離教者之家 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: Religion 當談到"唬爛"時... [打印本頁]

作者: dior13dior13 時間: 2011/9/7 23:49 標題: Religion 當談到"唬爛"時...

本帖最後由 dior13dior13 於 2011/9/8 01:05 編輯

Religion 中文 George Carlin - Religion is bullshit
http://vlog.xuite.net/play/aGgzcmhLLTM2Mzg0MzgubXA0

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
[youtube]MeSSwKffj9o[/youtube]

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit 已故諧星George Carlin論宗教
http://hornydragon.blogspot.com/2011/05/george-carlin-religion-is-bullshit.html

George Carlin Loves Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKhPOkw7egk&feature=related
[youtube]eKhPOkw7egk&feature=related[/youtube]

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/11 10:15

George Carlin did a really good comedian job, mixing popular believes about christianity with his own humour. I do hope that dior is only putting this up for fun, however if he is gonna put this as evidences / suppliments for any useful argument, he is gonna get slaughtered all around.

Judging that he puts up an English show and understands the show, he should be able to read this.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/11 20:12

Judging that he puts up an English show and understands the show, he should be able to read this.
jimmychauck 發表於 2011/9/10 18:15

You guys always got an extra piece of fish.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/11 22:34

Term it as you like Sharmen, if you are interested in discussing the actual topic, speak, if you are not, simply stay away.

speaking in that context, I may term your reply as the extra piece of fish.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/12 00:39

回復 4# jimmychauck

Cool, together we almost make a miracle. Now, who can spare 5 loaves?

作者: dior13dior13 時間: 2011/9/13 01:02

我看不懂英文QQ

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/16 01:00

回復 6# dior13dior13

that's why I said he got an extra piece of fish.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/18 16:31

very easily, that extra piece of fish had its usage, now it showed that dior was merely posting things "in the name of 'christianity is bad'" without any in depth understanding. Now Sharman can grab your own piece of fish and go home, because my "so called fish" had been used and could no longer be considered extra.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/18 17:23

回復 8# jimmychauck

It is still in your hand. Dior didn't address Christianity. You did.
So what makes you think Christianity is bad?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/18 20:36

If you cannot derive that, out of all the major "religions", only the image of Christianity fits in what George Carlin describes as religion, and that Dior has a track record of defaming Christianity, and that this forum bears the domain "exchristian.hk", you are not at the level I should talk to, and don't pretend you are at a higher level than me.

If you are implying the Dior is not refering to Christianity, you say that his original is the extra piece of fish in this "Christianity Religion" forum.

Trying to mock people, at least get the fact straight.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/18 21:27

Christianity is not the only image fits in George's description. The Qu'ran has a story about that too.

I never heard there are some restrictions for exchristians talking about religion in this forum,.

Trying to make fish miracles, at least get the whole sight picture of religion.
And, btw, I don't have to pretend.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/18 22:07

In what part of quran did it mention there is a "loving God" a.k.a. Ala?

Buddah needed money for its temple, that didn't made him what George Carlin laughing at.

Simple finger printing didn't work for you?

Just admit you made a mistake, and stop pretending, or, shall I put it, let go of your own misunderstanding (that there may be a directional level different).

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/19 21:47

Having no reply from Sharman, I believe he had given up on arguing with me, or may be given up on me.

My main point was not trying to show that who is wrong and who is right here, I was just (unexpectedly) trying to show that how Dior processes some information without understanding and posting things here, and I hope he does not establish this as his track record in the future. As stated, I myself appreciates how George Carlin did a good job as a comedian, I myself laughed when he made some statements. Just that points of his is invalid in making structured argument against Christianity on an intellectual level.

Most of his arguments (or should I put, statements) was trying to put up paradoxes that requires sophisticated explanation to go through, however he stopped at an intuitive level and started making conjectures.

Twin paradox in general relativity was a paradox, wave-particle duality of light was a paradox. Nonetheless both of them became resolved and had since became corner stones for fileds of physics, and none of the solutions were intuitivem all are very sophisticated, and until today not much people dispute them.

The main paradoxies George tried to put up concerns predestination and suffering, all had very established explanation within Christianity context, George Carlin just failed to go through them.

All in All, statement remains

George Carlin did a really good comedian job, mixing popular believes about christianity with his own humour. I do hope that dior is only putting this up for fun, however if he is gonna put this as evidences / suppliments for any useful argument, he is gonna get slaughtered all around.

