FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: marieelissa on April 07, 2011, 09:50:15 pm
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
-
(http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cthulhu1.jpg)
-
Hey there,
As a Christian, I'm a little confused at the the 'realization that God is fake'. Can you elaborate on your opinion? It's truly interesting!
A lot of the times, people go through troubling experiences and completely denote the existence of God based off of hardship (e.g. lost of loved one, death/incidents, wish not coming true, etc). While there are many answers to just about every problem we human beings are capable of having, what we feel and go through is just as important!
Pertaining to your question, though, that's another topic. I guess anyone can pick up a rock and call it god, but are we talking about looking for truth, or just what makes us feel better? That can be two different topics (and come on, usually it is!)
I think truth doesn't come easy to our ears, or definitely not to mine, because I'm usually 'set' in my ways. There are things I like to do and don't like to be told it's 'wrong' and feelings I like to feel that I don't care to change, etc. But then again, I think everyone may be like that at some point in their lives. Love the logic we alone build and call it truth - is it possible there's someone who knows more than us? Knows the best way to live? Knows truth? Yeah, looking for truth is a lot harder (again, I think it's because we make it hard!) then looking for something that makes us feel better. That's the easy part. Just look around in this world - media, idolizing celebs, etc. So many ways to just make us feel better, or as you said, 'pick your own god'.
I think if someone's going to pick something to idolize, hopefully that person understands..they just made it up! It's like believing a story that was clearly false. I believe Lord of the Rings was a true story! But if it makes me feel better, does it make it true?
Sorry to rant, I just think this branches off into another interesting topic - truth vs. self-gratification.
-
People all over the world believe in all kinds of gods. God is whoever or whatever you want him, her, or it to be. :peace:
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
Oh?....well ok, who would you like killed today?
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
Oh?....well ok, who would you like killed today?
Just the usual group of people whose prayers I don't answer, like starving children in Africa. ;D
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
Oh?....well ok, who would you like killed today?
Just the usual group of people whose prayers I don't answer, like starving children in Africa. ;D
Im on it...no problem. WHEW!!!...dang I damned near had a thought of my own for a minute, please forgive my moment of weakness :notworthy:
-
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_laoglnIU1N1qzmowao1_500.jpg)
-
YO!!!...MARIE!......a couple days have past, its time for you to lock this thread and start a new one about how devout you are.
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
The atheist belief(whether you guys want to admit it or not) is making yourself a god by judging for yourself what's right and wrong.
@Marie: Your doing something called wild talk, don't get too discouraged we all do wild talk sometimes.
-
YO!!!...MARIE!......a couple days have past, its time for you to lock this thread and start a new one about how devout you are.
lololololololol
-
The atheist belief(whether you guys want to admit it or not) is making yourself a god by judging for yourself what's right and wrong.
Sorry to break it to ya, but everyone does that. Even Fred Phelps.
-
What is it that makes you feel that God is fake?
-
The atheist belief(whether you guys want to admit it or not) is making yourself a god by judging for yourself what's right and wrong.
Sorry to break it to ya, but everyone does that. Even Fred Phelps.
Wow, now THAT's an *bleep*-backward perspective and observation if I've ever seen one, teflon, and I have.
In addition to Phelps (and every single person alive) you judge what's right and wrong too, teflon. It's called having a brain, decency, a conscience, and a hundred other things most humans possess. :confused1:
-
I believe in the one and only true God. Satan likes to make people believe that they can believe otherwise andd it is ok. It maybe at this moment, which I doubt, but it definitely won't be in the near future.
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
I pity you when you meet GOD. today you have choices up or down. at your last breathe you will no longer have choices.
if there is no GOD we will all just be dead.... but if there is a GOD I am going up into the light, but for those who deny HIM, well you are
going down into darkness. it will be to late to even consider, to read the Bible and prove everyone wrong who says there is a GOD.
I will have lost nothing either way, while you gamble with your soul for all eternity in a fiery pit, as in forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & -----.. get the picture?
-
I pity you when you meet GENERAL ZOD. today you have choices up or down. at your last breathe you will no longer have choices.
if there is no GENERAL ZOD we will all just be dead.... but if there is a GENERAL ZOD I am going up into the light, but for those who deny HIM, well you are
going down into darkness. it will be to late to even consider, to read the Bible and prove everyone wrong who says there is a GENERAL ZOD.
I will have lost nothing either way, while you gamble with your soul for all eternity in a fiery pit, as in forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & -----.. get the picture?
Wow, lady. Lay off and stop being such a *bleep* to Marie. Oh, did I call you a *bleep*? Silly me. I'm sorry- it's just that you're cursing someone into a evil fiery pit for all of eternity. If you don't think that's rude, your logic pathways are horrendously messed up and you shouldn't be debating anything here if all you're going to throw in are curses at people who don't believe the same as you. First off, with your reasoning, you should be worshipping every god in existence if you want to cover all of your bases to make sure you're "going up into the light". Secondly, you really expect to change minds with such an evil and fear-mongering point of view? Seriously, get off of your primitive high horse or I'll match your curse and send you into oblivion too. But that's not all! If you order now, I'll also curse your grandchildren! Absolutely free!
-
I pity you when you meet GENERAL ZOD. today you have choices up or down. at your last breathe you will no longer have choices.
if there is no GENERAL ZOD we will all just be dead.... but if there is a GENERAL ZOD I am going up into the light, but for those who deny HIM, well you are
going down into darkness. it will be to late to even consider, to read the Bible and prove everyone wrong who says there is a GENERAL ZOD.
I will have lost nothing either way, while you gamble with your soul for all eternity in a fiery pit, as in forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & -----.. get the picture?
Wow, lady. Lay off and stop being such a *bleep* to Marie. Oh, did I call you a *bleep*? Silly me. I'm sorry- it's just that you're cursing someone into a evil fiery pit for all of eternity. If you don't think that's rude, your logic pathways are horrendously messed up and you shouldn't be debating anything here if all you're going to throw in are curses. First off, with your reasoning, you should be worshipping every god in existence if you want to cover all of your bases to make sure you're "going up into the light". Secondly, you really expect to change minds with such an evil and fear-mongering point of view? Seriously, get off of your primitive high horse or I'll match your curse and send you into oblivion too. But that's not all! If you order now, I'll also curse your grandchildren! Absolutely free!
Hit a nerve there, huh? sounds like fear to me. But if the shoe fits wear it. she is the one who denys GOD, not I and as I said, if there is no GOD then we will all just be dead! I am only saying what the Bible says. I am not cursing her, nor you, just please consider it a warning from a big sister. I have seen GOD work many times, as for you cursing me? I am unafraid, infact I pity you that you think you have the ability to curse anyone. you think you are GOD? curses do not stick unless there is guilt. While I am a sinner as you are, I bear no guilt in this instance for I did not curse anyone, just speaking truth. why are you so upset? think about it. Sorry. Hope you & Marie will both read the Bible, prove me wrong.
-
Hit a nerve there, huh? sounds like fear to me.
No. When you curse a veteran user of this forum, I find it extremely rude. I don't see how that's fear-- it's just calling out to someone who's being a dunce.
if there is no GOD then we will all just be dead! I am only saying what the Bible says.
There might be many gods. And the bible says lots of crazy wacky things that people can do without. Did you know you can't get into heaven if your genitals get smashed?
I am not cursing her
Yeah. You are.
I have seen GOD work many times, as for you cursing me?
With the way you're typing, I'm sure you have, lady. I'm sure you have. ::)
And I'm only a "GOD" in Team Fortress.
While I am a sinner as you are
That's quite a rude assumption. I don't believe what you do, so I'm a sinner? Great pitch there. There's one reason I and others don't play your game...
Sorry. Hope you & Marie will both read the Bible, prove me wrong.
I have read much of the bible. It's a major reason why I'm not christian ;)
Prove you wrong? Let me get the ol' fundamentals of the abrahamic god and Jesus here...
(http://www.kellerpickem.com/4chan/christianity.jpg)
-
Hit a nerve there, huh? sounds like fear to me.
No. When you curse a veteran user of this forum, I find it extremely rude. I don't see how that's fear-- it's just calling out to someone who's being a dunce.
if there is no GOD then we will all just be dead! I am only saying what the Bible says.
There might be many gods. And the bible says lots of crazy wacky things that people can do without. Did you know you can't get into heaven if your genitals get smashed?
I am not cursing her
Well Falconer - all I can say is I am sorry I offended you. but we are all sinners and obviously you don't understand the Bible. Give it a chance. your anger and emotion speaks loudly. What I said bothers you more than Maria. where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that. have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
Yeah. You are.
I have seen GOD work many times, as for you cursing me?
With the way you're typing, I'm sure you have, lady. I'm sure you have. ::)
And I'm only a "GOD" in Team Fortress.
While I am a sinner as you are
That's quite a rude assumption. I don't believe what you do, so I'm a sinner? Great pitch there. There's one reason I and others don't play your game...
Sorry. Hope you & Marie will both read the Bible, prove me wrong.
I have read much of the bible. It's a major reason why I'm not christian ;)
Prove you wrong? Let me get the ol' fundamentals of the abrahamic god and Jesus here...
(http://www.kellerpickem.com/4chan/christianity.jpg)
-
Well Falconer - all I can say is I am sorry I offended you. but we are all sinners and obviously you don't understand the Bible. Give it a chance. your anger and emotion speaks loudly. What I said bothers you more than Maria. have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
I understand the bible. I was a christian for 15 years. The problem you will never be able to grasp is that I'm beyond religious systems now-- that old way of thinking. I see them as part of a culture rather than truth-- each one usually preaching of mythical hero archaetypes, magical deities, vague prophecies, etc. Many beliefs share similar histories. Yours really isn't too different, but I'm getting too far ahead here...
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Ezekial 4:12- "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."
have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
You can't have an "opinion" because an opinion is prone to change (it breaks the whole "faith" barrier). Since you're christian, it is my opinion that this is your adamant, undying, and unchangeable belief that you hold to be true. Either way, what you said was extremely rude to be tossed around in such a naive manner. You think people want to hear about accepting your beliefs or they'll burn for eternity? What an awful guilt-tripping tactic for luring in the weak-minded. "I'll pity you when you're burning in agony for eternity!" Stop trying to turn this around with saying I'm "fearful". The reason it bothers me is that people like you think this way of speaking is completely acceptable-- that it should be respected because it's what you believe. It was so in the past, but that is slowly diminishing-- people are starting to realize it's nothing more than something on par with a hateful political stance. So you'd better start getting used to being called out on your detestable behavior.
tl;dnr version- It's not nice to say mean things for no good reason.
-
I wouldn't say that at all!
-
I'm sticking to my beliefs that the Lord Jesus Christ has saved my eternal soul by shedding his life and blood on the Cross of Calvary. God gives everyone a free will and mind and prays that mankind will not let satan be their guide.
-
Normally I enjoy getting into debates on this forum... even ones relating to God, and if he is this or that, or about the bible and etc....
HOWEVER... for this topic... and the starting statement in general... It is just beyond to damn stupid for me to even really give a response to it. I really feel if I respond to what was said that it will actually lower my IQ. So have fun in here without me.
*walks away mumbling something about morons who seek attention with stupidity*
-
I can't believe that someone said that, you have to believe in something. I believe in God, without him I'm lost. I know that he have done a lot for me. I know sometime things can keep pretty bad, but you still have to believe, I also believe that God is testing our faith, and how strong we can be. I know a lot have happen in this world, but the devil is also working over time. He is trying to win soul, and the way you are talking he has won your. Read the Bible and trust the Almighty.
-
Well Falconer - all I can say is I am sorry I offended you. but we are all sinners and obviously you don't understand the Bible. Give it a chance. your anger and emotion speaks loudly. What I said bothers you more than Maria. have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
I understand the bible. I was a christian for 15 years. The problem you will never be able to grasp is that I'm beyond religious systems now-- that old way of thinking. I see them as part of a culture rather than truth-- each one usually preaching of mythical hero archaetypes, magical deities, vague prophecies, etc. Many beliefs share similar histories. Yours really isn't too different, but I'm getting too far ahead here...
so you really believe you are your own GOD? did you make yourself? can you catch the wind? a star? can you breathe life into another?
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS// The "Tyre" pronouncement. Howl, you ships of Tarshish! For havoc has been wrought, not a house is left; as they came from the land of Kittim, This was revealed to them. [end] Tyre was a sea port town. This prophecy of its overthrow is spoken of here for all its business, wealth, honour depended on its shipping; if that is ruined, they will be all undone.
[/color]
Ezekial 4:12- "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."
EZEKIAL 4:12 Eat it as barley cake; you shall bake it on human excrement before their eyes. YES THIS WAS ORDERED AS A WARNING OF PUNISHMENT... This nauseous piece of cookery he exercised publicly so that they might be more effecged wiht the calamity approaching. To show in teh extremity of a famine approaching, that they will not have any thing good, but nothing clean. This was meant to be a warning. There are many warnings in the WORD, our problem is we either choose or we are blinded to the warnings. There are conditions for living in light and shalom for all eternity and the earth is a testing ground. We either wise up or we walk in darkness.
have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
You can't have an "opinion" because an opinion is prone to change (it breaks the whole "faith" barrier). [Actually I don't consider myself a christian, but a believer] Since you're christian, it is my opinion that this is your adamant, undying, and unchangeable belief that you hold to be true. Either way, what you said was extremely rude to be tossed around in such a naive manner. You think people want to hear about accepting your beliefs or they'll burn for eternity? Neither did they wish to hear it in the Bible, some heard & were saved. while others went into hell. that is not my opinion but the words of the Bible. I had rather seek my favor with GOD, not man
What an awful guilt-tripping tactic for luring in the weak-minded. guilt trip? not really. encourage other to read the WORD of GOD, learn for themselves rather than fall blindly into the pit.
"I'll pity you when you're burning in agony for eternity!" Stop trying to turn this around with saying I'm "fearful".
If the shoe fits, we must wear it when we choose it. for you to lash out at me for my opinion, demonstrates fear, emotions, perhaps guilt?
The reason it bothers me is that people like you think this way of speaking is completely acceptable-
why is the way I speak any different than yours? you may accept or not. Not my problem, I am told to be gentle as a dove yet wise as the fox... "pity" is a slant for compassion and my feelings have not & will not change. I began my message with I pity you. and I do pity you for getting so upset over what I said. would you be a dictator? Yes, I think you would if you think you have the right to stop what I say in favor of your message? Would you use your whip on me because of what I believe, if you could? Yes, I think you would.
You may have read the Bible, but it is obvious you do not understand its meaning, or concept.
GOD loves you as much as HE loves me. HE sent HIS only SON to die for our sin. Would you send your only son to die for your best friend and than watch your best friend mock and shame his memory? That is exactly what folks do who deny HIM. That is a fact, not an opinion.
- that it should be respected because it's what you believe. It was so in the past, but that is slowly diminishing-- people are starting to realize it's nothing more than something on par with a hateful political stance. So you'd better start getting used to being called out on your detestable behavior.
This would be funny, it is were not so serious... you would be surprised how many agree with my 'detestable behavior' ... I am 70 yrs old, never had any problems, raised many children and am blessed with many grandchildren & great grand children. Run my own business for years, never had a problem with the law at all. Well known in my community for my [what you call] detestable behavior and no one seems bothered by it. My children rise up to call me blessed Proverbs...
tl;dnr version- It's not nice to say mean things for no good reason. [[[ very good reason - the soul for all eternity - may you rethink your position. but I won't be the dictator that says you can not do as you please. GOD just sends warnings, so perhaps you should consider me as one of your 'warnings'? HAVE A GOOD LIFE, it may be all the good you ever know because after you breathe your last breath, your choice will end.
-
I'm sad to hear that you think God is not real. I would like to know what do you have faith in, if you have any?
-
Quote from angelhome:
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
Quote from Falconer:
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Quote from angelhome:
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS// The "Tyre" pronouncement. Howl, you ships of Tarshish! For havoc has been wrought, not a house is left; as they came from the land of Kittim, This was revealed to them. [end] Tyre was a sea port town. This prophecy of its overthrow is spoken of here for all its business, wealth, honour depended on its shipping; if that is ruined, they will be all undone.
Deuteronomy 23:1 does say, "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Moses wrote this book and the book itself means "second law giving." It's written to the new generation of Israelites before going into the promised land of Canaan. Caleb and Joshua, besides Moses, are the only ones who still lived from the old generation of traveling all this time. This new generation needed to learn how to develop a proper relationship with God. Joshua was also appointed as Moses' successor during this time, as well.
Moral and legal regulations are expanded on while going through the Ten Commandments again. In chapter 23, Moses was reviewing with these people how the law should be applied. In verses 1 through 8, he is giving examples of ones not allowed into the congregation of that time. These examples given include people who had either not listened to God during the travel in the wilderness, or had done things they weren't supposed to, and the ones who's family members or offspring were living in this new generation - these rules or laws were continued onto their members or offspring. They, in effect, were continuing to sow what their parents, or the grandparents, reaped.
These verses in no way mean that we, in today's generation, cannot go to heaven for the kinds of things that happened back then. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose again, we entered a new law, fulfilled by grace. Those old applications of purity for entrance into the congregation of the Lord (the rules were even stricter for priests and their sons to work in the Lord's congregation) are not the same applications as of today. You go to heaven if and when you decide to accept the Lord as Savior. Thanks to what He did for us on the cross.
-
I definitely believe in God. (cap is mine) I admit I do not understand my God all the time, but that is ok with me. Even Nietsche had issues with God/god. To paraphrase, "I think therefore I am" was followed by "I do not know everything, therefore I am not God". For me, my faith has helped me out a lot through life. My father survived a year on the eastern front in WWII, two years in a death camp in Siberia, a firing squad, an escape to freedom, and a mine explosion. He could not quote a thing from the Bible, but he definitely believed there was a God. From that role model is where I get my view.
Take care and God Bless! :wave:
-
so you really believe you are your own GOD? did you make yourself? can you catch the wind? a star? can you breathe life into another?
No. But I can catch wind with wind turbines, study stars in this vast beautiful and very messy universe, and I have the capability of making life with another. I'm content with that. No need to strive to be a god-- most people don't understand that living forever would be a horrible curse.
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Precisely. Like stone your kids to death if they talk back to you or sell your daughters into slavery. Ohhh the lists go on and on and onnnn....
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS...
Different version. I assure you it should be around that chapter unless they edited it out.
Neither did they wish to hear it in the Bible, some heard & were saved. while others went into hell. that is not my opinion but the words of the Bible. I had rather seek my favor with GOD, not man
So your god wants you to walk around and be a pompous nuisance to freethinkers and a fearmongerer to the weak-minded? Wow, great deity ya got therrrr ::) If you're gonna seek favor with your deit...i mean GOD, maybe you should just be quiet around man. It's the decent thing to do.
YES THIS WAS ORDERED AS A WARNING OF PUNISHMENT... This nauseous piece of cookery he exercised publicly so that they might be more effecged wiht the calamity approaching. To show in teh extremity of a famine approaching, that they will not have any thing good, but nothing clean. This was meant to be a warning. There are many warnings in the WORD, our problem is we either choose or we are blinded to the warnings. There are conditions for living in light and shalom for all eternity and the earth is a testing ground. We either wise up or we walk in darkness.
Nice try walking around the point. It's contradictory to preach about a book when it talks about having to eat poop in such a serious and detailed manner.
guilt trip? not really. encourage other to read the WORD of GOD, learn for themselves rather than fall blindly into the pit.
If you think telling people they'll burn for eternity if they don't read your ancient writings and bend over for your god is encouraging, you're deluding yourself. That's a threat that you just don't want to accept the definition of.
why is the way I speak any different than yours? you may accept or not. Not my problem, I am told to be gentle as a dove yet wise as the fox... "pity" is a slant for compassion and my feelings have not & will not change. I began my message with I pity you. and I do pity you for getting so upset over what I said. would you be a dictator? Yes, I think you would if you think you have the right to stop what I say in favor of your message? Would you use your whip on me because of what I believe, if you could? Yes, I think you would
I'm sure your god loves how you're being so pompous and evil in the face of reason. Remember-- when you ASSUME, you make an *bleep* of U and ME. So go ahead and pity me for calling you out on your naive belligerent behavior. I'm not the one raising the whip here for no good or real reason-- that's you. I'm just snapping back in a weaker manner to show you what you're doing. I've explained this already, but you're obviously incapable of understanding the reality of it. If one could argue rationally with the religious, there would be no religious people.
Again, I've been with chrisitianity before. Though I'm probably not as well-versed as you are with it consdiering your age, I have studied the bible quite a lot in the past. But you know what I'm currently studying? Jainism. After that I'm not sure-- maybe native american beliefs. Am I going to join a religion? No! I'm starting to find that other religions are far more fascinating and interesting than your own. And admirably more deserving of respect.
HAVE A GOOD LIFE, it may be all the good you ever know because after you breathe your last breath, your choice will end.
You do realize your god's power does not even allow for choice, right? I know it says so in the bible, but it's completely contradictory given your god's all-knowing omniscience. They weren't really thinking too hard when they wrote that down now, were they?
-
i'm religio romana so i believe in multiple gods/goddesses
-
Even Nietsche had issues with God/god.
Um, Nietzsche was an atheist.
-
I don't think there is anyone who needs God's help & grace as much as I do. Sometimes I feel so helpless & weak. I think that is why God uses me. Because I cannot depend on my own strength, I rely on Him 24 hours a day.~Mother Teresa
-
"The fool ahs said in his heart "there is no God!" I hope no one on FC believes there is no God, else, judgement day will be a terrible reality check.
-
Well Falconer - all I can say is I am sorry I offended you. but we are all sinners and obviously you don't understand the Bible. Give it a chance. your anger and emotion speaks loudly. What I said bothers you more than Maria. have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
I understand the bible. I was a christian for 15 years. The problem you will never be able to grasp is that I'm beyond religious systems now-- that old way of thinking. I see them as part of a culture rather than truth-- each one usually preaching of mythical hero archaetypes, magical deities, vague prophecies, etc. Many beliefs share similar histories. Yours really isn't too different, but I'm getting too far ahead here...
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
I would not force my opinion on anyone, but it is not opinion - it's truth and actually I didn't make the claim. you are certainly opinionated - you can take your mythical heros and deities & vague prophecies with you when you go. I feel someone has to be really off in left field to believe all that garb but again, that is your right. All I am called to do to warn you. I won't be there at judgment and your blood won't be on my hands.
but I assure you you have never me YESHUA or you would not be so angry.
