Preachers, Priests quitely embrace the Christ myth!!!

[tat tvam asi]

I don't know when her next public appearance is. But I do know this: your last post was about as odd a post as when you were obsessing about having me over to your house and / or meeting up when I said that I'd be working in Brevard for a month.

You remind me of the religious freak in the movie Contact!!!

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
So will you on the record as follows:

I, Frank013 find Sam Harris to be a forthright and moral person. I support the inflammatory statements Mr. Harris has made with respect to religion including that it would be preferable for it to be eliminated rather than rape.

Well first of all, as I said, they do not speak for me… but before I take a stance on the issue I would need to see the numbers of how many people were and are harmed by rape vs. religion… on the surface it looks like religion hurts more people… 1.3 million people died of aids in 2005 in large part because of religious avoidance of contraceptives in Africa, with another 262,000 in east Africa alone in 2009. That does not even begin to speak to the other willful atrocities throughout history.

Mythical thinking also adds to rape with a common (yet unfounded) belief in Africa being that if you have sex with a virgin that it will cure aids…

A survey in East London, South Africa, by the University of South Africa found that 18% of 498 workers believed that sex with a virgin could cure AIDS (South Africa: Virgins, victims..., 2002). In Gauteng, 32% of those interviewed believed this myth.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/444213

Rape is bad enough, but religion is adding to the numbers… causing more rape!

if these numbers hold up... yes I would sign off on that.

[stahrwe]

I don't know when her next public appearance is. But I do know this: your last post was about as odd a post as when you were obsessing about having me over to your house and / or meeting up when I said that I'd be working in Brevard for a month.

You remind me of the religious freak in the movie Contact!!!

Never saw the movie.
My invitation was intended to be hospitable and I believe you agreed to meet.
Nice try at diversion. For purpses of instruction note that Tat answered my question and immediately diverted attention to a more emotionally charged statement which carried an implication about my emotional state. Well done, bravo. In fact, the former has nothing to do with the latter. I suspect Murdock never ventures anywhere she might encounter someone with an intelligent question.

So, we see that the premise behind this thread is bogus as the object of the anonymous adoration hides.

[Interbane]

You can Rationalize all you want but avoidance always smacks of cowardice whether your a political candidate refusing to debate or a hack with a theory and a profitable publishing business.

The nuances that you refuse to examine aren't rationalizations. They are valid reasons. The reasons central to whether or not such a public debate is a good thing. The reasons have persuaded me, so that I'm a hypocrite. I understand why it's useless to continue to respond to you, but I can't help seeing what mental gymnastics you perform next. It's intriguing to me, watching you within your internally consistent worldview, weave together or dismiss through faith various problems that arise. To others, it's maddening. But I keep doing it all the same. So even though it's perfectly reasonable to stop responding to you, I continue. When rationalizing, you find evidence or reasoning to support your beliefs, rather than accepting evidence that changes your beliefs. My beliefs have been changed, but my actions lag behind.

The nuances that you refuse to examine, by using such fuzzy phrases as "smacks of cowardice", shows that you've already dismissed any argument that might arise. The details don't matter, because you have faith you're correct. It may be a different use of the word faith than you're used to. What I mean is, simple conviction that you're correct, in spite of whatever words you read to the contrary. Is the devil in the details Stahrwe? Do you believe that literally, or do you see it from the perspective of Murphy's Law?

[stahrwe]

You can Rationalize all you want but avoidance always smacks of cowardice whether your a political candidate refusing to debate or a hack with a theory and a profitable publishing business.

The nuances that you refuse to examine aren't rationalizations. They are valid reasons. The reasons central to whether or not such a public debate is a good thing. The reasons have persuaded me, so that I'm a hypocrite. I understand why it's useless to continue to respond to you, but I can't help seeing what mental gymnastics you perform next. It's intriguing to me, watching you within your internally consistent worldview, weave together or dismiss through faith various problems that arise. To others, it's maddening. But I keep doing it all the same. So even though it's perfectly reasonable to stop responding to you, I continue. When rationalizing, you find evidence or reasoning to support your beliefs, rather than accepting evidence that changes your beliefs. My beliefs have been changed, but my actions lag behind.

The nuances that you refuse to examine, by using such fuzzy phrases as "smacks of cowardice", shows that you've already dismissed any argument that might arise. The details don't matter, because you have faith you're correct. It may be a different use of the word faith than you're used to. What I mean is, simple conviction that you're correct, in spite of whatever words you read to the contrary. Is the devil in the details Stahrwe? Do you believe that literally, or do you see it from the perspective of Murphy's Law?

Your invocation of Murphy's law seems inappropriate in this application. Do you know what Murphy's law is about?

As for nuances of cowardice that seems odd in association the the title of this thread (type-o and all). If I were Murdock and had the contacts she claims, I would be beating the bushes for converts.