And I am surprised this thread actually protraited dior as what I stated earlier and had shown that Sharman is good at (only?) distinguishing extra pieces of fish and bringing discussion off topic.

If there shall be no more discussion concerning logic and facts, I shall remain silence again in this post.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/20 00:04

回復 12# jimmychauck

OK, you want some real christian paradoxes concerning logic and facts? I just happened to have a handy one for and from you. Enjoy:

statement #1
大家是成年人，都有工作甚至家庭，都明白時間有限的情況，進度慢一點的話請包涵。
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3382&extra=page%3D1&page=3

statement #2
Having no reply from Sharman, I believe he had given up on arguing with me, or may be given up on me.

statement #3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Just admit you made a mistake, and stop pretending

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving God of Qu'ran

2:222
they ask you about menstruation. say: 'it is an injury. stay away from women during their menstrual periods and do not approach them until they are cleansed. when they have cleansed themselves, then come to them from where allah has commanded you. allah loves those who turn to him in repentance and he loves those who cleanse themselves.

3,:31-32
“Say: if you love Allah, then follow me,Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is forgiving, merciful”

3:159
it was by that mercy of allah that you (prophet muhammad) dealt so leniently with them. had you been harsh and hardhearted, they would have surely deserted you. therefore, pardon them and ask forgiveness for them. take counsel with them in the matter and when you are resolved, put your trust in allah. allah loves those who trust.

5:42
they are listeners to lies and devourers of the unlawful. if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them. if you avoid them they cannot harm you in anything; but if you judge, judge between them with fairness. allah loves the just

61:4
Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to put up some more, but as you said "明白時間有限的情況". I hope this time you can behold the beam.

-----
P.S. just in case you'll ask, Jesus in the Qu'ran:
Ch 61:6
and when jesus, the son of mary said: 'children of israel, i am sent to you by allah to confirm the torah that was before me, and to give news of a messenger (prophet muhammad) who will come after me whose name shall be ahmad. ' yet when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: 'this is clear sorcery.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/20 08:23

本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2011/9/20 08:26 編輯

The statement was just an opening guess, if you have time, fine, may be I was the one who was out of patient, good that you have time. Amd I did not refer to anything about time constraint, I was wildly guessing your willingness to continue discussion.

I will let you have that Ala is loving, so what? does that make Muslim what George Carlin was laughing for? Did Muslim had "Bible"? Did Ala "Made human in his own image"? does Ala has person? Main point is finger printing, fit George's list into Ala and then you can prove your point. I might be wrong to assume that "There was no mention in Quran that Ala is loving", but nonetheless "Christianity talks more about a loving God then Muslim" and stop stupid rebutal against that statement by using things like "oh yeah? how about God killing this, that? burnt that to death? Oh, very loving."

And stop trying to bring discussion off topic, and pin to the point.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/20 08:41

回復 15# jimmychauck

Hey Jim, are you idiot or what? ---- this is an open guess so you'll take it alright ? Good!

Why are you so eager to fit Christianity into George's stupid religion?

More doesn't make you unique.

What did Allah create? For a brief outline, read this:
http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/muslim_creation.htm

If you are hungry for details, it is not difficult to do some research for you, but you won't ask other people to do your homework, right" So, for Allah's sake, read the Holy Qur'an yourself.http://quran.com/
So what? In view of the fact that You don't seem to have a good knowledge about religion, if you can get the wrong idea about the loving God in the Qur'an, how can you so sure you can have the rest of your "does"s right before you finish the journey to Makkah?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/21 01:25

本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2011/9/21 01:28 編輯

Good.

Talk to the audience and tell them that you think George Carlin could be talking about Muslim as well.
I am fitting the "image" in, not "it" in, as I have told you, trying to show you that you do not have the ability to correctly interpret what others are saying, that you actually think George could be addressing anything but Chrsitianity, and Dior did post this thread in the "the religion of Christianity" board of the "Exchristian" forum, not because of that reason.

Lets bring back that some Chinese，司馬昭之心，and may be you are not a pedestrian so you didn't get it. Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity.

It wasn't about the uniqueness of the religion itself, it was that George was uniquely talking about Christianity, thats why finger printing worked. This time, the quote is: "trying to put down some argument, use clear and concise logic."