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Ezekial 4:12- "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."
have a great life Falconer, and I mean that sincerely. Chill out, this is still America and we all have the right to voice our opinion so laugh - my opinion shouldn't bother you at all, but the fact that it does - speaks.
You can't have an "opinion" because an opinion is prone to change (it breaks the whole "faith" barrier). Since you're christian, it is my opinion that this is your adamant, undying, and unchangeable belief that you hold to be true. Either way, what you said was extremely rude to be tossed around in such a naive manner. You think people want to hear about accepting your beliefs or they'll burn for eternity? What an awful guilt-tripping tactic for luring in the weak-minded. "I'll pity you when you're burning in agony for eternity!" Stop trying to turn this around with saying I'm "fearful". The reason it bothers me is that people like you think this way of speaking is completely acceptable-- that it should be respected because it's what you believe. It was so in the past, but that is slowly diminishing-- people are starting to realize it's nothing more than something on par with a hateful political stance. So you'd better start getting used to being called out on your detestable behavior.
tl;dnr version- It's not nice to say mean things for no good reason.
-
I would not force my opinion on anyone, but it is not opinion - it's truth and actually I didn't make the claim.
Didn't make the claim? Not forcing your beliefs on anyone? Let's go back a page and read your own cursing post-
I pity you when you meet GOD. today you have choices up or down. at your last breathe you will no longer have choices. if there is no GOD we will all just be dead.... but if there is a GOD I am going up into the light, but for those who deny HIM, well you are going down into darkness. it will be to late to even consider, to read the Bible and prove everyone wrong who says there is a GOD. I will have lost nothing either way, while you gamble with your soul for all eternity in a fiery pit, as in forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & -----.. get the picture?
Guilt tripping is an extremely rude method of forcing a belief on someone who is unable to see through the bs, and that is exactly what you're doing here. If you don't see it, you must have a major problem with core reasoning. And if it's truth, you'd have proof. Though seeing your reasoning within all of your posts, I know for a fact I will never find an ounce within them.
you are certainly opinionated - you can take your mythical heros and deities & vague prophecies with you when you go. I feel someone has to be really off in left field to believe all that garb but again, that is your right.
What the heck are you talking about? I don't believe in mythical heroes, deities, or vague prophecies. I just learn about them to get a better understanding of the world. Take a look in the mirror once in a while-- that's you believing these things. Adam and Eve, Noah, Jesus, Samson, the Abrahamic god, the book of revelation...do u believe in any of these? Congrats-- you believe in these things I quoted above.
All I am called to do to warn you. I won't be there at judgment and your blood won't be on my hands. But I assure you you have never me YESHUA or you would not be so angry.
Wow...just...wow. 70 years old and tossing around curses. Ooga booga boo to you too, maddam. Remember- I'm not part of your religion, and therefore not subject to your religious beliefs or law. Keep it to yourself. Oh, but your god told you to do it? Unless you can call him down and stand before us all, you are doing nothing but making christianity look ridiculous.
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
The atheist belief(whether you guys want to admit it or not) is making yourself a god by judging for yourself what's right and wrong.
@Marie: Your doing something called wild talk, don't get too discouraged we all do wild talk sometimes.
I am my own god........
-
I believe we are all spiritual beings having a human experience and our spirit(soul) comes from God. I wasn't spawned from something that is fake. :peace:
-
I would not force my opinion on anyone, but it is not opinion - it's truth and actually I didn't make the claim.
Didn't make the claim? Not forcing your beliefs on anyone? Let's go back a page and read your own cursing post-
I pity you when you meet GOD. today you have choices up or down. at your last breathe you will no longer have choices. if there is no GOD we will all just be dead.... but if there is a GOD I am going up into the light, but for those who deny HIM, well you are going down into darkness. it will be to late to even consider, to read the Bible and prove everyone wrong who says there is a GOD. I will have lost nothing either way, while you gamble with your soul for all eternity in a fiery pit, as in forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & forever & -----.. get the picture?
Guilt tripping is an extremely rude method of forcing a belief on someone who is unable to see through the bs, and that is exactly what you're doing here. If you don't see it, you must have a major problem with core reasoning. And if it's truth, you'd have proof. Though seeing your reasoning within all of your posts, I know for a fact I will never find an ounce within them.
you are certainly opinionated - you can take your mythical heros and deities & vague prophecies with you when you go. I feel someone has to be really off in left field to believe all that garb but again, that is your right.
What the heck are you talking about? I don't believe in mythical heroes, deities, or vague prophecies. I just learn about them to get a better understanding of the world. Take a look in the mirror once in a while-- that's you believing these things. Adam and Eve, Noah, Jesus, Samson, the Abrahamic god, the book of revelation...do u believe in any of these? Congrats-- you believe in these things I quoted above.
All I am called to do to warn you. I won't be there at judgment and your blood won't be on my hands. But I assure you you have never me YESHUA or you would not be so angry.
Wow...just...wow. 70 years old and tossing around curses. Ooga booga boo to you too, maddam. Remember- I'm not part of your religion, and therefore not subject to your religious beliefs or law. Keep it to yourself. Oh, but your god told you to do it? Unless you can call him down and stand before us all, you are doing nothing but making christianity look ridiculous.
Your choice and you are welcome to it. have a good life cause it is all you will have
-
Your choice and you are welcome to it. have a good life cause it is all you will have
So you believe that this is the only life we have? You're an atheist now? Weird! lol
-
I wasn't spawned from something that is fake. :peace:
There should be mass-mandated logic classes. You have a set of parents, do you not?
-
Just ask yourself one question, How did we get here? Well I believe God put us here,because its in our history,and its a shame that one day you are really going to realize that when you come face to face with the devil,I am sure he would love to have you!!!
-
Well I believe God put us here,because its in our history
Wut?
its a shame that one day you are really going to realize that when you come face to face with the devil,I am sure he would love to have you!!!
You go to your heaven and hell and tell your god and devil that they're next on my list and I'm comin' for them next! Mwahahahaaaaaa!
-
so you really believe you are your own GOD? did you make yourself? can you catch the wind? a star? can you breathe life into another?
No. But I can catch wind with wind turbines, study stars in this vast beautiful and very messy universe, and I have the capability of making life with another. I'm content with that. No need to strive to be a god-- most people don't understand that living forever would be a horrible curse.
WELL I AM IMPRESSED THAT YOU CAN CATCH WIND WITH WIND TURBINE... can you catch it in your hand? can you see your breathe? No because it is HIS breathe that HE gives you each morning. And HE can catch the wind, for it originates from HIM.
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Precisely. Like stone your kids to death if they talk back to you or sell your daughters into slavery. Ohhh the lists go on and on and onnnn....
HE does not cause us to sin, we do that on our own. HE did give us free will to choose.
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS...
Different version. I assure you it should be around that chapter unless they edited it out.
THE BIBLE HAS NOT CHANGED. EVERY OTHER RELIGION HAS MADE CHANGES, BUT NOT THE BIBLE.
Neither did they wish to hear it in the Bible, some heard & were saved. while others went into hell. that is not my opinion but the words of the Bible. I had rather seek my favor with GOD, not man
So your god wants you to walk around and be a pompous nuisance to freethinkers and a fearmongerer to the weak-minded? Wow, great deity ya got therrrr ::) If you're gonna seek favor with your deit...i mean GOD, maybe you should just be quiet around man. It's the decent thing to do.
MY GOD WANTS ME TO BE LIGHT, AND WARN OTHERS. AT LEAST THOSE WHO WILL LISTEN. BUT THE WORD TELLS US IN END TIMES MANY WILL TURN FROM THE REAL FAITH TO FOLLOW OTHER gods.
YES THIS WAS ORDERED AS A WARNING OF PUNISHMENT... This nauseous piece of cookery he exercised publicly so that they might be more effecged wiht the calamity approaching. To show in teh extremity of a famine approaching, that they will not have any thing good, but nothing clean. This was meant to be a warning. There are many warnings in the WORD, our problem is we either choose or we are blinded to the warnings. There are conditions for living in light and shalom for all eternity and the earth is a testing ground. We either wise up or we walk in darkness.
Nice try walking around the point. It's contradictory to preach about a book when it talks about having to eat poop in such a serious and detailed manner.
guilt trip? not really. encourage other to read the WORD of GOD, learn for themselves rather than fall blindly into the pit.
If you think telling people they'll burn for eternity if they don't read your ancient writings and bend over for your god is encouraging, you're deluding yourself. That's a threat that you just don't want to accept the definition of.
WHY DON'T YOU TRY READING IT WITH AN OPEN MIND...
why is the way I speak any different than yours? you may accept or not. Not my problem, I am told to be gentle as a dove yet wise as the fox... "pity" is a slant for compassion and my feelings have not & will not change. I began my message with I pity you. and I do pity you for getting so upset over what I said. would you be a dictator? Yes, I think you would if you think you have the right to stop what I say in favor of your message? Would you use your whip on me because of what I believe, if you could? Yes, I think you would
I'm sure your god loves how you're being so pompous and evil in the face of reason. Remember-- when you ASSUME, you make an *bleep* of U and ME. So go ahead and pity me for calling you out on your naive belligerent behavior. I'm not the one raising the whip here for no good or real reason-- that's you. I'm just snapping back in a weaker manner to show you what you're doing. I've explained this already, but you're obviously incapable of understanding the reality of it. If one could argue rationally with the religious, there would be no religious people.
NOT ARGUING... JUST THE FACTS. DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE OR NOT.
Again, I've been with chrisitianity before. Though I'm probably not as well-versed as you are with it consdiering your age, I have studied the bible quite a lot in the past. But you know what I'm currently studying? Jainism. After that I'm not sure-- maybe native american beliefs. Am I going to join a religion? No! I'm starting to find that other religions are far more fascinating and interesting than your own. And admirably more deserving of respect.
HAVE A GOOD LIFE, it may be all the good you ever know because after you breathe your last breath, your choice will end.
You do realize your god's power does not even allow for choice, right? I know it says so in the bible, but it's completely contradictory given your god's all-knowing omniscience. They weren't really thinking too hard when they wrote that down now, were they?
HE does allow choice and you make it when you turn from HIM. it is called Freedom of Choice dear.
-
Believing is just an opinion which is kind of worthless. God did reveal Himself to me over the course of a 15 year period. I fall under the Reformed Christian spectrum now, it's the closest to TRUTH there is. Back to Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, etc... The Great Awakening was amazing, I would have loved to be around during that time.
-
WELL I AM IMPRESSED THAT YOU CAN CATCH WIND WITH WIND TURBINE... can you catch it in your hand? can you see your breathe? No because it is HIS breathe that HE gives you each morning. And HE can catch the wind, for it originates from HIM.
Heh...depends on your definition of catch. I can technically catch wind. I can interact with wind. I can explain how it forms, where it will go, use it as a power source etc. And depending on the weather or with various types of tech, I can see my breath. If it's your god doing it, I ask for proof. But I know you will fall short because you have not presented any thus far. The things you've listed are based on real beliefs that are interactable. Not faith-based beliefs, which are based upon emotion and speculation.
HE does not cause us to sin, we do that on our own. HE did give us free will to choose.
The abrahamic god does not allow for free will. Keep reading down.
THE BIBLE HAS NOT CHANGED. EVERY OTHER RELIGION HAS MADE CHANGES, BUT NOT THE BIBLE.
You seriously believe that? How long have you been christian? Have you ever done any research about the bible outside of your faith? There's changes and alterations left and right. I could go more in depth if you wish since your statement is completely false, but I want to make sure you'll read about it. And no, I'm not SATAN IN DISGUISE here. If you want to know about the alterations and books that were destroyed from it so that the governments could control it's people, let me know.
MY GOD WANTS ME TO BE LIGHT, AND WARN OTHERS. AT LEAST THOSE WHO WILL LISTEN. BUT THE WORD TELLS US IN END TIMES MANY WILL TURN FROM THE REAL FAITH TO FOLLOW OTHER gods
That's obviously a religious defense mechanism to keep the followers from questioning anything. 2/3rds of the world believe in other gods and it has been this way through history, so you're basically flipping off those people and playing the naive card. Predictions about he "end of times" started at day 1 of recorded human history. The fact that people are still doing it is a sad excuse to cover up a lazy nonprogressive attitude towards life. And please tell me how you expect to warn people when you deem yourself "THE LIGHT" and sound like you're quoting a fantasy novel.
We either wise up or we walk in darkness
Or eat poop. I'd rather walk in the dark than eat poop.
guilt trip? not really. encourage other to read the WORD of GOD, learn for themselves rather than fall blindly into the pit.
WHY DON'T YOU TRY READING IT WITH AN OPEN MIND...
Uhm...I read it when I was a christian and when I turned into a freethinker. Does that count? I still don't understand how you can't see that you're guilt tripping the gullibles.
NOT ARGUING... JUST THE FACTS. DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE OR NOT.
You have presented no factual information-- nothing you can back up with proof.
HE does allow choice and you make it when you turn from HIM. it is called Freedom of Choice dear.
Explain to me how an omniscient being (a god who knows everything- past/present/future) is capable of giving us free choice when he already knows what is going to happen beforehand due to his powers.
Understand that you do get to make choices, but they're predetermined with your god so they aren't free choices. Based off of this he already knows who's going to heaven and hell, so explain to me how this god isn't malevolent.
-
I'm not going to debate because logically if you believe you are a child of God then you can't debate anyone into being a believer. If you aren't chosen you cannot choose God because you don't see him and don't understand. It's really amazing. It's not a matter of changing your mind or being convinced. Something very supernatural and trippy happens when you are converted and your sins are covered by Christ's blood.
Of course, maybe someone slipped a few hits of acid in my drink, I do admit to scientific possibilities as well. But I believe what I believe. Sure the Bible isn't perfect and has changed, but it is still God's Word and it's the means by which the Holy Spirit travels into our souls. The Bible could say nothing but one word and have the same result to a Believer. Non-believes just see it as some decent and some boring stories.
See, I can pick up the book of Numbers and literally feel God's presence just by reading a few lines of genealogy.
But like I said, there is no point in debating. The agnostics have the upper hand and I say they win every argument. The thing is, I'm placing all my chips on a whole other level :thumbsup:
-
Of course, maybe someone slipped a few hits of acid in my drink,
Hahaha you caught me on that. I was jokingly about to say something around those lines.
But like I said, there is no point in debating. The agnostics have the upper hand and I say they win every argument. The thing is, I'm placing all my chips on a whole other level
I kind of agree with you here. The point of arguing/debating/discussing is just to throw knowledge on the table and getting people to look at it. Agnostics/atheists have a problem with people saying they can claim things as true when they can't present them as true- it's rude and fake when the skeleton of what someone says is "Like you, I am human. But I have mystical powers that you cannot/do not posess and I have dire information from those powers specifically for you. If you do not take that information, you will suffer!". The same concept is used with shamans and fortune tellers. Like you've demonstrated, it's fine to do it on a personal level and if anyone asks, just explain how you feel. But when someone's message is "BELIEVE ME OR YOU WILL BURN!" ...it's just bonkers on such a horrible level and the fact that those believers can't see that is just sad and ridiculous. That's why I look at that train-of-thought as nothing more than a primitive insult.
But if it makes someone feel good and helps them get through tough times, good. I'm glad. But when one starts threatening others, I'll criticize.
-
If you believe God is fake, you are worshipping the wrong type of god. My God is as real as the blue sky, green grass, yellow flowers, brown newborn colts, etc. are. He created all. I am anxiously awaiting for the Lord Jesus Christ to call all believers out of this evil world.
-
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
-
I believe in one God, in three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Just because you cannot physically see something does not mean it doesn't exist. You cannot see the rays of the sun, but sit out in the sun and you become tan or burnt (lol). Likewise, I can not see God, but He still exists.
-
Just because you cannot physically see something does not mean it doesn't exist. You cannot see the rays of the sun, but sit out in the sun and you become tan or burnt (lol). Likewise, I can not see God, but He still exists.
That is a majorly broken belief concept because sun rays are testable, can be seen with technology, and are pretty easy to understand. It's physically interactable and it's not that hard to show people how sun rays work. Your god on the other hand is none of these things, so I doubt you can make the claim "he exists" unless, given your example, you can show us any genuine physically interactable quality (example- call the god down, make it rain chocolate milk, etc.).
-
Everyone believes what they want, weather it's a god many gods or no god. Everyone has their own opinion. But what makes you think that God is a fake? Look around you? Where do you guess all this cones from?
-
*bleep* both of you and *bleep* what you going through Falconer02 and angelhome
-
especially you Falconer02 shut the *bleep* up
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
-
I can respect the majority of opinions on this board and this topic.
-
especially you Falconer02 shut the *bleep* up
*bleep* both of you and *bleep* what you going through Falconer02 and angelhome
Want the arguing to stop? This is Debate and Discuss. Ain't gonna happen, n00b.
(http://dump.fm/images/20100625/1277488125856-dumpfm-pixelfuck-Untitled-24.gif)
-
(http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cthulhu1.jpg)
Nice lol ! I preffer the Flying Spaghetti Monster :
(http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/3461.jpg)
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
Agreed. I report the moron as well.
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
Have fun with your imaginary friend...
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
Agreed. I report the moron as well.
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
Have fun with your imaginary friend...
your dad is a moron
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
yea whatever do whatever you want report me again i dont care lol
-
especially you Falconer02 shut the *bleep* up
*bleep* both of you and *bleep* what you going through Falconer02 and angelhome
Want the arguing to stop? This is Debate and Discuss. Ain't gonna happen, n00b.
(http://dump.fm/images/20100625/1277488125856-dumpfm-pixelfuck-Untitled-24.gif)
noob lol man you a noob
-
NUH-UH! NUH-UH! U R N00B AND U B TROLLOLOLOLOLLIN' THIS THREAD! :binkybaby:
-
NUH-UH! NUH-UH! U R N00B AND U B TROLLOLOLOLOLLIN' THIS THREAD! :binkybaby:
thats what you do
-
thats what you do
OUCH! Wow. I got burned bad here.
Seriously though, is FC allowed to have 10 year olds on the site?
-
thats what you do
OUCH! Wow. I got burned bad here.
Seriously though, is FC allowed to have 10 year olds on the site?
:fish: f. u.
-
Boy, u gon' get banned! Ain't gonna make yo 3 dollaz if you can't post on da forumz!
-
Boy, u gon' get banned! Ain't gonna make yo 3 dollaz if you can't post on da forumz!
what do you care if i get 3 dollars or not
-
before I was atheism, after I convert to a religon, in the religon, you really can find some answers for our life, why the world is become like this now. why you are suffering, what you can do will make you feel better and balance......
-
what do you care if i get 3 dollars or not
Just trying to point out something useful.
before I was atheism, after I convert to a religon, in the religon, you really can find some answers for our life, why the world is become like this now. why you are suffering, what you can do will make you feel better and balance......
Which religion are you? Were you originally in this faith and then branched away from it only to come back, were you raised in a different religion and then found another, or were you always non-religious until you found this current one?
-
what do you care if i get 3 dollars or not
Just trying to point out something useful.
look falconer im not even going to do any offers or anything for money on this site any more im just here for the forums so so what about the 3 dollars lol i dont have a problem with other people do it i just dont care about it
-
hello i belive in god for this job at home love it
YO!!!...MARIE!......a couple days have past, its time for you to lock this thread and start a new one about how devout you are.
lololololololol
-
look falconer im not even going to do any offers or anything for money on this site any more im just here for the forums so so what about the 3 dollars lol i dont have a problem with other people do it i just dont care about it
I'm confused on why you're even here then. You can't cash out unless you do some form of offers on this site.
-
look falconer im not even going to do any offers or anything for money on this site any more im just here for the forums so so what about the 3 dollars lol i dont have a problem with other people do it i just dont care about it
I'm confused on why you're even here then. You can't cash out unless you do some form of offers on this site.
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
-
I read your feelings. Now read mine. I know for a fact that God is real and acts for us daily to provide for us in this world. What happens is that people don't realize how close He is to us and how much we mean to Him. If you are sincere about not believing and you want to know for yourself. Ask Him. Put aside all the religious mumbo jumbo and talk to Him yourself. Don't listen to anyone and ask Him to reveal himself to you. God is real.
-
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related
-
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related
lol wtf :wave:
-
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related
your a intelligent funny up minded guy stay strong
-
I take a walk in the mountains and I immediately sense a power greater than myself. I don't understand what it is, and I think any attempt to explain it is just whistling in the dark.
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
Agreed. I report the moron as well.
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
Have fun with your imaginary friend...
your dad is a moron
How old are you lol 2 ?
-
NUH-UH! NUH-UH! U R N00B AND U B TROLLOLOLOLOLLIN' THIS THREAD! :binkybaby:
thats what you do
You have absolutely no value here. Falconer on the other hand does and has for a very long time. Unless you are going to have a valuable contribution you should just bugger off.
-
look falconer im not even going to do any offers or anything for money on this site any more im just here for the forums so so what about the 3 dollars lol i dont have a problem with other people do it i just dont care about it
I'm confused on why you're even here then. You can't cash out unless you do some form of offers on this site.
Apparently he only wants to troll the forum lol !
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
Agreed. I report the moron as well.
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
Have fun with your imaginary friend...
your dad is a moron
How old are you lol 2 ?
your dad is 2
-
look falconer im not even going to do any offers or anything for money on this site any more im just here for the forums so so what about the 3 dollars lol i dont have a problem with other people do it i just dont care about it
I'm confused on why you're even here then. You can't cash out unless you do some form of offers on this site.
Apparently he only wants to troll the forum lol !
your dad is a troll
-
Wow...what a lack of self-respect it must take for a 21-year-old to act like that (wjd22011, I'm talking to you).
-
Wow...what a lack of self-respect it must take for a 21-year-old to act like that (wjd22011, I'm talking to you).
what are you talking about cuppycake started with me in two different topic calling me names so whatever dont just put the blame on me is that really a pic of you or is that somebody else i dont think that you thats why im asking?
-
I know my God is real! I hope and pray you will find Him. He loved you first, now it's your turn.
