I think atheists have gotten the terms down they have reduced knowledge to one thing: atheism. If you are not an atheist you have no knowledge; even science is worthless unless it's conducted by an atheist ideologue.
Scientific methodology is not improtant. the only way to do scinece is not spout the party line of the atheist movement, being careful not to call it a movement but foment the idea that is' real diverse all the while saying nothing but the approved opinions.
There is one thing and one thing that is knowledge that is atheism's party line. But you are supposed to call it "science."
The one and only alternative to being an atheist is being a fundie.
Atheist have called me fundie. they call atheist watch fundie. they call me a fundie. so they don't know what the word means. it's come to mean something else in their parlance, it means "you are not imitated."
Atheism is a cult int he sociological sense. If you are not initiated into the cult you are an outsider and outsiders are called "fundies."
clearly being a fundie has nothing to do with holding a particular set of Christian doctrines becuase I'm obviously not a funide that my measure. The one thing that would entail is inerreancy and I don't hold to inerrancy. First they began using the term for anyone who takes any aspect of Christianity seriously, no matter how learned or liberal one is. That's enough of a departure form the real meaning of the term. Now they begin to use it it o mean anyone who is not an atheist.
That's pretty much how I define ideology: the only alternative. Not accepting it is not a valid position regardless of the details. That's the way I see them thinking all the time.
this starched because I defended the idea that Luke's geneaology is Mary's rather than Jo's. So they began saying I'm a fundie. regardless of the reasons for saying it. they just say it.
I used Alfred Edershiem as my reason for saying so
Originally Posted by backup
If you have done any sarong on Rabbis or had any dealings whit them (what am i saying?) you would know (something for a change) that they know the Talmudic stuff far better than non Rabbinical readers can. So for a Rabbinical trainee to say that it's far more important than just saying some guy.
Of course you leave out the fact that Edersheim just happens to be one of the greyest schoalrs of the 19th century who was a professor at both Oxford and Cambridge at the the same time! very rare and proves he was the top of the line scholar of the day.
Originally Posted by backup
you just prove I'm right. you don't give a damn abou truth, you admitted you don't. you only care what the cult tells you to say, you just said it.
"everyone says this." one knowledge, one pinon between you never mind the truth rep resat what everyone says.