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/21 01:47

What finger print? I didn't hear one audience say George could not be laughing at the Mid-east friends.
It doesn't have to be Christianity in this board.
http://exchristian.hk/forum/view ... 7772&extra=page%3D3
Lets bring back that some Chinese，誤中副車

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/21 01:56

However, there is one thing I don't understand. He did say "most prayers happened on Sunday." this benefits you a lot, why don't you use it?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/21 03:04

I didn't say it had to be only Christianity in this board, I said he intend to be laughing at Christianity, as I have reasoned, disprove that reasoning when you can.

And as mentioned, what I have pointed out is already enough, you can keep your opinion that George is laughing at middle east Muslim, that just shows your level of reasoning ability. And enough of this discussion if you would agree with my reasoning.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/21 03:29

So you agree it can be a religion other than christianity in this board now? You didn't prove it can only be christianity, yet. So how can I disprove something you didn't prove?

I don't agree with your reasoning. Prove he intend to be laughing at Christianity please.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/21 14:13

The reasoning had already been blatently written

Dior intend to be laughing at Christianity

only the image of Christianity fits in what George Carlin describes as religion

Dior did post this thread in the "the religion of Christianity" board of the "Exchristian" forum

Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

Agree with that, or don't, and hence show others your reasoning ability.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/21 15:03

Not only the image of Christianity fits in what George Carlin describes as religion.

There are some other threads regarding religions other than christianity posted in "the religion of Christianity" board of the "Exchristian" forum.

Mr. Plaintiff, you file the lawsuit in the high court ASAP, but you are suing whom?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/21 18:58

fine, you stated, there are some other, name them.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/22 00:05

回復 24# jimmychauck

The legal process has begun, we cannot talk about it outside the court. I'll wait for the court order. See what date they arrange for the first trial. Hopefully it comes soon, I have a vacation plan this xmas.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/22 00:25

Avoid providing the reaosn or any queried information with whatever excuse you want, it just shows how good you are at certain areas.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/22 02:05

回復 26# jimmychauck

You are good at setting up black-hearted Christian tricks and I am good at discovering them. Why you want me in jail so bad?

If you are hungry to discuss it here why you ask for a lawsuit in the first place? I wish I can go on in this board as much as you do, but it is you who asked for a court verdict. I don't want to put both of us in trouble. They will lay charge for "Perverting the course of justice". Have You ever heard of it? Ask you lawyer if you haven't.
Now all I can do is to ensure you can have all answers in the court room. The sooner the trial starts, the sooner we can talk about this again. If you are that impetuous, urge the court office to set out a date for us.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/22 08:10

so you are using 1 statement in my reasoning

Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

which simply asks you to make a verdict yourself (because when you go to a court, they always arrive at a verdict), and now blaming me for blackheart waste your time itimidate you bla bla bla.

And until now decline to provide any decent argument.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/22 14:16

回復 28# jimmychauck

What are you complaining? I wanted to resolve it here even more than you do, but it is you who leaded this dispute to this situation. We do not have the authority to make a verdict.
I am not declining, I am well prepared to provide the court everything they ask.
I am a good citizen. If you want to talk about it outside the court please get a amnesty from the higher authority. Otherwise wait for the trial.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/22 18:46

You very much fail to show us you have the ability to understand that the when statment

Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

exists within a reasoning context, it is retorically asking you to justify your opposite idea.

Then we conclude the discussion above.
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/23 07:02

回復 30# jimmychauck

It shows you do not want to discuss here. You know when it goes to the court it is out of our hands, but you still chose to do it this way. What are you afraid of?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/23 08:43

wahahaha,

I have not followed your principle of "case is in legal process, cannot speak outside of course" and provided, restated, interpreted my reasoning in this board. Asking you to do the same, provide your reasoning here, information here, for discussion, you say it is in the courts hand, you cannot disclose anything.
Now you are accusing me of not wanting to discuss here, because "I" brought this case to the court? Your logic is just absolutely screwed.

Fine, I now commit criminal contempt, I will discuss the case here, outside of the "court" (as if it exists, dah..), as the case is in "legal process". Get the court to charge me when you like, or provide information to it, that I am talking about the case outside the "court".

So, I shall remain triumph here, since you decline to provide arguements or dicuss here, until the "any court" makes a verdict (and of course, there is still a 50% chance the verdict is to my favour), and in the "court", you will provide statements to the "judges" (dah, like they exists), and "they" shall tell you the verdict.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/23 12:12

You requested to brought this case to the court. not me, right?

You want to commit criminal contempt, but I don't. We are adults and both have a family and job.You can discuss it here solely if you wanted to but, as a friend I really don't want you to get into trouble. There are already too many priests in jail. Think of you family and your church before you take the wrong step.