-
@wjd22011: I have reported your last two posts to the moderator. While I'm normally one who's all for free speech and all that jazz, you can't just go around telling people off for a stupid reason. Disagreeing with what you see written in regards to religion qualifies as a stupid reason for telling Falconer (one of the most intelligent members on this forum) to go "f" himself.
Agreed. I report the moron as well.
You are Fake! Can someone post something on this thing that is worth talking about besides God! We all have differ opionions and to state that God is a Fake? Who are you to judge, you are a fake because God created YOU!!! :crybaby2:
Have fun with your imaginary friend...
your dad is a moron
How old are you lol 2 ?
your stupid i apologize for what i said have a good life and i hope you get a lot of referrals and make alot of money on here now leave me alone
-
I do not agree with the statement god is a fake completely. I do believe there is a higher power to call it a god i am not sure of but I do believe in guardian angels and someone watching over us.
-
is that really a pic of you or is that somebody else i dont think that you thats why im asking?
It's Avril Lavigne, lol. Just one of the avatars you can pick on here...
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along. :dontknow:
-
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2011/07/09/eb5a056bf54ec2a26cb161104675d87e.gif)
-
God is not fake - There is a God. Ask yourself this...
Is there a devil..? So many people choose to believe that there is not A God because of
what the devil has done and is doing. God gave each and everyone us us a " free will " If God had not given you this free will, we would all be as puppets. So God asks a simple
question.. " whos is yours..? " are you going to try to read/understand the Gospel
in order to understand that you are in a war. "The War For Your Soul" Because You
Have An Enemy ! and that Enemy is Satan.
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along.
Trollers gonna troll.
HEY FALCONER02 THAT WAS FUNNY!
Hahaha thanks! And cool text btw.
ALRIGHT...back onto the subject I suppose.
God gave each and everyone us us a " free will " If God had not given you this free will, we would all be as puppets. So God asks a simple
question.. " whos is yours..? " are you going to try to read/understand the Gospel
in order to understand that you are in a war. "The War For Your Soul" Because You
Have An Enemy ! and that Enemy is Satan.
Explain to me how a omniscient/all-powerful/perfect/all-knowing god can allow for free will when it knows past, present, and future. Surely if this god knows the future of everything, there can't be free will, correct?
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along.
Trollers gonna troll.
HEY FALCONER02 THAT WAS FUNNY!
Hahaha thanks! And cool text btw.
ALRIGHT...back onto the subject I suppose.
God gave each and everyone us us a " free will " If God had not given you this free will, we would all be as puppets. So God asks a simple
question.. " whos is yours..? " are you going to try to read/understand the Gospel
in order to understand that you are in a war. "The War For Your Soul" Because You
Have An Enemy ! and that Enemy is Satan.
Explain to me how a omniscient/all-powerful/perfect/all-knowing god can allow for free will when it knows past, present, and future. Surely if this god knows the future of everything, there can't be free will, correct?
your dad is a troll
-
is that really a pic of you or is that somebody else i dont think that you thats why im asking?
It's Avril Lavigne, lol. Just one of the avatars you can pick on here...
alright
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along. :dontknow:
who all reported me?
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along.
Trollers gonna troll.
HEY FALCONER02 THAT WAS FUNNY!
Hahaha thanks! And cool text btw.
ALRIGHT...back onto the subject I suppose.
God gave each and everyone us us a " free will " If God had not given you this free will, we would all be as puppets. So God asks a simple
question.. " whos is yours..? " are you going to try to read/understand the Gospel
in order to understand that you are in a war. "The War For Your Soul" Because You
Have An Enemy ! and that Enemy is Satan.
Explain to me how a omniscient/all-powerful/perfect/all-knowing god can allow for free will when it knows past, present, and future. Surely if this god knows the future of everything, there can't be free will, correct?
alright even after i was humble with you you still going to call me a troll aright then your moma a troll your family are trolls
-
I don't know what makes you to say that God is Fake...You are on the earth and breathing just because of these three words "GOD"..so this proves God is not fake if he is fake then you are also fake..so trust him if anything gone bad there must be good things for you :)
-
You are on the earth and breathing just because of these three words "GOD"
Those are letters.
so this proves God is not fake
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! I'M CONVINCED NOW! PRAISE THE LORD!
your dad is a troll
I'm just joking with you, dude.
-
is that really a pic of you or is that somebody else i dont think that you thats why im asking?
It's Avril Lavigne, lol. Just one of the avatars you can pick on here...
why did you put avril lavigne there how come you did not put a picture of yourself im asking because you were saying i have not self respect look at me i put a picture of myself you dident
-
You are on the earth and breathing just because of these three words "GOD"
Those are letters.
so this proves God is not fake
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! I'M CONVINCED NOW! PRAISE THE LORD!
your dad is a troll
I'm just joking with you, dude.
alright then because i dont want to problems sorry
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along.
Trollers gonna troll.
HEY FALCONER02 THAT WAS FUNNY!
Hahaha thanks! And cool text btw.
ALRIGHT...back onto the subject I suppose.
God gave each and everyone us us a " free will " If God had not given you this free will, we would all be as puppets. So God asks a simple
question.. " whos is yours..? " are you going to try to read/understand the Gospel
in order to understand that you are in a war. "The War For Your Soul" Because You
Have An Enemy ! and that Enemy is Satan.
Explain to me how a omniscient/all-powerful/perfect/all-knowing god can allow for free will when it knows past, present, and future. Surely if this god knows the future of everything, there can't be free will, correct?
Not correct ...must start a new thread.
-
God can not be God if he can not know the future. -- You are not correct
a bible verse God states this " I knew you before you were born " God must know the future
in order to SAVE YOU. Just like when you was a child, if you went running into the kitchen and ready to
grab that hot boiling tea pot, your mother already knows that if you do that you will get burned. She in turn
as she saw you coming moved the tea pot away from your reach. If she could not know that the future holds
danger in you getting hurt by being burned by the tea pot she then would not be able to move it either. God's power is Love and not harm.
-
You are on the earth and breathing just because of these three words "GOD"
I am here because of a different three letters.... "MOM"
-
You are on the earth and breathing just because of these three words "GOD"
I am here because of a different three words.... "MOM"
Don't be foolish. Some day you will die and so will your MOM -- Your mom is here
and ruled by the same force GOD .
-
And when both our bodies die so will our brains and minds and our existance will be over. Our bodies will be cremated or buried and decompose. That is the end.
-
why did you put avril lavigne there how come you did not put a picture of yourself im asking because you were saying i have not self respect look at me i put a picture of myself you dident
I don't have a picture of myself because this is a public forum. And I like Avril. Not wanting thousands of strangers to know what I look like isn't a self-respect issue, it's a safety matter.
I find it odd that you care whose picture is real or not, especially mine. For the record, I am married. lol :P
-
Im sorry to be the one to tell you but you are not flesh and blood - You are a soul and that soul
will rise again just like Jesus did - You see, Jesus had to die YOUR death so YOU can rise from the grave. So have more respect for your creator and stop degrading yourself ~ you are MORE and God is the one who MADE you more. You are a living soul and you will rise as just that . Sorry to break the real truth to you but that is what Jesus did -- He brought the TRUTH -- Believe in yourself !And when both our bodies die so will our brains and minds and our existance will be over. Our bodies will be cremated or buried and decompose. That is the end.
-
why did you put avril lavigne there how come you did not put a picture of yourself im asking because you were saying i have not self respect look at me i put a picture of myself you dident
I don't have a picture of myself because this is a public forum. And I like Avril. Not wanting thousands of strangers to know what I look like isn't a self-respect issue, it's a safety matter.
I find it odd that you care whose picture is real or not, especially mine. For the record, I am married. lol :P
well i dont think its that big a deal to have a picture of your self on here or not and i dont think you would be in harm to post a picture either well i find it odd that you say i have no self respect why did you say that what did i do? and your married this is not a dating site were people look at your pictures to hook up i think it more of a curtisey so other people know hows behind that computer.
-
I can believe what I want buddy so stop preaching to me. I don't believe in your "truth" because I have yet to see any proof. I'm glad you have "faith" in your thoughts for that is all it is.
-
Believe in what you want ~ that is just what God gave you the freedom to choose.
I can believe what I want buddy so stop preaching to me. I don't believe in your "truth" because I have yet to see any proof. I'm glad you have "faith" in your thoughts for that is all it is.
-
Ok thanks. I always thought it was my own intelligence and the development of reasoning and thinking through education and learning that allowed me to make choices.
-
You all reported wjd22011, but continue to play along. :dontknow:
who all reported me?
nevermind i dont want to ask you any questions.
-
what do you mean confused lol i dont care about the money you can make here so what do you mean cash out i already did that once and im not doing it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2011/07/09/eb5a056bf54ec2a26cb161104675d87e.gif)
its was funny, creative and took alot of thought.
-
God must know the future in order to SAVE YOU.
And yet people will go to hell with this god. He knows who is going and who's not. How is this not malevolent?
Just like when you was a child, if you went running into the kitchen and ready to grab that hot boiling tea pot, your mother already knows that if you do that you will get burned. She in turn as she saw you coming moved the tea pot away from your reach.
With your example, the mother is allowing her children to touch that hot pot. Not only that, but she knows they're going to do it ahead of time. No loving parent (with or without granting free will to the child) would EVER do that unless they were malevolent. Any loving and caring person would immediately push that pot away to keep EVERY child away from danger. So let's decypher your example-
a.) there is no free will because since he already knows what the outcome is of everything, it is fatalism. There cannot be free will if an entity knows the outcome of everything. It's playing with a stacked deck.
b.) since he knows ahead of time that people are going to hell, this god is evil.
God's power is Love and not harm.
With your reasonings, it is quite the opposite.
-
Spiritual development is what teaches the reality of God ~ You are not Spiritually developed at all. Education on how to survive in the flesh is not the same as Spiritual insight. You will never have this development if you continue to stay in the flesh. LOOK and you will SEE - If you will not look, you will not see. The choice is yours :)
Ok thanks. I always thought it was my own intelligence and the development of reasoning and thinking through education and learning that allowed me to make choices.
-
i find it odd that you say i have no self respect why did you say that what did i do?
I thought it was pretty clear why I said that, but since you didn't get it...I think it takes a lack of self-respect to reply in a childish manner like I saw you do multiple times on this thread.
-
i find it odd that you say i have no self respect why did you say that what did i do?
I thought it was pretty clear why I said that, but since you didn't get it...I think it takes a lack of self-respect to reply in a childish manner like I saw you do multiple times on this thread.
alright im sorry
-
fALCONER 02-- You have not read my post clearly - I said that the mother would not allow the
child to touch the hot tea pot. In the beginning of time - In Gensis ... God guarded the tree of
life that was in the middle of the forest so that Adam and Eve could not eat of it and why ???Because they has already been posessed by Satan and had Satan in their spirit so if they did eat of the Tree of Life , Then death and evil would be forever. Can you understand that God is a Loving God.
and protected us from the everlasting corruption. You see it was when Jesus came and died for you that you
have been given ever lasting life. You will die - sure - but you will live. So now Death became Life when Jesus sacrificed for YOU -- He Loves YOU. :heart:
-
You have not read my post clearly - I said that the mother would not allow the child to touch the hot tea pot.
But your god does allow for it. Ontop of that, he knows it's going to happen.
This-
Because they has already been posessed by Satan and had Satan in their spirit so if they did eat of the Tree of Life , Then death and evil would be forever.
And this-
Can you understand that God is a Loving God.
Make absolutely no sense at all. You don't need to create an evil antagonist if you're a loving person. A loving deity would have never had this happen in the first place. This story is a myth that ultimately makes no sense.
(http://i.qkme.me/BRy.jpg)
So now Death became Life when Jesus sacrificed for YOU -- He Loves YOU.
I'm not seeing your point in the original posts about free will. You seem to be skipping around it now.
-
FALCONER02 -- Adam and Eve had the knowledge of choice and of obiedence
before they ate of the forbidden fruit. When they ate they comsumed death
and evil from the Devil and then their bodies started to decay. This is all Spiritualunderstanding. God is not a father of material things. When they ate they did NOT receive the
knowledge of right and wrong - they already knew THAT ~ They received the spirit of sin and death and evil of which we all have. Satan is the God of this world ever since but not for long ! You have a war inside of you and this war the Spiritual warfare in your soul. There is so much to
understand about God. And too much to teach you here all in one day. :peace:
-
Okay if we're going to keep debating, just for reference I used to be a christian and had studied the bible decently. I just realized that it was wrong after I took a good look at reality and then at the tales in the bible (among other things). I do not believe in the myth of Adam and Eve and think it's quite perplexing on how many people still believe in it. I mean an angry jealous mass-murdering deity holds a grudge against his creations because of a woman made from a rib ate a piece of fruit from a magic tree because a talking snake told her to? I think you may understand my POV after reading that, but let's just entertain the idea-
Adam and Eve had the knowledge of choice and of obiedence before they ate of the forbidden fruit.
But not of right and wrong. It specifically says they got that after they ate the fruit, right? Genesis 3:22
"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
You have a war inside of you and this war the Spiritual warfare in your soul.
My only war is in the defense of freethinkers and the spreading of healthy skepticism-- specifically in this case the argument that the biblegod is malevolent and does not allow for free will when you consider his powers. I still don't see you explaining how this is wrong. You just keep saying he's loving and kind, but everything you throw onto the table says differently.
-
Falconer02.. Everything is not understood by logic. It is not your reasoning that
makes this understandable -- Its your spiritual knowledge.
God had the tree of life guarded so that they would not live forever in the evilstate of which they had consumed. Remember too,
everything has an opposite -- male/female left/right cold/hot black/white and
yes it makes one wonder, why would God have the tree of of evil
there in the first place.
BUT the tree of death and evil was eaten first NOT the tree of life.So here too you have the polarity. death/life But where is it ? -- It was in the Garden.
So Adam and Eve became lost and had not their origional spirit so God said to them
"Where are you..? " Now why would GOD say to anyone
"where are you ?" God knows where everyone is..! --He knows where you are and where
where I am AND where every human being is -- So Why ! then would God ask that..?
Answer.. That was for Adam AND Eve to know that they became LOST--running out of tape :wave:
-
I believe that God is truly real. Not because I was brought up in a Christian home but because I believe that there is something bigger than all of us out there. To think of ones self as a god is just the highest level of arrogance that there is and no one is that cool.
-
Everything is not understood by logic. It is not your reasoning that makes this understandable -- Its your spiritual knowledge.
Okay, I hate to sound rude and I don't mean to be mean or anything, but from my POV this is the line between reality and fantasy. When you disregard reason in favor of 'spiritual knowledge'-- something that someone says they know but cannot explain at all-- I disregard it. Why? Because I can put anything in the place of spiritual knowledge and make it sound real. The friendly purple 2-headed dragon with a drinking problem in my garage who tells me not to follow major religions? Yeah, I can't explain it. You just have to have spiritual knowledge in order to know he's there and then you will understand. Invite him into your heart and he will help you understand how I feel!
"The argument for religion is infallible because it relies too much on the impossible"
yes it makes one wonder, why would God have the tree of of evil there in the first place.
We've been through this. He's malevolent! lol
Unfortunately the rest of your post I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
-
Falcone02 - I explained it to you but you are not willing to see it.
Like I said before, Look and you will see..! if you will not Look you will not see.
I already explained a lot of what I can over this forum and it's not easy to
do this for someone that does not have nor seeks spiritual knowledge.
If you never had a spiritual experience and never sensed your spiritual
self, then you are not spiritually awakened and you are really a mortal
human being. I can not try and teach a mortal human being the things
of the spirit because he does not want to see and will not try to see
either. Lets just give it a rest. case closed for me. :wave:
-
You have super powers that I don't possess. Gotcha. lol good talkin' to ya! :wave: :peace:
-
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/prtee33/jesus-magic-mushroom-sean-williams-paperback-cover-art.jpg)
-
The Fool has said in his/her heart that there is no God!... Psalm 14:1 I know for sure I'm no Fool! But in the words of Mr.T "I PITY THE FOOL!"
-
your dad is a troll
I'm just joking with you, dude.
[/quote]
your a well rounded guy a good hearted, down to earth person
-
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_laoglnIU1N1qzmowao1_500.jpg)
Trolololo.
I think there's a God but I don't think he's very loving. I think he's more like the stressed out 14 year old playing the Sims.
By the way, I only read the first page. I can't be arsed to go through eight more.
-
Trolololo.
I think there's a God but I don't think he's very loving. I think he's more like the stressed out 14 year old playing the Sims.
Haha I'm glad you highlighted that pic. I forgot about it! And comparing the biblegod to a 14 year old playing the sims is a huge understatement to the evil that this god is portrayed as. If you pointlessly mod the game to allow horrifying suffering and then be a complete *bleep* to your Sims for absolutely no good reason at all, I think that's a bit more parallel.
I only read the first page. I can't be arsed to go through eight more.
Yeah that's pretty normal.
-
We all have the right to believe the way we believe but on this forum it seems like this is a bashing place. I personally believe in God and I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Everyone will one day face the truth.
-
Everyone will one day face the truth.
That's a pretty pompous, hypocritical statement from someone who starts with "we all have the right to believe the way we believe". ::)
-
The atheist belief(whether you guys want to admit it or not) is making yourself a god by judging for yourself what's right and wrong.
Sorry to break it to ya, but everyone does that. Even Fred Phelps.
Naw, not everyone does that at all.
-
Quote from angelhome:
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
Quote from Falconer:
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Quote from angelhome:
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS// The "Tyre" pronouncement. Howl, you ships of Tarshish! For havoc has been wrought, not a house is left; as they came from the land of Kittim, This was revealed to them. [end] Tyre was a sea port town. This prophecy of its overthrow is spoken of here for all its business, wealth, honour depended on its shipping; if that is ruined, they will be all undone.
Deuteronomy 23:1 does say, "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Moses wrote this book and the book itself means "second law giving." It's written to the new generation of Israelites before going into the promised land of Canaan. Caleb and Joshua, besides Moses, are the only ones who still lived from the old generation of traveling all this time. This new generation needed to learn how to develop a proper relationship with God. Joshua was also appointed as Moses' successor during this time, as well.
Moral and legal regulations are expanded on while going through the Ten Commandments again. In chapter 23, Moses was reviewing with these people how the law should be applied. In verses 1 through 8, he is giving examples of ones not allowed into the congregation of that time. These examples given include people who had either not listened to God during the travel in the wilderness, or had done things they weren't supposed to, and the ones who's family members or offspring were living in this new generation - these rules or laws were continued onto their members or offspring. They, in effect, were continuing to sow what their parents, or the grandparents, reaped.
These verses in no way mean that we, in today's generation, cannot go to heaven for the kinds of things that happened back then. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose again, we entered a new law, fulfilled by grace. Those old applications of purity for entrance into the congregation of the Lord (the rules were even stricter for priests and their sons to work in the Lord's congregation) are not the same applications as of today. You go to heaven if and when you decide to accept the Lord as Savior. Thanks to what He did for us on the cross.
GREAT post!
-
For those of you who are new to the D&D section, there are 2 or 3 atheists that hang out here and love to strike down any post about God. Regardless of what you say, they will accuse you of being a sheep who is trying to force their beliefs on you. Even if you say "I believe in my God and do not care who you believe in" they will still wrong you for being a Christian. They irony is that they are the ones being intolerant to Christianity. I am not saying that there are not Christians that join these threads and post intolerant comments, I am simply saying that regardless of how open and accepting we are, there are a couple atheists on the forum that will still fault you for it. That being said, if you argue with them they will call any source you use biased and claim it is not credible, but don't you dare call one of their sources the same because that would be an intolerant thing to do. If you ask them to explain something they will only say the burden of proof is not on them (which is not at all true). And if you mention the Bible they will only talk down to you in a sarcastic, uppity way. They believe they are above you by not being a Christian, and argueing with them may be frustrating, but in time you will realize they have their own problems and they can face up to them individually.
-
We all have the right to believe the way we believe but on this forum it seems like this is a bashing place. I personally believe in God and I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Everyone will one day face the truth.
Ah- this is definitely a place where a couple people hang out to bash Christians :)
-
Oh- and atheism is basically just another religion. And there is a few of you who force it on every single person in this thread, hypocritical.
-
People who said GOD is fake are people who have not found HIM yet.
If we are living is because God loves us :heart:
-
Here we go again......Mack, believe it or not, the whole world is not out to get you, so perhaps you should get your bloomers out of a bunch. It is well known here that I am not atheist nor agnostic and have never had anyone in either of those categories on here give me *bleep* nor attempt to force any thing upon me. The only attempts at forced assimilation I have ever encountered have came from Christians in every single case and it is almost a daily occurrence. The is a huge difference in someone disagreeing with you and someone attacking you, really all the mellow drama is not at all becoming of you.
-
Here we go again......Mack, believe it or not, the whole world is not out to get you, so perhaps you should get your bloomers out of a bunch. It is well known here that I am not atheist nor agnostic and have never had anyone in either of those categories on here give me *bleep* nor attempt to force any thing upon me. The only attempts at forced assimilation I have ever encountered have came from Christians in every single case and it is almost a daily occurrence. The is a huge difference in someone disagreeing with you and someone attacking you, really all the mellow drama is not at all becoming of you.
Please show me where I said someone was out to get me or where I called you an atheist or an agnostic and maybe we'll talk.
-
Quote from angelhome:
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
Quote from Falconer:
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Quote from angelhome:
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS// The "Tyre" pronouncement. Howl, you ships of Tarshish! For havoc has been wrought, not a house is left; as they came from the land of Kittim, This was revealed to them. [end] Tyre was a sea port town. This prophecy of its overthrow is spoken of here for all its business, wealth, honour depended on its shipping; if that is ruined, they will be all undone.
Deuteronomy 23:1 does say, "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Moses wrote this book and the book itself means "second law giving." It's written to the new generation of Israelites before going into the promised land of Canaan. Caleb and Joshua, besides Moses, are the only ones who still lived from the old generation of traveling all this time. This new generation needed to learn how to develop a proper relationship with God. Joshua was also appointed as Moses' successor during this time, as well.
Moral and legal regulations are expanded on while going through the Ten Commandments again. In chapter 23, Moses was reviewing with these people how the law should be applied. In verses 1 through 8, he is giving examples of ones not allowed into the congregation of that time. These examples given include people who had either not listened to God during the travel in the wilderness, or had done things they weren't supposed to, and the ones who's family members or offspring were living in this new generation - these rules or laws were continued onto their members or offspring. They, in effect, were continuing to sow what their parents, or the grandparents, reaped.
