and divert strategies. he only reply to what he wants to reply, same with reading.
Rooney,
It seems like he has not been to a polytechnic, university or tertiary institution because he thinks that sourcing all his sources from christian sources is a correct method.
We all know that to have an objective study or research, we need to source from different sources.
Yet this BIC insists that when he uses only religious sources, he's correct.
He's either being VERY prideful to refuse to admit his mistake or he's EXTREMELY ignorant of the sourcing method.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Rooney,
It seems like he has not been to a polytechnic, university or tertiary institution because he thinks that sourcing all his sources from christian sources is a correct method.
We all know that to have an objective study or research, we need to source from different sources.
Yet this BIC insists that when he uses only religious sources, he's correct.
He's either being VERY prideful to refuse to admit his mistake or he's EXTREMELY ignorant of the sourcing method.
I am not surprised. thats the xtian mentality and attitudes anyway. they are unable or unwilling to accept new ideas and challenge existing paradigm.
i dont think he can debate academically on any of those subject looking at the mess when he tries to engage in constituitional issues
Originally posted by Tcmc:Rooney,
It seems like he has not been to a polytechnic, university or tertiary institution because he thinks that sourcing all his sources from christian sources is a correct method.
We all know that to have an objective study or research, we need to source from different sources.
Yet this BIC insists that when he uses only religious sources, he's correct.
He's either being VERY prideful to refuse to admit his mistake or he's EXTREMELY ignorant of the sourcing method.
Does it matter if there are Christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old ? ?
It does matter only if they go into a science forum and tell people that the earth is 6000 years old.
Does it matter if you guys think God is not real and that Christians are stupid and ignorant ?
Of cours it doesnt. But It matters only when you come into a christian forum and say that.
You guys .. just dont seem to get it. U guys have no sense of respect and just not humility.
Its like you can talk as much shit as u want about Christianity outside. But u guys just like to go into a church and say it. That is what u guys are doing. That is what u guys are showing to the world at large. That is what u guys are like.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Does it matter if there are Christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old ? ?
It does matter only if they go into a science forum and tell people that the earth is 6000 years old.
Does it matter if you guys think God is not real and that Christians are stupid and ignorant ?
Of cours it doesnt. But It matters only when you come into a christian forum and say that.
You guys .. just dont seem to get it. U guys have no sense of respect and just not humility.
Its like you can talk as much shit as u want about Christianity outside. But u guys just like to go into a church and say it. That is what u guys are doing. That is what u guys are showing to the world at large. That is what u guys are like.
BadMaroz
It matters if some christians (not all christians believe in the 6000 year old thing) believe that the earth is 6000 years old because some of these christians are parents, teachers etc.
They would be passing the wrong information to their kids and students. Having a religion is fine and sometimes even good, but teaching misinformation like this is just wrong.
The age of the earth is well proven by the strict process of radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is also used to date dead sea scrolls, christian relics and all other historical items.
So the only good thing to do is to inform the young earth creationists about the correct information and to stop dwelling in the error.
It is not because we are prideful. It is because we need to correct the error pertaining to the age of the earth.
So you guys agree that human created religions ? Even so, human created very useful things like the aircon, transport and lifts....something we depend on everyday....so what if religions are all human creation? We still can depend on them right?
Originally posted by Demon Bane:So you guys agree that human created religions ? Even so, human created very useful things like the aircon, transport and lifts....something we depend on everyday....so what if religions are all human creation? We still can depend on them right?
Demon Bane,
Yes indeed religions were created by humans. Even today, humans are still creating new religions.
I also agree that many humans (not all) depend on religion. Religion can be good.
But like any creation of mankind, it can be misused.