Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Your reasoning is flawed Keeper.

Electronics have little to do with religion, therefore electronics were invented by atheists.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So?

Source?

Did I say so (that marriage was invented by atheists "because it has little to do with religion")?

My source did not. According to anthropological evidence, marriage was created by atheists.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not according to your own quote.

Quote:

Back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

It doesn't even have the word atheist, or anything related to it. You're just making stuff up.


Now let's say you do find a source that says that - its total fiction. How would the internet guy know? Did he take a poll? All Sumerian atheists in the audience please raise their hands...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Since there was no clear indoctrinzation of marriage into religion then one cannont assume that it was disconnected from it always since the earliest evidence is sure not to be the first.

This line of thinking is problematic.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Two halves don't make a whole without a hole.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So?

Unless you find an earlier source (not that it'll be "all fiction" according to our buddy above, but still) that disagrees with mine, my point stands.

And I thought that when it said that marriage had little to do with religion, that meant it had little to do with religion. Silly me. OK, so the people who founded it were not neccessarily atheists, but the tradition certainly was.

Seriously, though, the quote makes it quite clear to me that marriage was not a religious estabilishment originally. Religious traditions don't have "little to do with religion". Current evidence suggests that marriage was originally not a religious estabilishment.

Please. "The Internet guy"? "The Internet Guy" could be an archeologist for all you know. Poisoning the well is an immature method of debate.

:Puzzled:

Yeah, and we all know that if you can't have sex the "straight" way, there's no reason whatsoever to get married, so--

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I love it when people try to contradict humor using entire sentences in a serious manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rBg-wXLFfg

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Eating isn't a religious ceremony, therefore it is an atheist ceremony?:Puzzled:

Seriously, though, the quote makes it quite clear to me that marriage was not a religious estabilishment originally. Religious traditions don't have "little to do with religion". Current evidence suggests that marriage was originally not a religious estabilishment.

If he throws around unprovable statements as fact, I have very little confidence in his credentials (Though this is a hypothetical source that you have yet to provide - your last source didn't even mention atheists)

Unless he has a time machine he doesn't have the faintest idea if marriages were done by atheists. All we know (i.e., guess) is that marriage wasn't originally tied to religion.

Throwing around silly accusations is an immature form of debate.:rolleyes:


Most effective counterargument I've seen today.;)

So tell me, how would anybody, "archeologist" or not - have the faintest idea whether or not marriage was originally only done by atheists? The guys are dead, so its not like we can ask them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I do not accept homosexual 'acts' or 'lifestyle' but I do accept homo's

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yup. Well, not exactly - it's not an "atheist ceremony", but still unrelated to religion. Species around the world ate long before humans and its mythology came about.

I addressed the "atheist" part in my last post. And "unprovable"? Do you consider everything else in archeology "unprovable", too?

You don't need to have been there to know what things were like.

We know, for instance, that in ancient Rome, women were banned from watching athletics as the competitors were in the nude. We know that in Old Scandinavia, the great captains were buried with their ships. We know that in 1914, a horrific war was started by an assassination. How do we know this? Did we take a poll - "all Vikings, come forth and raise you hands if this is true"? Did we interview Romans who lived at the time? Did we ask the witnesses of the assassination who are still alive today for essays? Of course not. Archeology relies on historical records and excavations, not on interviewing people miraculously still alive today.

In fact, couldn't I turn the whole thing around and, by the same reasoning, claim it's "unprovable" that marriage was originally religious? Or do you have any interviews with marriage inventors to link to?

You were guilty of poisoning the well by attacking the source instead of what it stated.

I don't watch Family Guy, so I had no way of knowing if it was a joke or more nonsense a la "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve":o.