These verses in no way mean that we, in today's generation, cannot go to heaven for the kinds of things that happened back then. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose again, we entered a new law, fulfilled by grace. Those old applications of purity for entrance into the congregation of the Lord (the rules were even stricter for priests and their sons to work in the Lord's congregation) are not the same applications as of today. You go to heaven if and when you decide to accept the Lord as Savior. Thanks to what He did for us on the cross.
GREAT post!
Thank you!! By the way, it's great seeing you again! It's been awhile! :)
-
Here we go again......Mack, believe it or not, the whole world is not out to get you, so perhaps you should get your bloomers out of a bunch. It is well known here that I am not atheist nor agnostic and have never had anyone in either of those categories on here give me *bleep* nor attempt to force any thing upon me. The only attempts at forced assimilation I have ever encountered have came from Christians in every single case and it is almost a daily occurrence. The is a huge difference in someone disagreeing with you and someone attacking you, really all the mellow drama is not at all becoming of you.
It's interesting to see how people differ in their opinions. My opinion of what she said is totally opposite of yours - I don't see any mellow drama in her post. A lot of what she did say is of truth since it has and does happen.
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
God is as fake as you are.....
-
Quote from angelhome:
where does the Bible say if you get your genitals smashed you can't go to heaven? I have read the WORD many times, and never found that.
Quote from Falconer:
There are tons and tons of awkward, disgusting, horrifying, and generally evil things in the bible. After reading it, you really aren't aware? I'll just stick with 2 of the disgusting ones I know of though-
yes there are some awful things in the Bible, they are put there for us to learn - as examples.
Dueteronomy 23:1- “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the lord"
Quote from angelhome:
NOT SURE WHERE U READ FROM BUT IN DEUT 23:1 MY BIBLE SAYS// The "Tyre" pronouncement. Howl, you ships of Tarshish! For havoc has been wrought, not a house is left; as they came from the land of Kittim, This was revealed to them. [end] Tyre was a sea port town. This prophecy of its overthrow is spoken of here for all its business, wealth, honour depended on its shipping; if that is ruined, they will be all undone.
Deuteronomy 23:1 does say, "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Moses wrote this book and the book itself means "second law giving." It's written to the new generation of Israelites before going into the promised land of Canaan. Caleb and Joshua, besides Moses, are the only ones who still lived from the old generation of traveling all this time. This new generation needed to learn how to develop a proper relationship with God. Joshua was also appointed as Moses' successor during this time, as well.
Moral and legal regulations are expanded on while going through the Ten Commandments again. In chapter 23, Moses was reviewing with these people how the law should be applied. In verses 1 through 8, he is giving examples of ones not allowed into the congregation of that time. These examples given include people who had either not listened to God during the travel in the wilderness, or had done things they weren't supposed to, and the ones who's family members or offspring were living in this new generation - these rules or laws were continued onto their members or offspring. They, in effect, were continuing to sow what their parents, or the grandparents, reaped.
These verses in no way mean that we, in today's generation, cannot go to heaven for the kinds of things that happened back then. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose again, we entered a new law, fulfilled by grace. Those old applications of purity for entrance into the congregation of the Lord (the rules were even stricter for priests and their sons to work in the Lord's congregation) are not the same applications as of today. You go to heaven if and when you decide to accept the Lord as Savior. Thanks to what He did for us on the cross.
GREAT post!
Thank you!! By the way, it's great seeing you again! It's been awhile! :)
:wave: :wave: LOOKS TO ME LIKE DUTERONOMY 23-1 IS TO KEEP THE TRANS--SEXUALS OUT OF CHURCH!!
-
:wave: :wave: You will discover the REALITY OF GOD on Judgement Day!!
-
I believe in God.I feel him when I pray.
-
God is as fake as you are.....
Ouch. What an insult.
LOOKS TO ME LIKE DUTERONOMY 23-1 IS TO KEEP THE TRANS--SEXUALS OUT OF CHURCH!!
Because keeping people out of something they may want to do due to something they cannot change is a kind, loving, and respectable trait.
You will discover the REALITY OF GOD on Judgement Day!!
You really look forward to the end of the world, don't you? That's just...really really sad.
-
For those of you who are new to the D&D section, there are 2 or 3 atheists that hang out here and love to strike down any post about God. Regardless of what you say, they will accuse you of being a sheep who is trying to force their beliefs on you. Even if you say "I believe in my God and do not care who you believe in" they will still wrong you for being a Christian. They irony is that they are the ones being intolerant to Christianity. I am not saying that there are not Christians that join these threads and post intolerant comments, I am simply saying that regardless of how open and accepting we are, there are a couple atheists on the forum that will still fault you for it. That being said, if you argue with them they will call any source you use biased and claim it is not credible, but don't you dare call one of their sources the same because that would be an intolerant thing to do. If you ask them to explain something they will only say the burden of proof is not on them (which is not at all true). And if you mention the Bible they will only talk down to you in a sarcastic, uppity way. They believe they are above you by not being a Christian, and argueing with them may be frustrating, but in time you will realize they have their own problems and they can face up to them individually.
Amen.Post of the century.
I'm not exactly new to the dance as I've been debating Athies on line for some time.I don't think I've ever come across a more millitant,self-indulgent bunch.I've studied the historical & archaeological proofs of the bible for over 10 years.I don't mind answering the tough questions-because I've asked them myself!But I can see that little good can come over butting heads with people who clearly have no desire to discuss the facts.And I agree,the burden of proof doesn't lie with the believer.All atheism has to offer is man made theory.
This thread is the only thing that's fake! :P
-
Yeah I would like to know also, why and how did you come to the conclusion that God is fake, yet you have a Savior. Is it that the God that you were referring was god(spelled with a common g, to fake gods statues, mother nature and the sort.) Please Elaborate?
-
I'm not exactly new to the dance as I've been debating Athies on line for some time.I don't think I've ever come across a more millitant,self-indulgent bunch.I've studied the historical & archaeological proofs of the bible for over 10 years.I don't mind answering the tough questions-because I've asked them myself!But I can see that little good can come over butting heads with people who clearly have no desire to discuss the facts.And I agree,the burden of proof doesn't lie with the believer.All atheism has to offer is man made theory.
Practically everything in this quote is backwards. Let's discuss it-
1.) No (or very few) atheists here are militant or self-indulgent. Aside from this one posted from a schizophrenic who jumps from atheist-to-evangelical and back every 10 minutes (No offense, Marie), how many threads do you see posted that promote any form of atheism? Seriously, look through every page. Now add those up. Now do the same thing with the threads you see that have to do with jesus, hell, armageddon, god, christianity, angels, etc. So which group is militant and self-indulgent and which group is quiet and only brings up their views when the things being discussed are uneducated, make absolutely no sense, or are blatant lies like you've done here?
2.) You've done a very poor job at researching your facts for the past 10 years when all you do is copy/paste false information from biased creationist sites.
3.) You never answered any tough questions (atleast not to my knowledge). Instead you simply don't answer them.
4.) The burden of proof is always on the believer since they're the ones claiming supernatural and mythical events are occurring. Freethinkers are wise enough to not do that and skeptics have every right to challenge that claim. Why? Reality says differently.
5.) You're practically an atheist too, you know. Atheists just believe in one less god than you do. And those 'theories' you're speaking of? Try living without them. Swear off any understanding you have of gravity, evolution, and medicine and let me know how it goes. You owe a lot to those man-made ideas.
-
I'm sure Jedi will soon give up and stop posting on this thread just as he did on the "Is there a Hell" thread.
-
god is not a fake he is my personal savior
-
Oh- and atheism is basically just another religion.
lol I never get the logic behind comparing atheism to religion. You make your sacred Christianity sound like a dirty rag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92vQ0Nj4LA
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
god is real
-
Oh- and atheism is basically just another religion.
lol I never get the logic behind comparing atheism to religion. You make your sacred Christianity sound like a dirty rag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92vQ0Nj4LA
Really? Because it seems extremely logical- sharing a common belief system can be seen as similar to a religion.
-
sharing a common belief system can be seen as similar to a religion.
Then everything is a religion when you put it that way.
People who believe in love...it's a religion!
All the kids who believe in Santa...it's a religion!
People who think dogs make better pets than cats...it's a religion!
-
You BEST WATCH YOUR STUPID POST!!! God is watching you!! Who are you to call God a Fake??
-
You BEST WATCH YOUR STUPID POST!!! God is watching you!! Who are you to call God a Fake??
lol
freepcmoney = always good for overzealous entertainment value!
-
This is a free country; so anyone who thinks God is fake will just have to wait until judgement day to learn the awful truth that he is indeed real.
-
You BEST WATCH YOUR STUPID POST!!! God is watching you!! Who are you to call God a Fake??
Do you think all other gods through history are fake? If so, then who are you to call them fake? Your god is just as real as them even if you think you have this emotional/spiritual bond with your own god. I'm sure you'll say that you have the one TRUE god, but that's what they've all said throughout history and even with every worshipped god today.
This is a free country; so anyone who thinks God is fake will just have to wait until judgement day to learn the awful truth that he is indeed real.
"The rapture (and similar things in non-christian religions) is like the saddest thing ever in christian religion. It's like the biblical version of that strange boy everyone knew back in school who lied about an uncle who was an ex navy seal and worked for Nintendo, and when you'd poke fun at him for his obvious lies, he'd tell you that his uncle would bring him the 'Super Nintendo II' with all the awesome games in the coming weekend and then you're gonna be sorry you ever poked fun at him. That's basically the rapture for these nutcases. I'm sorry dudes, Jesus wont show up and save you from all these smug normal people who enjoyed their lives while they where living."
-random poster on another forum
I'm glad we live in a free country and not a theocracy because I can say this to you- Nobody wants to hear your guilt-tripping bs.
-
sharing a common belief system can be seen as similar to a religion.
Then everything is a religion when you put it that way.
People who believe in love...it's a religion!
All the kids who believe in Santa...it's a religion!
People who think dogs make better pets than cats...it's a religion!
I'd hardly call thinking dogs are better than cats an entire belief system, but I do not know why I expected a serious conversation on this thread anyway.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way because God is alive and well for millions of people and it gives me hope that I'll see the Almighty when I die... who do you look forward to seeing when you die?
-
I believe in God, and I think there will come a time in everyones life where the will have to rely on him.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way because God is alive and well for millions of people and it gives me hope that I'll see the Almighty when I die... who do you look forward to seeing when you die?
No unsuperstitious person can answer this unless they're joking around.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born!
- Mark Twain
I believe in God, and I think there will come a time in everyones life where the will have to rely on him.
What of those who rely on thousands of gods or no gods at all and get by very well?
-
What of those who rely on thousands of gods or no gods at all and get by very well?
Alternatively, what of those who rely heavily upon gods and aren't getting by very well at all?
-
Alternatively, what of those who rely heavily upon gods and aren't getting by very well at all?
What about those who aren't getting by very well with worshipping your god? I know a few. And I'm sure there are plenty with this statement I quoted from you. Let's look at it from an aerial viewpoint and the solution should look pretty simple-- defined deities are fake and are simple emotional support structures for the mind.
-
Alternatively, what of those who rely heavily upon gods and aren't getting by very well at all?
What about those who aren't getting by very well with worshipping your god? I know a few. And I'm sure there are plenty with this statement I quoted from you. Let's look at it from an aerial viewpoint and the solution should look pretty simple-- defined deities are fake and are simple emotional support structures for the mind.
Presumably, your reply was directed at "mary_k", to whom my comment was directed. However, we're both saying essentially the same thing in response to her. Basically, I was asking mary_k to consider those who aren't benefiting from relying upon god(s). Personally, I don't rely upon the dubious existance of deities at all - whether I'm doing well or poorly. Happens that I'm fine and I find no need to attribute that to gods, godesses, space bunnies or the like.
-
Presumably, your reply was directed at "mary_k", to whom my comment was directed. However, we're both saying essentially the same thing in response to her. Basically, I was asking mary_k to consider those who aren't benefiting from relying upon god(s). Personally, I don't rely upon the dubious existance of deities at all - whether I'm doing well or poorly. Happens that I'm fine and I find no need to attribute that to gods, godesses, space bunnies or the like.
Ah sorry I misunderstood your post-- it didn't click in my head. But yes, I totally agree.
-
Alternatively, what of those who rely heavily upon gods and aren't getting by very well at all?
What about those who aren't getting by very well with worshipping your god? I know a few. And I'm sure there are plenty with this statement I quoted from you. Let's look at it from an aerial viewpoint and the solution should look pretty simple-- defined deities are fake and are simple emotional support structures for the mind.
Okay so you always say Christians are the ones making the claim and therefore have the burden of proof. You said "defined deities are fake and are simple emotional support structures for the mind." That is making a claim, so now prove it.
-
Presumably, your reply was directed at "mary_k", to whom my comment was directed. However, we're both saying essentially the same thing in response to her. Basically, I was asking mary_k to consider those who aren't benefiting from relying upon god(s). Personally, I don't rely upon the dubious existance of deities at all - whether I'm doing well or poorly. Happens that I'm fine and I find no need to attribute that to gods, godesses, space bunnies or the like.
Ah sorry I misunderstood your post-- it didn't click in my head. But yes, I totally agree.
No problem. Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
-
Presumably, your reply was directed at "mary_k", to whom my comment was directed. However, we're both saying essentially the same thing in response to her. Basically, I was asking mary_k to consider those who aren't benefiting from relying upon god(s). Personally, I don't rely upon the dubious existance of deities at all - whether I'm doing well or poorly. Happens that I'm fine and I find no need to attribute that to gods, godesses, space bunnies or the like.
Ah sorry I misunderstood your post-- it didn't click in my head. But yes, I totally agree.
No problem. Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
[/quote]
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
[/quote]
So, to you, falcon9, an "opinion" of someone's regarding God being real or not is the same as a "fact?" That's the way it is coming across. Besides, a Christian who believes in God and believes His Word is true and literal, does not need to prove their faith to anyone. You have to decide whether or not you choose to believe or not. Christians are always told to "prove" God is real, but yet no one has been able to prove He is not.
-
GOD exsist.i noticed that.i know that for sure!!!!without him i can do nothing!!!
-
I used to be agnostic and then at some point I was probably an atheist. I didn't go looking for God although I was at times in difficult spots where I would pray and sadly I would on occasion pray to any god that would listen. I have even laid down to die before, knowing honestly that I was at my end, and that is the type of difficulty I describe.
How I arrived at being a (somewhat) devout Christian is a story I don't even know how to begin to tell. It was honestly somewhat like the trail of events in the movie 'Signs', but there were of course no aliens or crop circles or invasions or such nonsense. It was an emergence of points of my life of both bad and good and varied over years where all of a sudden everything came together in a focused and clear point of understanding for me. It was as if for many years I had been having a whispered and unanswered conversation with God and finally on one day he chose to answer me but not with any booming voice (or voice at all for that matter) or flaming bushes but with an appearance all at once to all of these unrelated questions and concerns all within the same point and time and laid out before me in a way that was all too obvious. It wasn't a 'knowing' though where you have no choice in faith as the All Mighty is standing before you. No, it was still a test of faith for someone like me who had so little faith as to be virtually hopeless in that regard. There was no reward for me, except grace and salvation and God's love. There was in fact punishment for me on that day and whether it was divine or not I cannot say but it did likely save my life and possibly the life's of others. Again it is an odd story to fully tell and it would do me no justice in anyone eyes to hear of my deeds so please just take it at face value for what I have said.
Knowing God is real does you no good. It is not in knowing that you will receive salvation but in faith. Knowing would prevent faith and thus condemn by default. Many people often question the lack of divine intervention and God's tolerance to mans sinful ways but I tell you that is a combination of the gift of salvation and of free will.
-
lol... Im not sure now... You kinda changed my perspective ??? But for now I will still believe in god
-
I used to be agnostic and then at some point I was probably an atheist. I didn't go looking for God although I was at times in difficult spots where I would pray and sadly I would on occasion pray to any god that would listen. I have even laid down to die before, knowing honestly that I was at my end, and that is the type of difficulty I describe.
How I arrived at being a (somewhat) devout Christian is a story I don't even know how to begin to tell. It was honestly somewhat like the trail of events in the movie 'Signs', but there were of course no aliens or crop circles or invasions or such nonsense. It was an emergence of points of my life of both bad and good and varied over years where all of a sudden everything came together in a focused and clear point of understanding for me. It was as if for many years I had been having a whispered and unanswered conversation with God and finally on one day he chose to answer me but not with any booming voice (or voice at all for that matter) or flaming bushes but with an appearance all at once to all of these unrelated questions and concerns all within the same point and time and laid out before me in a way that was all too obvious. It wasn't a 'knowing' though where you have no choice in faith as the All Mighty is standing before you. No, it was still a test of faith for someone like me who had so little faith as to be virtually hopeless in that regard. There was no reward for me, except grace and salvation and God's love. There was in fact punishment for me on that day and whether it was divine or not I cannot say but it did likely save my life and possibly the life's of others. Again it is an odd story to fully tell and it would do me no justice in anyone eyes to hear of my deeds so please just take it at face value for what I have said.
Knowing God is real does you no good. It is not in knowing that you will receive salvation but in faith. Knowing would prevent faith and thus condemn by default. Many people often question the lack of divine intervention and God's tolerance to mans sinful ways but I tell you that is a combination of the gift of salvation and of free will.
Thank you for sharing your testimony (or the main part of it.) I totally agree with your last paragraph as well - faith and free will combined together to accept God's salvation. :)
-
Okay so you always say Christians are the ones making the claim and therefore have the burden of proof.
Well yeah.
You said "defined deities are fake and are simple emotional support structures for the mind." That is making a claim, so now prove it.
Very simple! As we evolve, we evolve music, language, math, spirituality, etc. to fit within our societies. All of these things stem from our brains and due to technology we can trace these effects.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html
The god spot helps us cope with stress and 'big picture' questions humans have difficulty comprehending. It's fairly obvious that sometimes emotions get in the way of reality and we stuff ideas into our minds that bring comfort. Abrahamic religions have a history of doing this to every area of life-- "Can't figure out the answer? It must be god!" -- so considering it still has a foot in our culture, there's a reason the biblegod still exists in our culture. Can it bring comfort to someone? Sure! Is it legitimate? Furthest from. Considering there's physical evidence of this, I think I've proven my point.
Now understand this has to do with defined gods (religious gods). I cannot disprove the existence of any idea of a metaphysical or supernatural entity, but to push for any of the ideas I could make up would be absurd and irrational. Unfortunately that's what religions start upon and rise to power with. As a result, you get this-
http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg?w=500
Besides, a Christian who believes in God and believes His Word is true and literal, does not need to prove their faith to anyone.
Ugh...the same ol' convenient cop-out in the face of skepticism.
(http://www.debatepolitics.com/groups/atheists-united-picture67112319-2843905157-3abe047f44.jpg)
-
Quote from jcribb:
Besides, a Christian who believes in God and believes His Word is true and literal, does not need to prove their faith to anyone.
Quote from Falconer:
Ugh...the same ol' convenient cop-out in the face of skepticism.
Sorry, Falconer, you'll have to come up with something better than this, lol! That's "elementary, my dear Mr. Watson," and doesn't skim the surface of Christian faith. Nice try, though! :)
-
God is not a fake, it's the people who believe that crap who are fakes. How can you call something a fake that does not exist? :notworthy:
-
Sorry, Falconer, you'll have to come up with something better than this, lol! That's "elementary, my dear Mr. Watson," and doesn't skim the surface of Christian faith
I can't argue with something or someone that cannot show a basis to their argument. As it has already been demonstrated- anything they bring up would be a cop-out.
"I believe this is true!"
"Proof?"
"lol I dont need to show you! I just know!"
" ::) "
-
Thank you for sharing your testimony (or the main part of it.) I totally agree with your last paragraph as well - faith and free will combined together to accept God's salvation. :)
Thank you for the appreciative comment. I suppose this is an odd place to share what I did but I felt somewhat compelled to. I wanted to expand on it a bit, but I can be so long winded I felt it best to keep it short (yeah that is short for me). I get a bit frustrated at the ready emergence these days of people lacking in any faith and I don't know what to attribute it to and it causes me some concern. I cannot quite say that it has an ominous feel to it but it is disquieting to me and there is just something about it. It is possible that I just pay more attention than I used to, and it is possible this is just the way it has always been but released by the anonymity provided by modern communication...I don't know.
-
Many people often question the lack of divine intervention and God's tolerance to mans sinful ways but I tell you that is a combination of the gift of salvation and of free will.
Time for your answer to this question that has been posed to Christians on here before... How exactly can we have "free will" when your god is omniscient? It's logically impossible.
I get a bit frustrated at the ready emergence these days of people lacking in any faith and I don't know what to attribute it to and it causes me some concern.
Here's what you can attribute to it: progression. We've learned so much about how the world works and our universe just in the past century; it's absolutely mind blowing. And our technological capabilities are just going to keep increasing exponentially. The more we grow in our knowledge of things, the more we see the ancient customs of our ancestors for what they are...primitive, superstitious, basic attempts at understanding the world. We have many of the answers as to why human behavior is the way that it is (like why we invent religions)...and yet most humans remain ignorant to these facts.
Many of us got started on this forum with this daddy of a thread (if you're bored/curious): http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=11958.msg136181#msg136181
-
Time for your answer to this question that has been posed to Christians on here before... How exactly can we have "free will" when your god is omniscient? It's logically impossible.
I can understand why some would see that as a paradox, especially if we view it through our linear concept of time (the only way we can feasibly attempt to understand time). When viewed externally as such, it certainly seems to imply some form of determinism and thus a lack of free will. The mistake in that, is in our considerations of a linear time and our attempt at comprehension of such by God. Is God watching a VCR tape of a movie he has already seen? Is He watching a play performed by live actors that he has already watched before. Does God apply an all encompassing equation to instantaneously solve for the outcome of any situation having the ability to apply every possible variable to it at once? These are the ways we tend to picture this playing out.
I will not pretend to know the answer to that as I am well aware that it is an answer we could never know. To put it simply there are things that our minds cannot understand, irrespective of our capacity for intellect or reason. It is logically impossible for us to even exist by every extent of our ability to reason. Regardless of what position you take on our origin, if you follow it back to just before a beginning you are left we the undeniable conclusion that we cannot exist -- and yet we do. That is the paradox of existence. Embracing such an odd thought leads us only to the conclusion that some things are beyond us, or at least beyond the way we think. I sometimes wonder if we are an 'i' (by i I mean square root of -1) in one of Einstein's equations.
