|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 10:43:41 GMT 10
What he's a fraud because he doesn't subscribe to your small minded atheist cliche? :rolleyes: No, he is a fraud for claiming to be an Agnostic. Agnosticism isn't necessarily a positive inclination toward atheism. And no position is absolutely neutral. Even if pim has a slight slant toward theism, that doesn't make him any less agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 10:57:26 GMT 10
" I'm not saying you quote the Bible as literal truth ... Occam's does that .
On the contrary, I'm only rigid on concepts foundational to Christianity. I can be more flexible on the early OT manuscripts, if offered a better explanation. For instance, the oldest book in the Bible is Job. I'm hard pressed to take it as literal truth, since the setting of the first chapter takes place in Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 10:58:13 GMT 10
Thanks Occam, and you're right. However I sense that the anathema has been pronounced. I regret that. I can get past it and move on. Not so sure that he can. I hope he proves me wrong ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 11:02:53 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 11:05:34 GMT 10
So your defence of the Ark fairy-tale and the Jonah in the whale fairy-tale for example were ... ? The question was asked, I responded. Whether it's literal or no, is not a core belief of my faith. It was slarti's question, and I indicated the response was inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 11:08:11 GMT 10
So your defence of the Ark fairy-tale and the Jonah in the whale fairy-tale for example were ... ? No idea. Remind me - do me a favour? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top? Don't respond by spamming the board with a shitload of c & p's. I'm not denying what you say. I just don't remember. A link would be ample. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 11:08:51 GMT 10
Oh I see,this is about Occam
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 11:15:05 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 13:29:57 GMT 10
One may be more pompous than the other, and one may be more honest about their true stance, but both of you are peddling the same bullshit. I think the expression might be "casting pearls before swine"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 14:06:34 GMT 10
Oops! Damn! That pearls before swine thing was another biblical reference! Matthew 7:6. Take it from an old agnostic, there's no escaping this stuff
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 14:53:47 GMT 10
Jeez Yorick you seem to be getting dyspeptic lately. Are you not OK?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 13, 2015 21:44:14 GMT 10
Wow, that bad huh? How did we get here? You appointed yourself arbiter of firstly the way I interact with slarti and secondly you've appointed yourself to the position of board "pope" who decides who is an atheist, who is an agnostic and who is a religious believer. Not comfortable with "theist" so I try to avoid using the word. Personal choice, nothing more.
Let’s start with slarti and Yorick I want you to play close attention. Bottom line? You're out of line! I've known slarti under a number of nics for many years now. Ich weiß, zum Beispiel, dass er sehr gut Deutsch versteht und wir haben uns mehrmals auf Deutsch unterhalten. Now I know Yorick, that you could only decipher that last sentence with translation software but slarti would understand it very well without any assistance. Don't worry, it's not about you and it isn't rude or insulting. I don't have any issues with slarti, I have always enjoyed excellent relations with slarti, I don't have to justify myself to you regarding slarti and I'm 150% certain that if slarti has any issues with me he could raise them with me directly. For you to arrogate to yourself the role of slarti's advocate is disrespectful - to slarti! You talk about pomposity, my friend with that glass house of yours you should be very careful about throwing stones. Back off where slarti is concerned. He really is more than capable of speaking for himself.
Turning to the board "pope" issue where you sit in splendour and pronounce "ex cathedra" on who is allowed to call himself an agnostic, I'd be more than happy to chew over my self-styled agnosticism in a more friendly way but you've decided to become very rude and arrogant. So I don't give two hoots what you think of my agnosticism. I'm happy to share points of view with Occam but there's the problem of board trolls and spammers who want to insult, belittle and basically disrespect belief systems that are sincerely held. It's a destructive agenda and it begs the question, given that it's always the same old boring paleo-atheist bullshit, why do you even bother with this board?
|
|