Have you ever heard of the lost continent of Mu?

[Interbane]

Your invocation of Murphy's law seems inappropriate in this application. Do you know what Murphy's law is about?

The reference is an association, just to disambiguate how you define the concept "the devil's in the details." If you don't pay attention to detail, the job will become very hard. It is closely related to "if something can go wrong, it will". When something goes wrong, it's usually because you've overlooked a detail.

The loose association means nothing, it's merely a stepping stone. So is that what you think it means, or does some part of you think that digging into the details can obscure your vision and lead you astray, thus is the province of the devil?

[Interbane]

Details are very important, that is why I find the approach of many at BT so odd. For example, ignoring the Bible.

The bible is detailed wording. If the details of how our universe works doesn't match up, I'm not going to read the bible in greater detail in an attempt to rationalize the words. A true example of missing attention to detail is overlooking the calendar gaffe with your "prophecy". The error is right there for you to see, you simply have to pay attention to the details rather than swallowing whole what you've read online.

Another example of lack of attention to detail is to say my position "smacks of cowardice". Do you think Dawkin's should go to debates for the sake of not appearing cowardly? No, that's not what you think, because you don't care about his reputation. It's a barb, a manipulative ploy in an attempt to score debate points by claiming the intellectual high ground. But that's a high ground you've never had, because your beliefs aren't anchored in the real world, they're anchored in a book. If you're incorrigible, then there is no reason to exchange words with you. Especially if what you believe has already been shown wrong. These details are critical reasons, but you just love to gloss over them in hopes that you'll "appear" to be correct.

[tat tvam asi]

I don't know when her next public appearance is. But I do know this: your last post was about as odd a post as when you were obsessing about having me over to your house and / or meeting up when I said that I'd be working in Brevard for a month.

You remind me of the religious freak in the movie Contact!!!

Never saw the movie.
My invitation was intended to be hospitable and I believe you agreed to meet.
Nice try at diversion. For purpses of instruction note that Tat answered my question and immediately diverted attention to a more emotionally charged statement which carried an implication about my emotional state. Well done, bravo. In fact, the former has nothing to do with the latter. I suspect Murdock never ventures anywhere she might encounter someone with an intelligent question.

So, we see that the premise behind this thread is bogus as the object of the anonymous adoration hides.

Strawbe, Strawbe, Strawbe, where to begin???

There's no diversion here. You asked when her next public appearance is and I don't know. I told you that I don't know. I told everyone in the world who may ever read this thread that as of right now I just don't know the answer to that question. Done. Finished. No diversion.

Now, moving on from what I don't know to what I do know in response to the last post you made to me, I know that you were acting pretty obsessed about seeing me in person. I discussed in private with several BT members as a matter of fact and they too agreed that it was sort of odd. And you're doing it right now again with respect to trying to see Murdock in person. You know that she was stocked by a prison inmate (born again Christian) and it lead to an episode involving her child being taken don't you? The amount of hate mail she receives full of threats from Christians does out number the few preachers and priests which have congradulated her. But she keeps on keeping on all the same! She's precisely like your vision of the old Christian martyrs. She won't be shut up no matter how many threats she receives from Christians, Jews, and Muslems. She's standing tall in all of this and continually producing more and more works.

You know what I think Stahrwe? You're the sissy in this equation! You're a member of her forum and yet you haven't gathered the balls to so much as make one post. Good job coward! You'd rather stand back and taunt her - not to her face, not to her - to others people from afar making unrealistic demands for her to fly across the country to your church in Florida so you can confront her at that point. Nice try sissy!!! Why don't you grow a pair, post to her on the forum making these demands or requests, and I'll make sure that your post gets answered.

As for people asking intelligent questions, I just provided a link to her entire media coverage - lectures, Q&A sessions, and all. She's never run away or avoided any questions that I know of. And you've proven yourself far less than intelligent to begin with Stahrwe, over and over and time and time again on the BT forums. What gives you the impression that you're even capable of coming up with an intelligent question in the first place?

[stahrwe]

You guys were the ones who suggested that Murdock's minions should go into pulpits. I am merely suggesting taking it to the next level.

As far as being obsessed with a topic it is the militant atheists who are obsessed with Christianity.

You think far too highly of yourself.

The rest of your rant it is a tour de force of 'D'. In fact, it is D squared as it is not only Diversion but also designed to put me on the Defensive. It should be taught in atheist forums as to how to do it, but aside from that it does not rate a response.

[tat tvam asi]

You're pink Stahrwe, bottom line!!!

You're afraid to enter the domain of Murdock's forums. And I'm calling you out on it right here and now. You're BS about getting her to your local church is in fact a diversion away from you simply posting to her on her forums, or dropping her an email.