Your second point I think is a perfect place to bring up an old favorite: "The Scientist vs God: Man Making Contest"
There was a convention to discuss all of the achievements in science for the past decade. After their meetings, a group of scientists were talking and came to the conclusion that man no longer needs God. So they picked one from the group to go tell Him.
The scientist approached God and said, "Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can extract stem cells, clone people, transplant hearts, and all kinds of things that were once considered miraculous."
God patiently heard him out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not you still need me, why don't we have a little man-making contest!"
"Okay, great!" the scientist said.
"Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said.
"That's fine," replied the scientist and he bent down to scoop up a handful of dirt.
"Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast, pal. You get your own dirt."
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
[/quote]
You are absolutely wrong. No where on this thread did I say "GOD IS REAL"--but multiple times it has been said to me "GOD IS NOT REAL", so I am not the one staking the claim. Any response you make to this stating something different will be 100% wrong.
-
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is
You are absolutely wrong. No where on this thread did I say "GOD IS REAL"--but multiple times it has been said to me "GOD IS NOT REAL", so I am not the one staking the claim. Any response you make to this stating something different will be 100% wrong.
[/quote]
I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real". Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this. The degree of self-delusion inherent in such a view would be astounding, were it not so commonplace. As to your empty assertion that "any response" made to your baseless claim would be "100% wrong"; there's no substantiation provided for that additional claim either.
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
So, to you, falcon9, an "opinion" of someone's regarding God being real or not is the same as a "fact?" That's the way it is coming across.
[/quote]
No, read the post again. It specifically asserts that stating a belief, or an "opinion" if that's how you want to rephrase it), is the same thing as making a claim. Claims, beliefs and opinions are not the same as "facts", (since facts can be substantiated).
[/quote]
Besides, a Christian who believes in God and believes His Word is true and literal, does not need to prove their faith to anyone. You have to decide whether or not you choose to believe or not. Christians are always told to "prove" God is real, but yet no one has been able to prove He is not.
[/quote]
As Falconeer02 points out, stating that a belief relies upon faith alone is precisely the same as admiting there is no substantiation for such a claim. Further, it is a logical fallacy to insist that the opposing viewpoint 'disprove' the initial claimant's unfounded claim.
-
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is
You are absolutely wrong. No where on this thread did I say "GOD IS REAL"--but multiple times it has been said to me "GOD IS NOT REAL", so I am not the one staking the claim. Any response you make to this stating something different will be 100% wrong.
I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real". Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this. The degree of self-delusion inherent in such a view would be astounding, were it not so commonplace. As to your empty assertion that "any response" made to your baseless claim would be "100% wrong"; there's no substantiation provided for that additional claim either.
[/quote]
No, never did I come on this thread and say GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DONT THINK SO YOU ARE WRONG! I said, I choose to believe so, and if you do not that is fine. I am not the one who said my belief is right and yours is wrong, that was some of the atheist believers on this thread, so saying that I did anything different than what I just described is ignorant. However, since as an atheist you say your belief is right and mine is wrong you are making the claim, so prove it- that is what is always told to Christians who make any type of claim here. So don't be hypocritical, suck it up and prove it!
-
I posted this on another thread, but I think it is fitting here.
If you study the Bible, you will see that death and suffering were not part of God's original plan. Because they distrusted God, the first people God created chose to listen to Satan instead of God. Since that time, everybody has to make a choice--to follow Satan or to follow God.
Take a look at look at what the Bible says God's character is. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."(I John 4:8) "But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one." (II Thessalonians 3:3) If you follow God and let Him guide you, your life will show these results or fruit: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control..."(Galatians 5:22-23)
These characteristics may seem to contradict a lot of what you see in the Old Testament. However, the God mentioned in the New Testament is the same God mentioned in the Old Testament. "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6) Sometimes the image of God in the Bible may appear to be revengeful and cruel, but that is not so. Remember God is love. God hates sin and all it does, but He loves the sinner infinitely more than we can understand. He loves the sinner enough to allow Jesus to be killed to pay the penalty of sin. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23.)
God works with all of us as much as He can to get us to stop sinning and ask forgiveness for what we have done. It is totally our choice, though, because God cannot force us to obey Him. "Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) God is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a God of justice. "'The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18) When someone persistently refuse to listen to conscience and obey God, God will not "bother" that person anymore. But that doesn't happen until God has done everything He can to help that person change. God knows everything and only when God knows that nothing else He can do will change that person, He will allow him to do what he wants. In the Old Testament, when God wiped out whole tribes of people, He was not doing it out of hatred, but rather out of love. He saw that those people would not change no matter how much more time they had. If they were allowed to stay around, they would lead many others to join them in rebellion against God. Take for example Sodom and Gomorrah. If you are not familiar with the story, read Genesis 18-19. God destroyed the wicked cities, but only after Lot and his family were led out of the city by angels. If there had been ten people who wanted to follow God in those cities, God would not have destroyed the cities.
This has much to do with what is commonly referred to as the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin is persistently refusing to listen to God. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men." (Matthew 12:30-31) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the persistent refusal to respond to the invitation to repent.
Do not refuse to listen to the Holy Spirit any longer. God promises in the Bible, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) It is not too late to change. Choose not to follow Satan, but rather to follow God. If you ask God to help you, He will. God loves you very much and He will never give up working with you until there is no hope left. Don't reject His pleas. Please choose to follow Him now.
-
Take a look at look at what the Bible says God's character is. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."(I John 4:8)
I don't know why a emoticon shows up. I never put a emoticon there; instead, it's an 8.
-
I don't know why a emoticon shows up. I never put a emoticon there; instead, it's an 8.
Because an 8 followed by a parentheses makes this emoticon: 8)
;)
If you put a space in between like this: 8 ) you'll avoid that problem.
-
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is
I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real". Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this.
[/quote]
No, never did I come on this thread and say GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DONT THINK SO YOU ARE WRONG! I said, I choose to believe so, and if you do not that is fine.
[/quote]
That wasn't the assertion made; you asserted your belief and that is an unsubstantiated claim, (not the claim of belief but, that the belief itself is a claim which remains unsubstantiated).
[/quote]
saying that I did anything different than what I just described is ignorant.
[/quote]
Your claim that you've said something other than what is actually quoted is nonsensical.
[/quote]
However, since as an atheist you say your belief is right and mine is wrong you are making the claim, so prove it- [/quote]
Firstly, I never claimed to be an atheist nor claimed any beliefs as right and yours as wrong so, there have been no such claims asserted by me to prove. Secondly, you continue to dodge requests that you substantiate your stated initial claims by way of diversionary counter-attacks. These have proved to be ineffective and strongly suggest that you cannot do so.
-
I don't know why a emoticon shows up. I never put a emoticon there; instead, it's an 8.
Because an 8 followed by a parentheses makes this emoticon: 8)
;)
If you put a space in between like this: 8 ) you'll avoid that problem.
Thanks. I just learned something! I see it now... :)
-
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is
I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real". Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this.
No, never did I come on this thread and say GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DONT THINK SO YOU ARE WRONG! I said, I choose to believe so, and if you do not that is fine.
[/quote]
That wasn't the assertion made; you asserted your belief and that is an unsubstantiated claim, (not the claim of belief but, that the belief itself is a claim which remains unsubstantiated).
[/quote]
saying that I did anything different than what I just described is ignorant.
[/quote]
Your claim that you've said something other than what is actually quoted is nonsensical.
[/quote]
However, since as an atheist you say your belief is right and mine is wrong you are making the claim, so prove it- [/quote]
Firstly, I never claimed to be an atheist nor claimed any beliefs as right and yours as wrong so, there have been no such claims asserted by me to prove. Secondly, you continue to dodge requests that you substantiate your stated initial claims by way of diversionary counter-attacks. These have proved to be ineffective and strongly suggest that you cannot do so.
[/quote]
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact. So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
-
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny. You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place. lulz!
-
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny. You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place. lulz!
Agreed. Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination). Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.
-
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny. You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place. lulz!
Agreed. Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination). Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.
And there lies the personal choice! You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision. If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled. I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me. Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices. We move on with our lives.
-
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny. You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place. lulz!
Agreed. Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination). Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.
And there lies the personal choice! You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision. If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled. I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me. Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices. We move on with our lives.
Your interpretation is not entirely accurate in that I'm not choosing to 'disbelieve' rather, I am still awaiting substantiation of the claimed belief that what you call "god" exists. Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'. This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis. Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?
-
Yeah, I think it's pretty funny. You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place. lulz!
Agreed. Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination). Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.
And there lies the personal choice! You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision. If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled. I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me. Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices. We move on with our lives.
Your interpretation is not entirely accurate in that I'm not choosing to 'disbelieve' rather, I am still awaiting substantiation of the claimed belief that what you call "god" exists. Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'. This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis. Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?
God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ. However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories. How in the world else could it have been written? God had those writers record the events of things that happened and also tells of future events.
In the meantime, I hope you find what you are looking for as far as substantiation. Unfortunately, having faith is the major obstacle people have when it comes to making any kind of decision for or against Christ. For me, that is not an obstacle like it was at one time.
As far as your comment of choosing to be rational or irrational? Those are your words. I had not given any thought to anything like that - I am not calling anyone rational or irrational, who is doing what he/she feels is the best thing to do when it comes to making any decision about the validity of Christ/God.
-
God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ. However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories. How in the world else could it have been written? God had those writers record the events of things that happened and also tells of future events.
The reason that the "bible" does not constitute evidence is because it does constitute circular reasoning. That is, an assertion that the presentation of an unsubstantiated bit of "evidence" supports further unsubstantiated claims based upon that "evidence" is equivalent to stating 'because I said so' and remains dubious. As to how else such an abridged and jumbled body of writings could have been written; there are several less esoteric explanations which do not require Occam to nick himself shaving.
As far as your comment of choosing to be rational or irrational? Those are your words. I had not given any thought to anything like that - I am not calling anyone rational or irrational, who is doing what he/she feels is the best thing to do when it comes to making any decision about the validity of Christ/God.
Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'. This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis. Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"
The not-so-rhetorical question at the end, rather than calling anyone rational or irrational, (i.e.; the question was asked to obtain an answer to an inquiry about whether or not "faith" is rational or, irrational), remains mysteriously unanswered.
-
Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'. This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis. Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"
It would depend upon what you mean by "a refusal to believe". That is inclusive of atheism (and any belief (religious or secular) that takes a position contrary to the proposed belief), agnosticism, or any that have never considered the question. While the later two would qualify for your characterization of 'choice', the first would not -- or at least not in any way more or less than the choice to believe.
-
God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ. However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories. How in the world else could it have been written?
Um...I can think of quite a few ways the "ALL POWERFUL" Creator of the universe could have done a much better job communicating his points. Like appear in the sky to everyone in the world at the same time, visually and audibly. Or code "Copyright [your year of birth] by God" into our individual DNA.
This "relying on prophets" business is no different than any other mythological holy book throughout time.
Video that illustrates my point wonderfully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FhTzHVZ0h0
-
Um...I can think of quite a few ways the "ALL POWERFUL" Creator of the universe could have done a much better job communicating his points. Like appear in the sky to everyone in the world at the same time, visually and audibly. Or code "Copyright [your year of birth] by God" into our individual DNA.
The first case you give is exactly something that would be the wrong thing to do if one's goal is as God's in the bible. The second example you give is more interesting but is something I think people would easily dismiss as a coincidental genetic trait. It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose). According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can. While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.
-
It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose). According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can. While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.
Faith...ugh. That's a dirty word. You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.
-
Faith...ugh. That's a dirty word. You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.
Oh but you do rely on 'faith' for many things in your real life but you don't recognize them as such. An example of this is when you drive down the road and trust in the other drivers to respect the lines upon the road (and especially that dividing line down the middle when dealing with two way traffic on a two lane road). Remove that line and observe the differences in your driving and trust. I could give many other examples but that is a strong enough one I think for my point.
-
Oh but you do rely on 'faith' for many things in your real life but you don't recognize them as such. An example of this is when you drive down the road and trust in the other drivers to respect the lines upon the road
There are a lot of things that I know about the other drivers that prevents your example from being faith. #1 and most important, they are fellow humans who value their lives. #2, how many cars have I passed in my life? Tens of thousands. How many of those cars have ever crossed the line and threatened my life? Zero (or very few). With this kind of observable repeat data, I can have reasonable expectations and don't have to rely on "faith".
Let's all remind ourselves of one of the main definitions of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster).
-
There are a lot of things that I know about the other drivers that prevents your example from being faith. #1 and most important, they are fellow humans who value their lives. #2, how many cars have I passed in my life? Tens of thousands. How many of those cars have ever crossed the line and threatened my life? Zero (or very few). With this kind of observable repeat data, I can have reasonable expectations and don't have to rely on "faith".
Let's all remind ourselves of one of the main definitions of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster).
Your knowledge of the other drivers is based on experience and self reflection (with regards to concerns for mortality) and your 'faith' in them looking out for their own interests and following rational human behavior. You also speak of trusting that line based on repeated experience over time which is much the same way religious faith is honed. I ask you sincerely can you remember your fist experience of how well you regarded this line especially when a large vehicle was plowing your way at a high rate of speed? Has your regard for this line keeping you and the other drivers on course always been as resolute as it currently is?
I am not particularly fond of that definition of faith (sounds like a liberal atheistic definition of religious faith) and would prefer "firm belief in something without requiring proof".
Again I insist that the faiths are equatable, and since I have both religious faith and faith in the yellow line performing its duties I would say I can draw a reasonable comparison, albeit one could argue it is biased.
-
Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'. This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis. Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"
It would depend upon what you mean by "a refusal to believe". That is inclusive of atheism (and any belief (religious or secular) that takes a position contrary to the proposed belief), agnosticism, or any that have never considered the question. While the later two would qualify for your characterization of 'choice', the first would not -- or at least not in any way more or less than the choice to believe.
First, I didn't use the phrase "a refusal to believe", (although jcribb posted something similar to which I responded). Secondly, atheism itself is not characterized as a "belief" except in the most general of definitions, (they lack faith-based premises for one thing). Lastly, everyone chooses unless there is no choice available, (barring a physical inability to choose). SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not.
-
First, I didn't use the phrase "a refusal to believe", (although jcribb posted something similar to which I responded). Secondly, atheism itself is not characterized as a "belief" except in the most general of definitions, (they lack faith-based premises for one thing). Lastly, everyone chooses unless there is no choice available, (barring a physical inability to choose). SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not.
I was addressing where you said "Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?" You don't really choose to be irrational, although your choice may lead to irrationality. An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand. The third party may see the choice as irrational but then that would be an external judgment.
While I would consider true atheism not to be a belief, one will rarely encounter a true atheist and they are unlikely to admit to such (but not out of any concerns for the admission just that it offers no advantage to reveal). This modern type of quasi-atheism that is periodically about the media is both a belief and a religion of sorts. It is more readily obvious though as it isn't so much atheism as it is anti spiritual religion. One reason I have such a difficult time understanding the quasi-atheist is that they choose to take an active and aggressive position against something that the true atheist would prefer everyone else actually believed in. The true atheist would certainly consider the quasi-atheist to be irrational.
-
*popcorn*
Please define what a "true atheist" is, and why such a person would prefer people to be religious? :confused1:
-
I was addressing where you said "Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?" You don't really choose to be irrational, although your choice may lead to irrationality. An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand. The third party may see the choice as irrational but then that would be an external judgment.
Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis. Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision. In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.
-
*popcorn*
Please define what a "true atheist" is, and why such a person would prefer people to be religious? :confused1:
Yep, I'd be interested to read their interpretation of what a "true atheist" is as well. Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.
:BangHead:
-
Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis. Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision. In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.
You are using external judgments again and that is where the difficulty in your understanding is, notice my deliberate use of the word 'scope'. There are many times where one mans rational is another's irrational. Somewhat related is the physics problem regarding "hot water freezing faster than cold". Everyone is generally familiar with this and such juvenile explanations as "the molecules are farther apart", etc. The mathematician looks at this problem and applies the "intermediate value theorem" to determine that at some point in time the hot water must reach the exact same temperature as the cold began at and thus readily rationalizes that it cannot cool faster than cooler water. Observation and scientific studies have proven that hot water can sometimes freeze faster than cooler water and we are left simply with the currently unexplained Mpemba effect. The scope of the mathematicians rationalization does not include whatever missing variables exist, regardless of how rational they are to the mathematician.
As a point, I must mention that you broke from your previous insistence that you were not calling a belief in faith irrational where it was fairly obvious of your implications. I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises. Now I am sure you will challenge this point, but I don't care as I now have my zero.
-
Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.
My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days. :P Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.
-
god is not fake. religion is, but not god. i belive in the god of abraham, issac, and jacob
-
Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.
My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days. :P Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.
Yes, 'dead horse(s)' is a very apt description. Every once in awhile a new 'rider' will jump on the horse, but since it is dead, the horse goes nowhwere. Or, maybe I should say it just runs in circles like these debates do and have from day one. I don't have the energy most days to even bother anymore, but it seems 1 or 2 of the wicked atheists in our little clique (as we have been called how many times now?) still manage to keep putting OUR camp flag back up the pole and going into the battle yet again.....*sigh* ;)
-
I don't have the energy most days to even bother anymore
Yep! Humanity is doomed...that's the conclusion I've come to. :-X We can fly to the moon, but at the same time have the mindset that flying into buildings is okay and that we'll even get rewarded for it in the afterlife. ::)
-
Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis. Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision. In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.
You are using external judgments again and that is where the difficulty in your understanding is, notice my deliberate use of the word 'scope'. There are many times where one mans rational is another's irrational.
Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes". While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well. Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.
As a point, I must mention that you broke from your previous insistence that you were not calling a belief in faith irrational where it was fairly obvious of your implications.
Perhaps however, overtly stating something and interpreting an implication are two different animals. I will concede that, on the basis of the meanings of "faith" and "belief", they are both irrational stances, (as previously contended).
I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises. Now I am sure you will challenge this point, but I don't care as I now have my zero.
Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"? Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief". QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.
-
Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.
My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days. :P Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.
Probably so ... such 'debates' often go over the same ground because 'believers' soon discover that they have no basis for their beliefs other than baseless "faith". Any utility in continuing such discussions rests with presenting the reasoning, (not based upon "faith"), and non-reasoned, ('faith-based'), contentions to those who who previously unaware of them.
-
Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes". While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well. Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.
I have committed no fallacy with my argument, unlike this red herring of yours. Even though the normative was in support of my point I took the time to emphasize my usage of 'scope' to key you in on this. Instead of picking up on my clue you went on a tangent regarding scope. Do you even recall the debated point here or are you lost in the details?
Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"? Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief". QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.
I said nothing about "word games", and what is with the insults anyways? I was speaking about you making weak (in intention) arguments, leaving them just vague enough to maintain deniability -- arguments where you know the conclusions the reader will be drawn to yet then deny that you meant them. I am familiar with such methods and in this case the tactic was left to turn an oppositions observations against them. Whether you did this accidentally and only noticed it after being questioned on it I cannot be certain but I did give you credit for it.
I assure you there is no intended diversionary tactic. This almost makes me curious as to whether you are attributing more cunning to me than I am worthy of as I may have towards you for a baited conclusion (well maybe not, though, as you did sort of say it following an insult). Our debate has nothing to do directly with "faith" and "belief". I fear I may have butted in at a bad time during your debate with another and caused confusion, if so my apologies for the faux pas (note: me being apologetic is not to be construed in anyway as an attempt to surrender or to barter a truce).
I felt I did quite a bit more than simply disagree with QoN's definition of faith. I gave an opposing definition. I preceded QoN's definition with an analogy and supported my analogy with counters to the counters. I did leave with a very weak conclusion but it wasn't so much to be intended a conclusion, instead it was trailer filler for my reaffirmation of my position.
-
Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes". While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well. Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.
I have committed no fallacy with my argument, unlike this red herring of yours.
On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said". My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended. Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.
Even though the normative was in support of my point I took the time to emphasize my usage of 'scope' to key you in on this. Instead of picking up on my clue you went on a tangent regarding scope. Do you even recall the debated point here or are you lost in the details?
Yours was the weak supportive tangent which could easily be used to support the opposite contention, as I indicated in the response you suspiciously snipped out, (almost as if to omit the context). Here's that response, for handy reference: 'it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes". While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well. Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.'
Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"? Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief". QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.
I said nothing about "word games", and what is with the insults anyways?
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."
I was speaking about you making weak (in intention) arguments, leaving them just vague enough to maintain deniability -- arguments where you know the conclusions the reader will be drawn to yet then deny that you meant them.
You never indicated a substantive basis for your belief that the arguements I presented were weak. You are however, attempting to do so now - again, lacking any supportive basis other than your suspect interpretations. I do not agree with your interpretations and rejected them as non sequiturs. Should you disagree with such an assesment, you may want to point out which arguement of mine was either "vague" or "weak in intention" with substantiations beyond your unsupported opinions. Or not, as the case may be.
I assure you there is no intended diversionary tactic.
You can go around assuring all you want; the assurance holds no water because of the holes in that bucket.
This almost makes me curious as to whether you are attributing more cunning to me than I am worthy of ...
I wouldn't go that far in supposition; possibly as far as attributing such transparent counter-attacks as attempts at diversions which failed though.
Our debate has nothing to do directly with "faith" and "belief". I fear I may have butted in at a bad time during your debate with another and caused confusion, if so my apologies for the faux pas (note: me being apologetic is not to be construed in anyway as an attempt to surrender or to barter a truce).
Au contrare, the central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument. Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.
I felt I did quite a bit more than simply disagree with QoN's definition of faith. I gave an opposing definition.
No, you gave your 'preferred' and subjectively-biased alternate definition. This is an old and weak argumentative tactic employed by those who wish to redefine the terms being discussed to shore up their weak positions. It doesn't matter whether or not you like or dislike the standard definitions or words; if you're going to use them, you tacitly accept established definitions or, make up your own new words and define those as you see fit.
I preceded QoN's definition with an analogy and supported my analogy with counters to the counters. I did leave with a very weak conclusion but it wasn't so much to be intended a conclusion, instead it was trailer filler for my reaffirmation of my position.
Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions. It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).
-
On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said". My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended. Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.
I find it odd that my expansion on 'scopes', which was directly in support of the one key piece I wanted the reader focused on, is considered by you as a tangent. Yet you insist that your redundant and irrelevant analysis of scope could be anything other than a red herring.
Yours was the weak supportive tangent which could easily be used to support the opposite contention, as I indicated in the response you suspiciously snipped out, (almost as if to omit the context). Here's that response, for handy reference: 'it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes". While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well. Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.'
Weak supportive tangent? What are you talking about? My view was completely in line with the standard sociological model and you took a position in diametric opposition without giving supporting evidence or even attempting go make a case. The burden of proof is on you. There is no sinister omission and I cannot ascertain if you are accusing me of not including my quote and only your reply (something I invariably do and a fast review of my previous posts will readily reveal this) or are accusing me of cutting parts of your reply (I assure you that the exact text you have above as reference is in its entirety within my post). The only reasons I can possibly come up with for your implications of derailment are that you have forgotten what the point of our particular debate is.
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."
And that is exactly my point. I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply. "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point. I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs. This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.
You never indicated a substantive basis for your belief that the arguements I presented were weak. You are however, attempting to do so now - again, lacking any supportive basis other than your suspect interpretations. I do not agree with your interpretations and rejected them as non sequiturs. Should you disagree with such an assesment, you may want to point out which arguement of mine was either "vague" or "weak in intention" with substantiations beyond your unsupported opinions. Or not, as the case may be.
[indent]Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
[/indent]
The above is a failure to state admitted by yourself as part of an argument to another, while there was a more appropriate quote I wanted to find I grew weary of looking for it and it is overall unimportant to the topic at hand.
You can go around assuring all you want; the assurance holds no water because of the holes in that bucket.
Again, the burden of proof is on you as I hold the position of the normative and therefor have no reason to divert.
Au contrare, the central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument. Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.
My contention with you, which I have accused you of losing track of, is your assertion that people make irrational choices deliberately knowing them to be such.
No, you gave your 'preferred' and subjectively-biased alternate definition. This is an old and weak argumentative tactic employed by those who wish to redefine the terms being discussed to shore up their weak positions. It doesn't matter whether or not you like or dislike the standard definitions or words; if you're going to use them, you tacitly accept established definitions or, make up your own new words and define those as you see fit.
My definition was far less biased than the cherry picked one QoN presented (which was presented as one of the main definitions and that is something quite contestable as well). Even the given definition does not weaken my arguments, but I wanted to indicate a challenge QoN's appeal to authority.
Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions. It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).
I am always delighted to see my opponent resort to ad hominem, but honestly I expected more from you.
-
Quote
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."
Quote from: Abrupt:
And that is exactly my point. I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply. "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point. I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs. This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.
Abrupt, great point! I do like the way you put that.
-
On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said". My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended. Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.
I find it odd that my expansion on 'scopes', which was directly in support of the one key piece I wanted the reader focused on, is considered by you as a tangent. Yet you insist that your redundant and irrelevant analysis of scope could be anything other than a red herring.
As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention. That made it tangential. Characterizing reiteration of this aspect of your 'argument' as redundant and irrelevant while you repeatedly ignore the evident vague inconclusiveness noted is hypocritical.
Weak supportive tangent? What are you talking about?
As stated previously, your vague and inconclusive assertions regarding "scopes" weakly supported your contention regarding your premise. If you've forgotten your own premise, that's not my lookout.
My view was completely in line with the standard sociological model and you took a position in diametric opposition without giving supporting evidence or even attempting go make a case. The burden of proof is on you.
If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim). In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support. There are billions of people who base their opinions, (and subsequently, much of their actions), upon "faith" & "belief" - which do not constitute a rational basis. Why don't they constitute a rational basis? This is due to the defined meanings of the words "belief" & "faith". The opposing contention has now been substantiated. Your turn.
There is no sinister omission
The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion. Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."
And that is exactly my point. I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply. "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point.
We're not playing Trivia Pursuit here; we're using words to discuss and debate a premise. By attempting to imply you meant something other than 'word games' when you specifically used the word "games", (in context), you are tacitly admitting that you are playing such 'word games' rather than address points raised in debate. In fact, even your counter regarding a general definition of the phrase emphasizes this when you debated the meaning of the word "faith" with QoN. The evidence of your own words points not only to your familiarity "with such excercises" but, with a penchant for employing them as underpaid staff.
[indent]Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
[/indent]
The above is a failure to state admitted by yourself as part of an argument to another, while there was a more appropriate quote I wanted to find I grew weary of looking for it and it is overall unimportant to the topic at hand.
"Failure to state"? What are you talking about? What you quoted was clearly stated asa response to another and that response originally quoted what was being responded to. Your weariness is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility. Attempting to dismiss the central premise of the debate as being "unimportant to the topic at hand" is evidentially irrational. Which goes far in supporting my secondary contention about people making irrational assertions stemming from irrational belief.
Again, the burden of proof is on you as I hold the position of the normative and therefor have no reason to divert.
You are incorrect as the initial burden of proof lies with you in making the initial claim. Asserting that your initial claim is "the normative" is a poor cop-out. As to your subsequent claim of having no reason to divert, this is proven false by the evidence you presented yourself within your replies which constitutes diversions.
The central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument. Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.
My contention with you, which I have accused you of losing track of, is your assertion that people make irrational choices deliberately knowing them to be such.
I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief". Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays? I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention.
My definition was far less biased than the cherry picked one QoN presented (which was presented as one of the main definitions and that is something quite contestable as well). Even the given definition does not weaken my arguments, but I wanted to indicate a challenge QoN's appeal to authority.
No doubt QoN can confirm that the definition she provided was from Merriam-Webster and not "cherry-picked" since it was a standard definition available in other dictionary references. On the other hand, your own preferred definition _was_ cherry-picked specifically as an attempt to support your point. Not only does that definition weaken your agruments, despite your contention that it does not, (you can either determine this for yourself or, I may offer to explain it to you in the follow up), but it undermines them. Calling QoN's posting of a standard definition of the meaning of a contended word an "appeal to authority" is a sophist dodge. This seems to be a repeating pattern of 'debate' for you, given your prior replies.
Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions. It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).
I am always delighted to see my opponent resort to ad hominem, but honestly I expected more from you.
Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted). Your attempt at condencension falls flat.
-
Quote
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."
Quote from: Abrupt:
And that is exactly my point. I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply. "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point. I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs. This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.
Abrupt, great point! I do like the way you put that.
See my reply regarding such 'non-word game' games.
-
As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention. That made it tangential. Characterizing reiteration of this aspect of your 'argument' as redundant and irrelevant while you repeatedly ignore the evident vague inconclusiveness noted is hypocritical. You are begging the question. This is the very 'circular reasoning' you seem so fond of accusing others of, yet this is actually a proper example of it and not just a simple accusation without support.
You never indicated anything. You accused and left it at that. Now you are trying to cite your accusations as evidence of something. Demonstrate this 'vague inconclusiveness'.
If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim). In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support. There are billions of people who base their opinions, (and subsequently, much of their actions), upon "faith" & "belief" - which do not constitute a rational basis. Why don't they constitute a rational basis? This is due to the defined meanings of the words "belief" & "faith". The opposing contention has now been substantiated. Your turn.
It is awfully convenient how you are able to decide what is the first claim and what isn't. The first claim was made by you and that was "SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not". You have now presented some support to your claim -- possibly because you realized this or possibly to speed along the debate. I will now bring up this standard model you seem to be unaware of. It is Rational Choice Theory and is the basis for models in sociology, criminology, economics, behavior, macroeconomics, etc. Rational Choice Theory basically states that all choices are rational in terms of the chooser and failure to be able to predict these choices (seeing them as irrational) is only due to a lack of understanding of the variable at play. Basically it is the position that choices are rational ipso facto and while this may seem a bit of a tautology, it is the basis of all our behavior modelling. Qf2+.
The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion. Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.
Present this evidence. I already indicated my confusion about what you were talking about. You charge me with some sort of deliberate and suspicious omission. Present your evidence and explain where its sinister nature lies.
We're not playing Trivia Pursuit here; we're using words to discuss and debate a premise. By attempting to imply you meant something other than 'word games' when you specifically used the word "games", (in context), you are tacitly admitting that you are playing such 'word games' rather than address points raised in debate. In fact, even your counter regarding a general definition of the phrase emphasizes this when you debated the meaning of the word "faith" with QoN. The evidence of your own words points not only to your familiarity "with such excercises" but, with a penchant for employing them as underpaid staff.
It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence. If I wanted to accuse you of word games I would likely call you an arguer of prestigious jargon, but I don't mind that (and sometimes find it enjoyable) and I often am guilty of arguing by poetic language. I admit I am prone to tactical deceptions and am a veteran of many forum sniping battles (I have lost more than I have won and admitted to losing way less than that -- this being due to pride and the false assumption that I was the only strategist and thinker in the fight -- which I cautioned you about and you mistook games for word games). Assumed anonymity alters people in such a way that sometimes such things are necessary.
"Failure to state"? What are you talking about? What you quoted was clearly stated asa response to another and that response originally quoted what was being responded to. Your weariness is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility. Attempting to dismiss the central premise of the debate as being "unimportant to the topic at hand" is evidentially irrational. Which goes far in supporting my secondary contention about people making irrational assertions stemming from irrational belief.
A failure to state is when you make attacks and ask questions without giving your position. It is a weak form of argument as you rely on challenging the opposition and while it may be useful for reductio ad absurdum it is still a form of disproof by fallacy.
You are incorrect as the initial burden of proof lies with you in making the initial claim. Asserting that your initial claim is "the normative" is a poor cop-out. As to your subsequent claim of having no reason to divert, this is proven false by the evidence you presented yourself within your replies which constitutes diversions.
The central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument. Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.
I already noted my objection as to the owner of the initial claim above. I am aware of the topic and it was actually why I was reading the thread. I challenged you on your position that one can choose to be irrational. I already pointed out that this may have been a faux pas by me to inject myself in a debate of a matter not directly central to the topic, nonetheless I felt compelled to.
I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief". Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays? I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention.
Again, you are trying to rely on a disproof by fallacy. I already mentioned rational choice theory so I will now interject a different point. It is estimated that over 85 percent of the population of the world subscribes to a religion, with approximately 12 percent and 2 percent being non-religious or atheistic respectively. Following your logic we can conclude that the bulk of the human population is choosing to be deliberately irrational (this is not a hasty generalization when you consider the prevalence of religion throughout history and its importance in societies). Since a belief in a religion seems to be an almost inherent trait or tendency we could reliably conclude that humans are irrational by nature. If such was true then sites like this and other polling and sampling data would be mostly useless as one would have to assume that there would be no reason behind the choices people make (if there were reasons we would have rationale for the reasons, thus countering the concept that people choose irrationally). Considering that sites like these as well as the other polling and survey related studies do spend and pay large amounts of money to gain their data we have to conclude that the data is reliable and thus their is discernible rational explanations for the choices people make.
No doubt QoN can confirm that the definition she provided was from Merriam-Webster and not "cherry-picked" since it was a standard definition available in other dictionary references. On the other hand, your own preferred definition _was_ cherry-picked specifically as an attempt to support your point. Not only does that definition weaken your agruments, despite your contention that it does not, (you can either determine this for yourself or, I may offer to explain it to you in the follow up), but it undermines them. Calling QoN's posting of a standard definition of the meaning of a contended word an "appeal to authority" is a sophist dodge. This seems to be a repeating pattern of 'debate' for you, given your prior replies.
The standard you tout seems to be an anomaly as my simple research turns up the following: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief that is not based on proof; belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. Any of those is less judgmental than saying "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". When a definition is presented as "one of the main definitions" and a casual sampling reveals just how little it fits the patterns of comparable definitions I can say without reserve that it is cherry-picked. It is definitely an appeal to authority as QoN cited the source and stipulated "remind" for no reason other than to stress that the matter was already subject to expert consideration and determination. This was no dodge, it was a direct rebuttal to the value of the definition being considered as expert. Why you choose to inject yourself on that front I still haven't figured out (not that you can't it is just that I didn't see where it could strengthen your position or weaken mine either way). Yes, if you care to enlighten me, I am curious as to where you see that my definition weakened my arguments -- when time is convenient though so as not to muddle up this duel anymore than it is.
Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted). Your attempt at condencension falls flat.
I thought you might take this stance when I brought up this point (baited conclusion? It wasn't intended that way but after I typed it I did some reply predictions). You are trying to say that you were attacking my argument and not me -- and if that were true you would be correct in that it wasn't ad hominem. This is not the case though as you insulted my arguments by description without giving any specific explained examples and that is an attack on the man and not the argument and you are obviously familiar enough with debate to know this.
As a side note, this is a question that I am curious of and it doesn't pertain to this topic at all but to written debates in general. Sometimes when I read back over my own words I get the idea that it comes off as sounding rude, angry, or snide where it was never typed in such a frame. I never infer emotion into an opponents words, although I have seen others do this quite commonly (and especially if they read the others posts out loud). What are the norms of such things if any know or experience similarities at their own words?
-
As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention.
You never indicated anything. You accused and left it at that. Now you are trying to cite your accusations as evidence of something. Demonstrate this 'vague inconclusiveness'.
Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:
"An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand."
No iteration of the proposed "scope of the variables the chooser has at hand" was provided thus, such a conclusion is unwarrented and inconclusively vague.
It is awfully convenient how you are able to decide what is the first claim and what isn't. The first claim was made by you
Convenience has no bearing on what the initial claim was or, wasn't, (unless you are referring instead to your convenience in cherry-picking the first claim out of several claims at the point of your entry into this debate). Either the initial claim is constituted by the thread title, ("God is a fake"), or by the several examples of posters professing their "belief" / "faith" in the opposite view. What you seem to be trying to slip past is your notion that I'd made the initial claim regarding "faith" & "belief" when the responses documented prior to such a secondary contention clearly show your assertion to be false.
I will now bring up this standard model you seem to be unaware of.
It is Rational Choice Theory and is the basis for models in sociology, criminology, economics, behavior, macroeconomics, etc. Rational Choice Theory basically states that all choices are rational in terms of the chooser and failure to be able to predict these choices (seeing them as irrational) is only due to a lack of understanding of the variable at play. Basically it is the position that choices are rational ipso facto and while this may seem a bit of a tautology, it is the basis of all our behavior modelling. Qf2+.
While I am somewhat previously familar with the "rational choice theory" it is not precisely the standard model you claim, (without substantiation), and it is a "theory", (as the name indicates). Regardless, the relevant and contended phrase within the description you presented is "all choices are rational in terms of the chooser". This phrase is a vague non sequitur in that it is an a priori assumption without proof and that it does not specify what the "terms of teh chooser" are. Such vague "terms" may be and often are, irrational and this means that conclusions drawn from such an irrational basis are far more likely to be irrational rather than rational ones. The second a priori assumption made in such a theory is that "choices are rational ipso facto". This assumption does not follow, (which makes it a non sequitur and sophist).
The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion. Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.
"Present this evidence. I already indicated my confusion about what you were talking about. You charge me with some sort of deliberate and suspicious omission. Present your evidence and explain where its sinister nature lies."
The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted. I'm not going to repost the existing thread. Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made. Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.
It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence.
Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here. The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational". Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").
"A failure to state is when you make attacks and ask questions without giving your position. It is a weak form of argument as you rely on challenging the opposition and while it may be useful for reductio ad absurdum it is still a form of disproof by fallacy."
I'm noting not just a tendency but, a penchant on your part for accusing others of doing what you are doing. It's becoming a downright pattern with your arguments. Firstly, accusing others of doing what they aren't is a deceptive tactic. Secondly, your attempts to bog this debate down in minutia of logic will continue to fail as continuosly demonstrated already. Thirdly, you haven't supported your inherent contention that "faith" & "belief" rely upon rational choices. Instead, you presented a dubious "theory" containing so many holes that the bucket leaks like a sieve.
I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief". Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays? I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention.
"Again, you are trying to rely on a disproof by fallacy."
No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done. Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding. To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions. This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.
I already mentioned rational choice theory so I will now interject a different point. It is estimated that over 85 percent of the population of the world subscribes to a religion, with approximately 12 percent and 2 percent being non-religious or atheistic respectively. Following your logic we can conclude that the bulk of the human population is choosing to be deliberately irrational (this is not a hasty generalization when you consider the prevalence of religion throughout history and its importance in societies). Since a belief in a religion seems to be an almost inherent trait or tendency we could reliably conclude that humans are irrational by nature. If such was true then sites like this and other polling and sampling data would be mostly useless as one would have to assume that there would be no reason behind the choices people make (if there were reasons we would have rationale for the reasons, thus countering the concept that people choose irrationally).
Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions. The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion. Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated). Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one. While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons". There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it". These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'. As to this site polling for opinions, they are just that - opinions - and need not be based in rationality, (no doubt they quite often are not). This does not impair the utility of the polling site since people often make decisions and purchases on a less than rational basis, (something which both impulse buyers and marketers are well aware of).
The standard you tout seems to be an anomaly as my simple research turns up the following: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief that is not based on proof; belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. Any of those is less judgmental than saying "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Yes, if you care to enlighten me, I am curious as to where you see that my definition weakened my arguments -- when time is convenient though so as not to muddle up this duel anymore than it is.
Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made. Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one). I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling. It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief". Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention.
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.
Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted). Your attempt at condencension falls flat.
I thought you might take this stance when I brought up this point (baited conclusion? It wasn't intended that way but after I typed it I did some reply predictions). You are trying to say that you were attacking my argument and not me -- and if that were true you would be correct in that it wasn't ad hominem.
These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part). Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.
This is not the case though as you insulted my arguments by description without giving any specific explained examples and that is an attack on the man and not the argument and you are obviously familiar enough with debate to know this.
False. Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves. Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments. The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis. The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice. I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn. You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).
As a side note, this is a question that I am curious of and it doesn't pertain to this topic at all but to written debates in general. Sometimes when I read back over my own words I get the idea that it comes off as sounding rude, angry, or snide where it was never typed in such a frame. I never infer emotion into an opponents words, although I have seen others do this quite commonly (and especially if they read the others posts out loud). What are the norms of such things if any know or experience similarities at their own words?
In general, such impressions are highly subjective and aren't necessarily representative of any emotions which may or may not have been present during the exchange. For instance, I'd felt a low level and brief surge of exasperation while attempting to return a discussion to the main bones of contention, rather than spend significant time on tangential arguments).
-
Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:
"An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand."
No iteration of the proposed "scope of the variables the chooser has at hand" was provided thus, such a conclusion is unwarrented and inconclusively vague.
Perhaps I am too close to this problem to understand the loss of communications. I am a hobbyist programmer and 'scope' is a widely used industry term that directly conveys its meaning simply by its usage. I suppose you are correct and that it is unfair of me to attribute such familiarity to a reader. The problem is that I didn't realize that, until just now, and this could have been avoided had you indicated your confusion about what I meant directly, instead of concealing it in verbosity. I never challenged you on your use of the objected definition (quote -- "Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance")) because I was possibly being too kind and wanted to make it clear to you that what you saw in one way was seen by another in an entirely different way and that you cannot alter a local value of a variable 'globally' that has its own 'local' declaration (and again this is explaining it as a programmer might and I will concede that might be vague -- but if you understood it as I intended then I will have to confess that I am entirely unsure of your objection and meaning).
Convenience has no bearing on what the initial claim was or, wasn't, (unless you are referring instead to your convenience in cherry-picking the first claim out of several claims at the point of your entry into this debate). Either the initial claim is constituted by the thread title, ("God is a fake"), or by the several examples of posters professing their "belief" / "faith" in the opposite view. What you seem to be trying to slip past is your notion that I'd made the initial claim regarding "faith" & "belief" when the responses documented prior to such a secondary contention clearly show your assertion to be false.
Yes, I am saying that the initial claim in our particular debate where you said a person could "choose to be irrational". If you object to this then why is it that the reason we are actually talking about an "initial claim" is because you accused me of making the initial claim (quote -- "If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim). In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support."). Now please explain your contradiction in your position now as to your position earlier.
While I am somewhat previously familar with the "rational choice theory" it is not precisely the standard model you claim, (without substantiation), and it is a "theory", (as the name indicates). Regardless, the relevant and contended phrase within the description you presented is "all choices are rational in terms of the chooser". This phrase is a vague non sequitur in that it is an a priori assumption without proof and that it does not specify what the "terms of teh chooser" are. Such vague "terms" may be and often are, irrational and this means that conclusions drawn from such an irrational basis are far more likely to be irrational rather than rational ones. The second a priori assumption made in such a theory is that "choices are rational ipso facto". This assumption does not follow, (which makes it a non sequitur and sophist).
The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted. I'm not going to repost the existing thread. Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made. Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.
The only evidence of omission here is the evidence of your omission to show the evidence of omission. (too much of an attempt to use cute language by me?). To steal a point you made: "Your" laziness (intentional substitution for original word 'weakness') " is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility". Since I never choose to be irrational we must assume you are implying that 'this' snipping was deliberate. While the word "sinister" is of my choosing it is done as intentional exaggeration to alert the reader that you have accused me of 'snipping' in order to lead the reader to a conclusion. If my reason is not nefarious then why make an unfounded and empty accusation. If I don't challenge you strongly on this point the reader may have stuck in their mind "Abrupt was snipping Falcon9's quotes -- that *bleep*", without ever realizing that no evidence was presented and even now you seem to contend that even if I had that I may not have done it for any foul reasons.
Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here. The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational". Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").
You have just attacked an analogy of your own making with the attempts that you can attribute that analogy to me and thus somehow defeat me indirectly by defeating your own analogy -- it will not work. I see the chess reference, did you pick up on that Kasparov vs the world move or is it just coincidental? The reason I was so adamant about pointing out your reading 'word games' into my use of games was specifically because of the insulting way you said it (quote -- "Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?). Whether or not I lack sufficient reasoning skills is up to the reader to decide. I think that most readers, whether they agree with me or not, will conceded that I am up to the challenge (not that I am winning or losing but that I am confidently capable of presenting my rationale and thus by reason quite capable of fleshing out the pertinent matters).
