Reply With Quote
translation
I'll ignore all the name calling and bull I bring. Maybe nobody will notice.
The logical fallacy concept is too much for your caveman brain to handle, Flintstone.
translation
I'll ignore all the name calling and bull I bring. Maybe nobody will notice.
Since marriage is a religious endeavor, there would be no marriages if religion never existed.
The fact is that religion does exist. Because it exists, the an hesis to it must also exist. Despite religion's head start, the trend is toward secularism. It won't penetrate into the minds of today's older religious folk, but they will die and their kids will be atheists.
Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
The fact us humans want more in our life than just a cold box in the ground, is too much for your pee brain to grasp, idiot!
translation
Maybe if I shuck n' jive nobody will notice my....
Religion isn't a fringe concept, it's pervasive in society and those of us who know it's bull aren't inclined to play along or turn a blind eye, we aren't required to.
So you and your stupid ass god belief.
Debatable
Argument from Consequences: The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry," or "Doctor, that's wrong! I can't have cancer, because if I did that'd mean that I won't live to see my kids get married!")
Appeal to Pity: (also "Argumentum ad Miserecordiam"). The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. See also Playing to Emotions.
translation
Good, nobody is noticing I'm the one who runs everyone down and talks . I'm almost as good as Avante.
But you don't believe in anything except that there's just "something out there".
You don't have anything more in your life than I do.
Not really. Marriage wasn't a legal doctrine before it was a religious one. You can say it's debatable that there would be no marriage today if religion never existed, but since marriage is a religious endeavor, you have your work cut out for you. The early folk didn't separate religion from society or law. Their law and society was religion, in all of it. That being the case, marriage itself was also religion.
A lot of people notice your name calling and bull while avoiding the topic.
That's why he pointed out your ad hominem
Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
Are you referring to America only?
Blake, you've said a ton TON of stupid but to say I have no more than you do is the dumbest yet. First off we've been happily (thrilled!) married for over 30 years. Trust me slick you can]t grasp that concept. I have grandkids who believe and enjoying Easter with them is something I look forward to.
You are a smartass little punk Blake hiding behind a computer seeing who you can bother, trust me ya dumb I have it far far better than that. I do know how to make a woman happy.
Ok, you have nothing an atheist can't or doesn't have.
Name one thing.
No of course not. You cannot pick a convenient point along the way and say "if there was no religion after this point...".
The marriage term is relatively new, 800 years or so. I doubt you could go back 800 years and find a secular society or any society that practiced religion as a choice. It was part of their being, so if they got hitched it was a religious thing. It started off that way. There might be an animalistic claim to a mate, but that's not marriage.
This is why I say the world is becoming secular. As ignorance of science diminishes, secularism increases. That's cause and effect and it means something. Like Origin of Species, secularism won't be accepted for maybe generations, not as a whole in society, but it's what's true and it will remain and grow.
translation
As you all can see I'm in my usual stupid mood today. Avante brings out the best in me.
Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
Argument from Consequences: The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry," or "Doctor, that's wrong! I can't have cancer, because if I did that'd mean that I won't live to see my kids get married!")
Dude, 800 years?
How old is the ins ution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread ins ution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
Kids and grandchildren who believe in God.
Knowing this old world isn't all there is.
Not buying evolution or BIG BANG.
Celebrating Christmas for what it is.
Not hiding behind a computer trying to look stupid with....there is no God.
Working at the wifes church.
Saying grace before a meal.
Going to a baptisim
Listening to Gospel songs
What atheist knows about.....
Last edited by Avante; 04-02-2015 at 02:03 PM.
The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9...arriage-50901/How old is the ins ution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread ins ution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
Are you really dumb enought to think I thought I could (with my style) fool anyone? Come on dummy, I assumed it was obvious what I was doing. How in the would I know or care about the origins of marriage
Dude, you are a moron!
Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes!"
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