So please take my advice, my dearest Jimmy, let's wait for the trial which you asked for. Looking forward to seeing you there.

Best Regards,
Sharman

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/23 23:57

Just that you know

Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

was a statement made by me. It is an instruction to you (well, lets for a moment disregard the fact that it is a retorical statement). So when I didn't perform any action of bring it to the court, it must have been you who brought the case to the court.
And since I have receive none legal notice from no court, I presume that there is none, even I am willing to commit criminal contempt, I cannot. May I be provided with the name, address of the court, such that we appear.

So conclusion remains as follow, or may be we should add some more:
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee

Oh, am I talking to someone imagining a court? I am no expert in Delusional disorder by I think there is one case here.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/24 00:21

回復 34# jimmychauck

You told me to bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity. I did as told.

The court is busy. Do you know how many years people wait for their lawsuit? Be patient, keep in mind: 1 Co13:4 Love is never tired of waiting.

Amen

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/25 10:25

Oh, bringing something to the court before resolving the issue peacefully, is an act of love, interesting.

I am no expert of law, but I believe if you have to state that this case is in trail in any court, you at least have to state which court, or else your statement will not be effective

1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/25 10:57

回復 36# jimmychauck

Oh if you want to resolving the issue peacefully you would not order me to bring it to court.

I did not state which court, yet, because you failed to ask.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/25 21:00

which simply asks you to make a verdict yourself (because when you go to a court, they always arrive at a verdict), and now blaming me for blackheart waste your time itimidate you bla bla bla.

was a statement made by me. It is an instruction to you (well, lets for a moment disregard the fact that it is a retorical statement).

May I be provided with the name, address of the court, such that we appear.

Hi~~, you blind? you read English?
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to
6. Do you read English?

state. (instruction)

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/26 01:57

"May I be provided with the name, address of the court, such that we appear."
If it is a question, it ends with a "?".
example:
May I be provided with a dictionary which has an explanation of the word "sarcism"?
So, hi~~, you lame? you write English?

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/26 08:19

you still failed to understand retorical statement, and still failed to follow simple instruction to "state" information I queried upon. "May I be provided...." blablabla is not a question, its also an instruction.

1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to
6. Do you read English?
7. Do you understand context?
8. You failed to follow simple instruction.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/26 08:42

Am instruction does not begin with "May I" blablabla.
You failed to make neither a question nor an instruction.
You failed to provide a dictionary which explains the word "sarcism".

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/26 12:11

Being polite does not mean not an instruction, nor that you shouldn't know you should inform the opposite party that which court should appear before.

Now miss spell of word should stop no people with general understanding of English of understanding it means "Sarcasm".

You have still failed to state any information I requested, be it legal non legal, logical non logical.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/26 13:48

I don't see how polite it is.

If you don't spell words correctly people won't know what you are saying or will misunderstand you. That's why they put "spell check" in a browser, use it. Now I get what you're saying, but sorry, I don't see how sarcastic you are.

Again, all legal and/or logic information will be presented in the court room. However, I have a suggestion which can help you. While you wait, read the Holy Qu'ran yourself, you can find the answer there.

作者: jimmychauck 時間: 2011/9/26 18:13

I restated 3 times the instruction, requesting Sharman to provide evidences that he brought the case to court.

He failed to.

He then refused to comment on the case, claiming that legal process is undergone.

He then also failed to recognize that a statement starting with "May" is polite.
He then also failed to recognize that any statement is an instruction to him.

I have had enough with this guy, not discussing, hiding , bluffing, spoofing.

I believe this thread had demonostrated how Sharmon is bad at communicating, discussing. And thus therefore the thread had served its purpose. Conclusion?

1. Sharmon fails to show that he understands sarcasm, retorical questioning
2. Sharmon fails to provide reasonig or information when queried upon
3. Sharmon fails to show ability to distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. Sharmon fails to show ability to distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
6. Sharmon do not show strong ability to read English
7. Sharmon fails to demonstrate ability to extract content
8. Sharmon fails to follow simple instruction.

作者: 沙文 時間: 2011/9/26 18:45

Sharmon fails many things in his life, but that doesn't make the religion which George mentioned can only be Christianity.

A polite statement needs the magic word.

The court will send the information you requested when the time comes, just be patient, and listen to the Christian Bible.
Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged.

歡迎光臨離教者之家 (https://exchristian.hk/forum/)