I'm noting not just a tendency but, a penchant on your part for accusing others of doing what you are doing. It's becoming a downright pattern with your arguments. Firstly, accusing others of doing what they aren't is a deceptive tactic. Secondly, your attempts to bog this debate down in minutia of logic will continue to fail as continuosly demonstrated already. Thirdly, you haven't supported your inherent contention that "faith" & "belief" rely upon rational choices. Instead, you presented a dubious "theory" containing so many holes that the bucket leaks like a sieve.
Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything. I presented an example of you committing a "Failure To State". I think the only thing I have accused you of is "baiting" and the above false attribution. One accusation (at the time of your making this accusation) is hardly a pattern. You, on the other hand, have accused me of using faulty premises, lacking sufficient reasoning skills, trying to divert, a propensity to non sequitur, sophistry, prevarication, cherry-picking, using circular reasoning, being condescending, evading, projecting accusations, etc. If we scattered such claims about I wonder who they would stick to the most?
Secondly, I honestly believe it is you who is trying to bog the debate down and I will not be so bold and arrogant as to claim that I have won every point but I am quite positive I haven't continuously failed as you assert -- this is something we must leave up to the readers as our judgments will be biased.
On your third point I must again disagree. I have supported it indirectly by showing that virtually all aspects of our society and human nature use models that are based on rational choice theory (and there are none that are based on the opposite which would be needed for your position). This theory is in no way dubious anymore than "relativity" is, and the use of the word 'dubious' is a desperate attempt on your part to appear as an authoritative expert on the field and additionally trying to "poison the well". This theory is comprised of tested and reliable observations that allow for profiling to a very high degree of accuracy. Considering the proliferation of its usage into so many aspects of our society, you must do far more to discredit it than calling it dubious (although I do like your use of poetic language with the bucket analogy). Not to throw your accusations back at you, but I feel my support is much more respectable than yours in your claims. As a reminder, your supporting claim was "I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention". The fallacy you demonstrate with this is approach is known as "Begging the Question" and you are using the very point that is to be proven as reasoning for the point being true.
No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done. Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding. To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions. This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.
The fallacious way you are reaching the conclusion comes from your "begging the question". You are reaching your conclusion based on using the point you are trying to prove as reasoning for the point itself (you are proposing that if people are making deliberate choices using an irrational bases that it proves people are choosing to be deliberately irrational). You are reaching your conclusion based on a fallacy (begging the question).
Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions. The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion. Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated). Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one. While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons". There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it". These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'. As to this site polling for opinions, they are just that - opinions - and need not be based in rationality, (no doubt they quite often are not). This does not impair the utility of the polling site since people often make decisions and purchases on a less than rational basis, (something which both impulse buyers and marketers are well aware of).
No, no, no, the contentions center upon whether or not a person can choose to be irrational so don't go moving the goalpost now. Did you just concede that people have "reasons" to adhere to a religion? If you did then you are crediting them with choosing to be rational. And again you state "There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make" -- which side of this argument are you arguing now?
If someone said "The reason I am religious comes from my fear of mortality and the strain such awareness has upon my psyche. By my belief in a religion I can satisfy this fear enough to allow me a peaceful existence -- whether it is true or not" would you say that strengthens your argument more or mine? I hold this as strengthening mine, as the person has rationalized a reason to subscribe to a religion that satisfies the need of self preservation.
People rationalize and even make excuses in order to find a reason to make a choice that they otherwise know is foolish. Oftentimes the Id (the irrational part of the mind) is responsible for driving this need and these include such things as lust and impulse buying. Nobody ever chooses to have sex with the ugly person because they find ugly people beautiful, as that would be irrational, they choose for other reasons and sometimes introduce judgement impairing tools to this end (hence phrases such as "she is a 12 packer" to describe the amount of alcohol required to...well you get the idea, "went to bed with a 10 at 2 in the morning woke up with a 2 at ten", etc). People find a reason strong enough to choose a difficult choice when the reason they want to make is initially, to them, irrational. People come up with reasons to do something to convince themselves to do it, they don't come up with reasons not to do something to convince themselves to do it.
Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made. Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one). I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling. It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief". Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention.
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.
Your comprehension into these definitions is falling short of your ability. They are not equivalent. Let us take QoN's definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". This is a finalizing statement that implies proof was fully considered and when none was found it was believed anyways and this sounds more like a definition for 'delusion' than for 'faith'. How can I imply that the fact of proof was fully considered? It is quite simple deduction, if we know that there exists no proof of the object then we also know we fully exhausted all avenues to be able to make such a final determination. This also implies that proof was vital to the point and when not discovered it was ignored. The alternate definitions I gave do not rate proof as being necessary and yet they still emphasize it was a consideration. Proof was not a requirement and therefore there was no reason to do an exhaustive search, and in fact, proof could still exists. Even the most damning one of the alternates, "belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved" doesn't suggest that no proof exists, only that it is not capable of being demonstrated. Your assert that since belief is not based upon proof that the logical deduction is that belief does not have a rational basis and therefore by default it has an irrational one and this is a false dichotomy. The truth you seem to be dodging is that belief doesn't even require proof as a consideration and therefore cannot ever qualify as irrational since proof is never a variable in the equation.
Yes I realize I haven't explained the true atheist vs the quasi atheist and that is something I would like to do when my time permits.
These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part). Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.
You did no countering of my arguments. You attacked my character though my arguments and only mentioning my analogy as "analogy" and it was a way to anchor it to me "your" and allow you to expand on a form of a negative association at me (Quote -- "It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)"). You are attempting to counter my argument by attacking me instead of my argument (if you tell me that the house I built is poorly constructed junk, are you attacking my house or me?). Ad hominem does not rely on name-calling and in fact name-calling by itself is not ad hominem.
False. Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves. Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments. The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis. The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice. I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn. You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).
Ad hominem requires proof that the opponent is trying to make a counter by attacking the person instead of the argument. You gave no specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis to the point I indicated (not saying you never do, just that time in particular). I do not qualify "your analogy was poor" or " your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)" as specific, reasoned, or logical.
In general, such impressions are highly subjective and aren't necessarily representative of any emotions which may or may not have been present during the exchange. For instance, I'd felt a low level and brief surge of exasperation while attempting to return a discussion to the main bones of contention, rather than spend significant time on tangential arguments).
I love that last sentence you gave there, it is the 'perfect' response and one I respected so much that I waited a long time in responding to see if the thread would continue back on its correct track after my (our) derail. My thoughts when I read it was "Damn that's one hell of a good reply". That is definitely a sig worthy keeper and I thought about taking it for myself if I could think of a short way to incorporate it to convey the proper context. 10 out of 10.
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real. I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM. I cannot make what I am saying anymore clear. If you are going to respond with the exact same response as you have the last few times, then do not waste your time because it is clear that you refuse to support YOUR claim that God is not real.
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs'that God exists." Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.
-
It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose). According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can. While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.
Faith...ugh. That's a dirty word. You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.
Actually, many people rely on faith for MANY important events in life.
-
Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:
I never challenged you on your use of the objected definition (quote -- "Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance")) because I was possibly being too kind and wanted to make it clear to you that what you saw in one way was seen by another in an entirely different way -- but if you understood it as I intended then I will have to confess that I am entirely unsure of your objection and meaning).
I suspect the real 'excuse', (not "reason"), for the failure to challenge that point was far more likely due to having to take the position that "belief" & "faith" form a rational basis, (since this would be the diametrically opposing stance). Unfortunately, this is the tacit position you've chosen to adopt and continue failing to substantiate.
The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted. I'm not going to repost the existing thread. Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made. Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.
The only evidence of omission here is the evidence of your omission to show the evidence of omission. (too much of an attempt to use cute language by me?).
Apparently, you somehow expect that by being, (or feigning to be), obstuse that it won't be noticed that you do indeed snip context in replies. In this reply, I've snipped my own previous responses without sacrificing context -- this is in directly-observable contrast to the prior snipping you've done. Regardless, this constitutes another tangent whose only discernable purpose is to provide substantiation for your 'debate' tactics.
Since I never choose to be irrational we must assume you are implying that 'this' snipping was deliberate.
"We" must assume no such thing since your unsupported claim as to choosing to be irrational is inconclusive. Further, if you are now implicitly indicating that your choice was not deliberate, please elaborate briefly on how it could have been accidental.
While the word "sinister" is of my choosing it is done as intentional exaggeration to alert the reader that you have accused me of 'snipping' in order to lead the reader to a conclusion. If my reason is not nefarious then why make an unfounded and empty accusation. If I don't challenge you strongly on this point the reader may have stuck in their mind "Abrupt was snipping Falcon9's quotes -- that *bleep*", without ever realizing that no evidence was presented and even now you seem to contend that even if I had that I may not have done it for any foul reasons.
I'd be speculating upon any 'excuses', (not "reasons", as that word directly implies reasoning), for your snipping and instead, referred back to the unsnipped posted replies upthread. Surely I could have restored everything that you snipped out, however those responses are not deleted upthread and are available in threaded sequence. These clearly show not only omissions downthread but, what was contextually-omitted. The emphasis upon this point is that the omitted context tactic is a fairly well-known one and easily countered.
Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here. The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational". Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").
You have just attacked an analogy of your own making with the attempts that you can attribute that analogy to me and thus somehow defeat me indirectly by defeating your own analogy -- it will not work.
Reducing the above doublespeak down to the essential core in order to respond; I did not attack my own analogy since I didn't present the initial analogy. Secondly, the denial of playing "games" was yours, (insofar as you denied playing "word games", which turns out to be a poor prevarication given that we are using words and you were playing word games with words). Lastly, you sophist 'reasoning' above will not work because it is based upon a false premise.
The reason I was so adamant about pointing out your reading 'word games' into my use of games was specifically because of the insulting way you said it (quote -- "Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?). Whether or not I lack sufficient reasoning skills is up to the reader to decide. I think that most readers, whether they agree with me or not, will conceded that I am up to the challenge (not that I am winning or losing but that I am confidently capable of presenting my rationale and thus by reason quite capable of fleshing out the pertinent matters).
"Rationale" does not equate to 'reason', (neither do excuses equate in definition with "reasons" in that excuses need not be reasoned ones but, can and often are, irrational). While I might concede a certain degree of reasoning skills to nearly anyone, that is something that is better demonstrated than speculated upon.
Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything. I presented an example of you committing a "Failure To State".
As I have shown, the example you presented did not constitute a "failure to state" under the definition of that term. Therefore, yours was an accusation and one which you failed to substantiate. Be that as it may, it simply adds evidence to my contention that such are mere attempts to bog down this debate in minutia.
You, on the other hand, have accused me of using faulty premises, lacking sufficient reasoning skills, trying to divert, a propensity to non sequitur, sophistry, prevarication, cherry-picking, using circular reasoning, being condescending, evading, projecting accusations, etc. If we scattered such claims about I wonder who they would stick to the most?
I've not only accused you of the above, I've indicated where you've presented evidence supporting those contentions in teh form of your previous replies. A guess could be hazarded as to whom that evidence would stick to.
Secondly, I honestly believe it is you who is trying to bog the debate down and I will not be so bold and arrogant as to claim that I have won every point but I am quite positive I haven't continuously failed as you assert -- this is something we must leave up to the readers as our judgments will be biased.
That's an amusing counter; if you're implying that I'm assisting you in bogging down the debate by countering each of your diversions and bringing the discussion back around to the premise contended, (i.e.; whether or not faith and belief are irrational or rational basis).
On your third point I must again disagree. I have supported it indirectly by showing that virtually all aspects of our society and human nature use models that are based on rational choice theory (and there are none that are based on the opposite which would be needed for your position). This theory is in no way dubious anymore than "relativity" is,
Indirectly? Are you also "indirectly" implying that all choices are made on a rational basis? Are you further implying that using an irrational basis constitutes making rational choices?
This theory is comprised of tested and reliable observations that allow for profiling to a very high degree of accuracy. Considering the proliferation of its usage into so many aspects of our society, you must do far more to discredit it than calling it dubious (although I do like your use of poetic language with the bucket analogy). Not to throw your accusations back at you, but I feel my support is much more respectable than yours in your claims.
It is a dubious theory not because of what it partially accounts for but, because of what it does not - the irrational choices people do make using irrational basis. My 'theory', (not presented as one but, let's presume it was), is supported by an enormous volume of evidence of examples of people making irrational decisions. If you are not implicitly contending that those people are making irrational decisions stemming from a rational basis, we can discuss that. Again, equating excuses with reasoning is a false premise.
As a reminder, your supporting claim was "I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention". The fallacy you demonstrate with this is approach is known as "Begging the Question" and you are using the very point that is to be proven as reasoning for the point being true.
No, I'm using the evidence of people making irrational choices stemming from an irrational basis as substantiation for my assertion. People first made their irrational choices thus prompting me to form a theory as to why this is occurring. It is not "begging the question" since were the assertion inverted, (people are not making irrational choices deliberately using an irrational basis), it would be false.
[Speaking of verboscity, we've exceeded the 20,000 character limit here and part II follows with the remainder of the exchange]
-
No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done. Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding. To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions. This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.
The fallacious way you are reaching the conclusion comes from your "begging the question".
Since I wasn't begging the question, (merely because you insist that I was, sans reasoning), the your conclusion is fallacious. Characterizing my syllogism as begging the question, (or, circular reasoning), is dishonest since no aspect of that syllogism was contended except the conclusion. Since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.
You are reaching your conclusion based on using the point you are trying to prove as reasoning for the point itself (you are proposing that if people are making deliberate choices using an irrational bases that it proves people are choosing to be deliberately irrational). You are reaching your conclusion based on a fallacy (begging the question).
As stated above, (unless you snip the context in response), since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.
"Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions. The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion. Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated). Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one. While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons". There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it". These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'."
No, no, no, the contentions center upon whether or not a person can choose to be irrational so don't go moving the goalpost now.
The goalposts are where they have been throughout this debate. Are you now implicitly suggesting thatpeople who use an irrational basis for making decisions are choosing rationally? What, they are rationally choosing to be irrational?
Did you just concede that people have "reasons" to adhere to a religion? If you did then you are crediting them with choosing to be rational.
No, I am contending that evidence indicates those people are using excuses and rationales, (not reasoned reasons), for adhering to religions; namely those of "faith" & "belief". Using those irrational basis to choose to 'believe' or 'have faith' in such religions is not rational since is does not rely upon reasoning.
And again you state "There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make" -- which side of this argument are you arguing now?
Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.
If someone said "The reason I am religious comes from my fear of mortality and the strain such awareness has upon my psyche. By my belief in a religion I can satisfy this fear enough to allow me a peaceful existence -- whether it is true or not" would you say that strengthens your argument more or mine? I hold this as strengthening mine, as the person has rationalized a reason to subscribe to a religion that satisfies the need of self preservation.
Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.
People rationalize and even make excuses in order to find a reason to make a choice that they otherwise know is foolish.
Slow your roll there, bud. Those same people may not know their choice is foolish or irrational or, they do and choose it anyway.
Nobody ever chooses to have sex with the ugly person because they find ugly people beautiful, as that would be irrational, they choose for other reasons and sometimes introduce judgement impairing tools to this end (hence phrases such as "she is a 12 packer" to describe the amount of alcohol required to...well you get the idea, "went to bed with a 10 at 2 in the morning woke up with a 2 at ten", etc). People find a reason strong enough to choose a difficult choice when the reason they want to make is initially, to them, irrational. People come up with reasons to do something to convince themselves to do it, they don't come up with reasons not to do something to convince themselves to do it.
Finding a "reason", (in this context, an _excuse_), for doing something irrational is not the same as using logical reasoning to arrive at that same decsion choice as you seem to be implying.
Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made. Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one). I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling. It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief". Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention.
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.
Your comprehension into these definitions is falling short of your ability. They are not equivalent.
No, the variations are intended to broaden the basis of defining the meaning of a term. One aspect of the definition does not negate another aspect of it and equivalency doesn't apply.
Let us take QoN's definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". This is a finalizing statement that implies proof was fully considered and when none was found it was believed anyways and this sounds more like a definition for 'delusion' than for 'faith'.
The above is a false interpretation of the definition. It does not imply nor state that proof was fully considered. It directly inplies that no proof was offered to consider. This is the essence of the definition. If any proofs are offered, it would change the meaning of the term(s).
[snip Abrupt's begging the question; circular reasoning available in previous post]
Your assert that since belief is not based upon proof that the logical deduction is that belief does not have a rational basis and therefore by default it has an irrational one and this is a false dichotomy.
If the dichotomy were false, the alternative would be that "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis. Is this your tacit claim?
The truth you seem to be dodging is that belief doesn't even require proof as a consideration and therefore cannot ever qualify as irrational since proof is never a variable in the equation.
Proof in this context, as in having a logically reasoned basis for faith & belief, remains lacking. I've not dodged this point throughout this debate, contrary to your prior responses. The dichotomy becomes 'faith/belief' is a rational basis since it is not an irrational one'.
Yes I realize I haven't explained the true atheist vs the quasi atheist and that is something I would like to do when my time permits.
These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part). Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.
You did no countering of my arguments.
This entire exchange belies your bland denial without supporting your contention. You may not perceive the counters as counters however, your perception is as subjective as anyone else's. Either the arguments were countered by my counter-arguments, (as substantiated by reading this thread), or they were not ... as claimed by your opinion?
You attacked my character though my arguments and only mentioning my analogy as "analogy" and it was a way to anchor it to me "your" and allow you to expand on a form of a negative association at me
False. Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves. Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments. The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis.
(Quote "It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)").
You are attempting to counter my argument by attacking me instead of my argument (if you tell me that the house I built is poorly constructed junk, are you attacking my house or me?). Ad hominem does not rely on name-calling and in fact name-calling by itself is not ad hominem.
No, I referenced your use of circular reasoning and sophistry, (as opposed to calling you a 'dirty sophist-circular-reasoner'). This was presented as evidential and not an ad hominem.[/quote]
The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice. I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn. You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).
I love that last sentence you gave there, it is the 'perfect' response and one I respected so much that I waited a long time in responding to see if the thread would continue back on its correct track after my (our) derail. My thoughts when I read it was "Damn that's one hell of a good reply". That is definitely a sig worthy keeper and I thought about taking it for myself if I could think of a short way to incorporate it to convey the proper context. 10 out of 10.
I intentionally snipped the context to which you were replying to emphasize a prior point. Summarily, the gist of our debate rests upon the opposing contentions that:
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are a rational basis for choice' -- Abrupt
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are an irrational basis for choice' - falcon9
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real.
So, you are instead claiming to believe in something that is false or unreal?
[/quote]
I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.[/quote]
Please quote the portion of this thread where I made such a claim, in my own words. Thank you in advance.
[/quote]
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that God exists."[/quote]
Again, are you now implying that your belief are in something which is nonexistent?
[/quote]
Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.
Since I never made such a claim, perhaps it's a bit like your not claiming something factually exists.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.[/quote]
Then you've contradicted yourself within this post alone. Either what you say you believe in is real or, it isn't. If it is, then you are making the initial claim of believing that it is real. If it is not, then you are the one making the tacit claim to believe in something that isn't real. I merely asked you to clarify your somewhat contradictory position in this regard. I won't however, be holding my breath waiting.
-
Haha As soon as I read this topic, I knew it would be one that would really get everyone on here going. I love topics like these, to see everyone debate and discuss. It's like we can all give out our opinions and our opinions about other peoples opinions and no one really cares. That's just what we do on here, and I actually think it's great. (Except sometimes) Some of you take it way out of hand.
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real.
So, you are instead claiming to believe in something that is false or unreal?
I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.[/quote]
Please quote the portion of this thread where I made such a claim, in my own words. Thank you in advance.
[/quote]
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that God exists."[/quote]
Again, are you now implying that your belief are in something which is nonexistent?
[/quote]
Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.
Since I never made such a claim, perhaps it's a bit like your not claiming something factually exists.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.[/quote]
Then you've contradicted yourself within this post alone. Either what you say you believe in is real or, it isn't. If it is, then you are making the initial claim of believing that it is real. If it is not, then you are the one making the tacit claim to believe in something that isn't real. I merely asked you to clarify your somewhat contradictory position in this regard. I won't however, be holding my breath waiting.
[/quote]
It is obvious that you can only claim God is not real, yet will provide no proof. I did not enter this thread and make any claim about God, yet you will still require that I prove his existence because you are not able to show any evidence to the contrary. Your tactics for a debate are transparent, you will use petty technicalities that were actually never even stated by your opposition, but instead you twisted their words into. I am watching you try it this tactic with others on this thread as well- and let me just say it is not working. I have yet to see you post anything with real substance, as most of what you post is just twisting other people's words and accusing them of contradictions and such that never happened. I will say that talking to you is a waste of time, as my point has been made more than once over, and you do not even have a point. Also, when you respond to this and talk down to me in a condescending tone as you have a few times I will like you to know that it does not make you look intelligent to others on this thread at all, but instead makes you look defensive because you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye.
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real.
So, you are instead claiming to believe in something that is false or unreal?
I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.[/quote]
Please quote the portion of this thread where I made such a claim, in my own words. Thank you in advance.
[/quote]
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that God exists."[/quote]
Again, are you now implying that your belief is in something which is nonexistent?
[/quote]
Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.
Since I never made such a claim, perhaps it's a bit like your not claiming something factually exists.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.[/quote]
Then you've contradicted yourself within this post alone. Either what you say you believe in is real or, it isn't. If it is, then you are making the initial claim of believing that it is real. If it is not, then you are the one making the tacit claim to believe in something that isn't real. I merely asked you to clarify your somewhat contradictory position in this regard. I won't however, be holding my breath waiting.
[/quote]
It is obvious that you can only claim God is not real, yet will provide no proof.[/quote]
After repeated requests for you to quote exactly where I made any such claim, you continue to ignore the fact that I made no such claim and keep insisting that I provide "proof" of a negative claim which I never made. It remains unclear whether you are engaging in the textual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and chanting "la-la-la" or, just being purposely obtuse. Either way, I will accept your tacit surrender after this post.
I did not enter this thread and make any claim about God
You keep repeating that false assertion as if repetition will somehow cause it to change from false to true. Your claim was to "believe in god". My unanswered challenges consisted of inquiring as to whether you believed in something which existed or not, (or was real or unreal).
Your tactics for a debate are transparent]/quote]
On the contrary, you've repeated demonstrated that they are opaque to your comprehension, rather than being "transparent". My "tactics" are to challenge unsupported assertions such as you and a few others have made. Petulantly repeating that you didn't make the claim you made, (as previously quoted in this thread), do not constitute valid rebuttal.
you will use petty technicalities that were actually never even stated by your opposition
Which "petty technicalities" might you be implying, (sans specific cites)?
but instead you twisted their words into. I am watching you try it this tactic with others on this thread as well- and let me just say it is not working.
As you've already discovered by accident, you can claim any nonsense you desire however, without substantiation those claims remain empty.
I have yet to see you post anything with real substance, as most of what you post is just twisting other people's words and accusing them of contradictions and such that never happened.
Au contraire, it is you who are making the false accusations without backing them up with anything but your baseless opinion, (it's baseless due to lacking a rational baseless however, a claim could be made for having an irrational basis).
I will say that talking to you is a waste of time, as my point has been made more than once over, and you do not even have a point.
Indeed, discussion is not possible with someone who refuses to discuss their baseless claims, denies they made them and then accuses another of making claims which they never did, (that would be "surveymack10", as a perusal of this thread clearly shows). Your "point", such as it is, remains your "belief in god" - which rests upon no similar "belief" in such a being's existance / reality, (that's the foundation of such a "belief" which has been dodged over and over again). My point is and has been that "faith" & "belief" are an irrational basis for deciding whether or not such a being exists. The implied point beneath that one is that an irrational basis can be eitehr correct or, incorrect, (however, merely asserting one or the other without valid substantiation is merely making another unfounded claim). Btw, valid substantiation would consist of something more than a unsupportable opinion.
Also, when you respond to this and talk down to me in a condescending tone]/quote]
Now who's reading "tone" into text and twisting the meaning into her own subjectively-biased opinion? {hint: that would be "surveymack10"}
I will like you to know that it does not make you look intelligent to others on this thread at all
I remain unconcerned how my arguments "look" to others since they stand or fall on their own merits. They don't fall / fail just because of your dissenting and baseless opinion which does nothing whatsoever to counter the arguments.
but instead makes you look defensive because you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye.
None of my responses can legitimately be termed as "defensive" since they instead challenge the unsupported claims and assertions bandied recklessly about thusfar. One other participant, ("Abrupt"), has at least attempted to use reasoning to support his assertions at times. Your replies have consisted entirely of denying you made the claim you did and repeatedly falsely claiming that I made a claim here which cannot be quote-referenced, (i.e., that I stated "that God does not exist"). The conclusion that any reader can properly draw from this is that you have a substantiated history of making false claims, (as substantiated by the record of quoting your posts in this thread alone). This conclusion then casts considerable doubt on subsequently dubious claims you make but, feel free to make them as wished.
-
like I alot of you i have my own objective about what or who i think god is.. yes as someone that has been going to church sense i was 10 i have problems with this my self. i think there comes a time in every one were they do not believe in who are we to judge if they believe or not i mean as i lutheran i do not go to church every sunday like the bible says and i do not worship the father every wakening minute i am up.. but if we really think about who does i mean the world is to busy to do job and school and clean and general life to worship something that we could only imagine that is there.. but that does not mean i am going back on my lutheran ways either i will still beleive i will still listen and if there is a god then let him forgive me for everything that i have done and that i have not done.
-
If people would stop commenting on statements like this then people would stop posting them.
-
I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.
Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real? Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)? That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.
So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.
Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim. To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real". That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real. Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.
My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.
Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists. Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.
In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"? These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements. So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?
I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real.
So, you are instead claiming to believe in something that is false or unreal?
I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.
Please quote the portion of this thread where I made such a claim, in my own words. Thank you in advance.
[/quote]
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that God exists."[/quote]
Again, are you now implying that your belief is in something which is nonexistent?
[/quote]
Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.
Since I never made such a claim, perhaps it's a bit like your not claiming something factually exists.
Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.[/quote]
Then you've contradicted yourself within this post alone. Either what you say you believe in is real or, it isn't. If it is, then you are making the initial claim of believing that it is real. If it is not, then you are the one making the tacit claim to believe in something that isn't real. I merely asked you to clarify your somewhat contradictory position in this regard. I won't however, be holding my breath waiting.
[/quote]
It is obvious that you can only claim God is not real, yet will provide no proof.[/quote]
After repeated requests for you to quote exactly where I made any such claim, you continue to ignore the fact that I made no such claim and keep insisting that I provide "proof" of a negative claim which I never made. It remains unclear whether you are engaging in the textual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and chanting "la-la-la" or, just being purposely obtuse. Either way, I will accept your tacit surrender after this post.
I did not enter this thread and make any claim about God
You keep repeating that false assertion as if repetition will somehow cause it to change from false to true. Your claim was to "believe in god". My unanswered challenges consisted of inquiring as to whether you believed in something which existed or not, (or was real or unreal).
Your tactics for a debate are transparent]/quote]
On the contrary, you've repeated demonstrated that they are opaque to your comprehension, rather than being "transparent". My "tactics" are to challenge unsupported assertions such as you and a few others have made. Petulantly repeating that you didn't make the claim you made, (as previously quoted in this thread), do not constitute valid rebuttal.
you will use petty technicalities that were actually never even stated by your opposition
Which "petty technicalities" might you be implying, (sans specific cites)?
but instead you twisted their words into. I am watching you try it this tactic with others on this thread as well- and let me just say it is not working.
As you've already discovered by accident, you can claim any nonsense you desire however, without substantiation those claims remain empty.
I have yet to see you post anything with real substance, as most of what you post is just twisting other people's words and accusing them of contradictions and such that never happened.
Au contraire, it is you who are making the false accusations without backing them up with anything but your baseless opinion, (it's baseless due to lacking a rational baseless however, a claim could be made for having an irrational basis).
I will say that talking to you is a waste of time, as my point has been made more than once over, and you do not even have a point.
Indeed, discussion is not possible with someone who refuses to discuss their baseless claims, denies they made them and then accuses another of making claims which they never did, (that would be "surveymack10", as a perusal of this thread clearly shows). Your "point", such as it is, remains your "belief in god" - which rests upon no similar "belief" in such a being's existance / reality, (that's the foundation of such a "belief" which has been dodged over and over again). My point is and has been that "faith" & "belief" are an irrational basis for deciding whether or not such a being exists. The implied point beneath that one is that an irrational basis can be eitehr correct or, incorrect, (however, merely asserting one or the other without valid substantiation is merely making another unfounded claim). Btw, valid substantiation would consist of something more than a unsupportable opinion.
Also, when you respond to this and talk down to me in a condescending tone]/quote]
Now who's reading "tone" into text and twisting the meaning into her own subjectively-biased opinion? {hint: that would be "surveymack10"}
I will like you to know that it does not make you look intelligent to others on this thread at all
I remain unconcerned how my arguments "look" to others since they stand or fall on their own merits. They don't fall / fail just because of your dissenting and baseless opinion which does nothing whatsoever to counter the arguments.
but instead makes you look defensive because you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye.
None of my responses can legitimately be termed as "defensive" since they instead challenge the unsupported claims and assertions bandied recklessly about thusfar. One other participant, ("Abrupt"), has at least attempted to use reasoning to support his assertions at times. Your replies have consisted entirely of denying you made the claim you did and repeatedly falsely claiming that I made a claim here which cannot be quote-referenced, (i.e., that I stated "that God does not exist"). The conclusion that any reader can properly draw from this is that you have a substantiated history of making false claims, (as substantiated by the record of quoting your posts in this thread alone). This conclusion then casts considerable doubt on subsequently dubious claims you make but, feel free to make them as wished.
You continually trying to get into the semantics of this no matter what I say just shows you have no actual response haha, very entertaining. Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
-
You continually trying to get into the semantics of this no matter what I say just shows you have no actual response haha, very entertaining.
Well, if you are fond of using words without knowing what they mean, I suppose "semantics" would be anathema for you. Unfortunately, your empty opinion that my responses aren't "actual responses" merely reveals more about your 'understanding' than it does any usage of "semantics". (especially as yet another allusion to 'word games' ... as if that's a novel debating 'tactic').
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.[/quote]
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
-
I suspect the real 'excuse', (not "reason"), for the failure to challenge that point was far more likely due to having to take the position that "belief" & "faith" form a rational basis, (since this would be the diametrically opposing stance). Unfortunately, this is the tacit position you've chosen to adopt and continue failing to substantiate.
Your suspicious are unfounded and reflect your own difficulties in understanding the reasonings of others. Your attempt at labelling my explanation as an 'excuse' is a trick of yours to try and convice the reader that I have failed at something and had to explain it away, and through its use you demonstrate your desperation. I have failed at nothing, while you have failed at your own goal and been called on it. My position is exactly the same as it was when we started this back and forth argument and that is "You don't really choose to be irrational".
Apparently, you somehow expect that by being, (or feigning to be), obstuse that it won't be noticed that you do indeed snip context in replies. In this reply, I've snipped my own previous responses without sacrificing context -- this is in directly-observable contrast to the prior snipping you've done. Regardless, this constitutes another tangent whose only discernable purpose is to provide substantiation for your 'debate' tactics.
People notice exactly what I do and there is no deceit in my nature. I quote the point I am responding to and I give my response. You continue to insist that this is suspect of something without ever stating what that suspect something is. My direct quote and reply method is a courtesy to the reader, allowing the counter point being clearly shown relative to the countered point. The quoting of the entire post would have caused so much obfuscation as to make the argument unreadable. With the entire post still existing earlier in the thread as reference for the readers and ourselves to consult and use in the event of any trickery, I can only assume that you wish the reader to forget that and you also wish them to think I am doing something sinister.
"We" must assume no such thing since your unsupported claim as to choosing to be irrational is inconclusive. Further, if you are now implicitly indicating that your choice was not deliberate, please elaborate briefly on how it could have been accidental.
Don't try to cite me as the one claiming to take the position of "choosing to be irrational" as that is your stance and I am the one who said "You don't really choose to be irrational". You said "Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.". This is an accusation by you that one of the two must hold true. It is an accusation you continue to stress and therefore you are asserting to the reader that any deliberate reason I had contains a sinister motive. My 'snipping' (while 'deliberate' to avoid obfuscation) is purely incidental to any motives you are trying to apply to me with your use of words such as 'deliberate'.
Reducing the above doublespeak down to the essential core in order to respond; I did not attack my own analogy since I didn't present the initial analogy. Secondly, the denial of playing "games" was yours, (insofar as you denied playing "word games", which turns out to be a poor prevarication given that we are using words and you were playing word games with words). Lastly, you sophist 'reasoning' above will not work because it is based upon a false premise.
Considering I didn't present an analogy at all, the only one available was the analogy appearing in the sentance before your attack upon (quote of your words - "Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here. The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational" in response to mine "It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence."). Wait a minute, did you just make a deliberate joke at your own expense with that second part? If you didn't do this intentionally you should read it again. Your last point is moot since it was based on a false premise.
As I have shown, the example you presented did not constitute a "failure to state" under the definition of that term. Therefore, yours was an accusation and one which you failed to substantiate. Be that as it may, it simply adds evidence to my contention that such are mere attempts to bog down this debate in minutia.
You can't just make a claim like "as I have shown" and expect it to go unchallanged. You never showed anything at all you simply reposted the quote of what you said. The quote even references you pointing out that you never made a claim and that you don't have to until earlier ones are reinforced. That is exactly a failure to state. I pointed this out before and you denided it by simply saying that it wasn't a failure to state. I indicate and highlight, you repost and obfuscate and accuse me of trying to bog down the debate?
I've not only accused you of the above, I've indicated where you've presented evidence supporting those contentions in teh form of your previous replies. A guess could be hazarded as to whom that evidence would stick to.
You are being very disingenous here. You have simply accused with no supporting evidence only to call my quotes something and then use the same quotes as evidence of the something you called them. It doesn't get much more cirular than that. The reader, by now, is quite aware of my long winded nature and urge to debate and would readily conclude that if you had done as you indicated I would have challenged it and we would be including twenty additional quotes within the too many we already have.
That's an amusing counter; if you're implying that I'm assisting you in bogging down the debate by countering each of your diversions and bringing the discussion back around to the premise contended, (i.e.; whether or not faith and belief are irrational or rational basis).
If you wish to abandon your position that people choose to be irrational then feel free to, but besides us debating there hasn't been much activity in this thread (hmm well I must admit I do realize that could be true because of us debating -- and I do allow time between my replies to try to see if it gets back to its topic but it hasn't. I will wait one week after this post before replying again in it to see.)
Indirectly? Are you also "indirectly" implying that all choices are made on a rational basis? Are you further implying that using an irrational basis constitutes making rational choices?
Yes I assert that every choice made can be reduced down to a weighing of values within the person choosing until such values indicate a solution (excluding such cases as chemical or electrical imbalances that generate random events and thus don't actively constitute a deliberate choice). Yes I also imply that an irrational basis can be ustilized to make a rational choice, even if the chooser is aware of the irrationality of it and this is where human rationalization comes from. Without ever including the irrational there would be no need to rationalize. Our brain interprets the known, unknown, rational, and irrational data as variables in a formula and solves for a solution that will be the logical choice. Being that we are not slaves to pure emotion or pure logic but also that we are inescapably influenced by both as well, we can remanipulate the weights of these variables and even add more variables in order to come up with a solution we find preferable to the purely logical solution our brains may tell us (in the case of the emotional side being too great to resist that is).
It is a dubious theory not because of what it partially accounts for but, because of what it does not - the irrational choices people do make using irrational basis. My 'theory', (not presented as one but, let's presume it was), is supported by an enormous volume of evidence of examples of people making irrational decisions. If you are not implicitly contending that those people are making irrational decisions stemming from a rational basis, we can discuss that. Again, equating excuses with reasoning is a false premise.
Without seeing some explanation of this theory of your, I will have to take the word of economists, socialogists, criminologists, psychiatrists, my own personal understanding, etc, over your theory (and to put it bluntly your theory is composed only of the assertion that the evidence indicates irrational decisions because you don't understand the people and situations behind the evidence). An excuse is sometimes considered as justification after the fact, I know, but the excuse is often formed during the turmoil of the reasoning process and solved as a problem on its on in order to eliminate a particularly resistant variable.
No, I'm using the evidence of people making irrational choices stemming from an irrational basis as substantiation for my assertion. People first made their irrational choices thus prompting me to form a theory as to why this is occurring. It is not "begging the question" since were the assertion inverted, (people are not making irrational choices deliberately using an irrational basis), it would be false.
Your statement was "if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention". This is classic begging the question in that you assume (beg the question) that "belief" & "faith" are irrational basis for choices and this is the very point of contention. Your conclusion (that you choose to be irrational if it is based on belief or faith) is the argument for your premise (people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith").
[Speaking of verboscity, we've exceeded the 20,000 character limit here and part II follows with the remainder of the exchange]
Yeah I wondered when that might happen, but I use this as an example of the wise foresight I applied when choosing to only include the quotes I was responding to in my replies.
-
Since I wasn't begging the question, (merely because you insist that I was, sans reasoning), the your conclusion is fallacious. Characterizing my syllogism as begging the question, (or, circular reasoning), is dishonest since no aspect of that syllogism was contended except the conclusion. Since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.
I have demonstrated your begging the question in part 1 of this post, thus affirming my assertion that it was reliance upon a disproof by fallacy.
As stated above, (unless you snip the context in response), since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.
See my answer above. In regard to whether I snipped the context or not, I will let you decide. Considering you posted that statement as if it were being quoted at your initial posting of it (something I am sure you did not intend to do or do so maliciously), I am sure reasonable consideration as to my direct quote and reply method can be realized.
The goalposts are where they have been throughout this debate. Are you now implicitly suggesting thatpeople who use an irrational basis for making decisions are choosing rationally? What, they are rationally choosing to be irrational?
My position has always been that an irrational basis is perfectly fine for making rational decisions. I have never contended otherwise although I am not sure if I have vocalized it in just that way. They are not rationally choosing to be irrational - they are choosing to rationalize the irrational until the entire problem or question or event becomes rational. People almost always include more than one variable into decision making and the times when they have none often lead to comical expressions and situation. Are you suggesting that ALL of your choices only include a single variable (I find that strange and had never considered it)?
No, I am contending that evidence indicates those people are using excuses and rationales, (not reasoned reasons), for adhering to religions; namely those of "faith" & "belief". Using those irrational basis to choose to 'believe' or 'have faith' in such religions is not rational since is does not rely upon reasoning.
Here I would actually accuse you of word games by you contrasting 'excuses' and 'rationales' to reasons via an absurd alteration of 'reasoned reasons'. You are basically saying everything I did but altering it to say that now they don't count as reasons because they are not reasoned.
Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.
Again, word games with the inclusion of 'blind faith' to make 'rationales' and 'excuses' seem to the reader to be something other than they are. And again this "reasoned reasons" are we now to consider the difference between someones speech and their spoken speech?
Slow your roll there, bud. Those same people may not know their choice is foolish or irrational or, they do and choose it anyway.
If they didn't know the choices were irrational then doing them would never mean they "choose to be irrational" for their position as you contend. If they did something they would normally consider irrational, such as heat of moment, they are performing an Id response or a reflex action and skipping the choosing part of the brain altogether -- there is no choice at all just action.
Finding a "reason", (in this context, an _excuse_), for doing something irrational is not the same as using logical reasoning to arrive at that same decsion choice as you seem to be implying.
I completeley agree with you here. Humans do not base their choices purely on logic though, it is a mixture of logic and emotion -- we weigh it with logic but weight it down with emotion. Consult the field of AI to see all of the methods used as attempts to mimic human decision making.
No, the variations are intended to broaden the basis of defining the meaning of a term. One aspect of the definition does not negate another aspect of it and equivalency doesn't apply.
Variations, yes, but a totally different meaning is altogether something else. In the definition given by QoN, a simple test is to ask "does proof exist" and the answer is 'No'. In the definitions given by me from the other sources the answer would be "Indeterminate, or irrelevant". That makes the definition, not a simple variation, but a totally different animal.
The above is a false interpretation of the definition. It does not imply nor state that proof was fully considered. It directly inplies that no proof was offered to consider. This is the essence of the definition. If any proofs are offered, it would change the meaning of the term(s).
It does not imply that as a simple test of asking the question of "Does proof exist" to the definition yields "no", and QoN even bolded this part of it to add the emphasis and yet you insist it isn't biased. Words are powerful things and the slightest subtleties can convey entirely different meanings.
If the dichotomy were false, the alternative would be that "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis. Is this your tacit claim?
This is another example of a false dichotomy -- you are only considering two possibilities when that is not true.
Proof in this context, as in having a logically reasoned basis for faith & belief, remains lacking. I've not dodged this point throughout this debate, contrary to your prior responses. The dichotomy becomes 'faith/belief' is a rational basis since it is not an irrational one'.
Again a false dichotomy as you are only considering two possibilities. Because you lack the capacity to reason a way to accept faith as reasonable does not mean that everyone lacks this capability. I hold no particularly fascination or value for diamonds and consider it irrational to pay a lot of money for them. My girlfriend loves them though so I choose to buy them for her as the alternative is a bitter girlfriend (this is when she points out a particular piece of jewelry she 'really likes'). I am perfectly rational to buy this for her even though the isolated act of me buying them itself is irrational to me.
This entire exchange belies your bland denial without supporting your contention. You may not perceive the counters as counters however, your perception is as subjective as anyone else's. Either the arguments were countered by my counter-arguments, (as substantiated by reading this thread), or they were not ... as claimed by your opinion?
You have given some counters that I qualify as valid. More often, though, what you call counters simply are statements of disagreement, or condescension at my points. I require a bit more than 'no' or 'poor' before I consider anything a counter.
I intentionally snipped the context to which you were replying to emphasize a prior point. Summarily, the gist of our debate rests upon the opposing contentions that:
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are a rational basis for choice' -- Abrupt
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are an irrational basis for choice' - falcon9
Change mine to "religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are incorporated into a rational basis for choice" and I will agree.
I see your intentional (and admitted to the reader to demonstrate a point) snipping. What you have done here is a form of contextonomy in which you intentionally try to distort my meaning. You have done this so that you can qualify your earlier accusations of me doing the same (well your accusations were vague in regard to the offense you accuse me of, but since you are providing ths as a example, we must assume it to be reflective). You have brought up this point many times yet failed to ever produce a single example of me doing this while it was quite easy for you do demonstrate and do this yourself. Basically, you invented an offense that you could neither prove my intent or commital of. Then you commit this offense deliberately as example. You have failed at your own task and only proven you can snare yourself in your own trap.
-
Your attempt at labelling my explanation as an 'excuse' is a trick of yours to try and convice the reader that I have failed at something and had to explain it away, and through its use you demonstrate your desperation.
On the contrary, your assertion that your making excuses in lieu of actual reasoning was some sort of "trick" is negated by your own words which form the excuses, (these are available upthread). There is no "desperation" involved in my pointing this out however, one can speculate as to whether there was some contained in this manuever of yours.
I have failed at nothing, while you have failed at your own goal and been called on it.[/quote]
Merely claiming that you have not failed to support your arguments does not constitute supporting them. Neither is your unsubstantiated claim that I have failed in my goal to delineate the differences between rational and irrational basis, (since my responses within this thread continue to demonstrate that I have - not because I merely say so but, due to the content of my substantiations).
[/quote]My position is exactly the same as it was when we started this back and forth argument and that is "You don't really choose to be irrational"
Then you are implicitly taking the position that, either no irrational decisions are ever made or, that any irrational decisions are made upon a rational basis. The former is manifestly untrue; people _do_ make irrational decisions, (as evidenced by the consequences of those decisions), whether or not they 'feel' their decisions were rational - not "rationalized". The later is false because it is illogical to presume that all decisions which are formulated upon an irrational basis result in consequently rational choices. Such an assumption precludes that decision resulting in irrational choices, (which they manifestly do, as evidenced by the consequences of making irrational choices).
People notice exactly what I do and there is no deceit in my nature. I quote the point I am responding to and I give my response. You continue to insist that this is suspect of something without ever stating what that suspect something is.[/quote]
Once again, you seem to expect that your word alone, (sans substantiation), will be taken for your claims, (in this instance, that there is no deceit on your part here). This insistance rests upon a reliance that your selective snipping to manipute the context of the exchange won't be noticed.
[/quote]You said "Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.". This is an accusation by you that one of the two must hold true. It is an accusation you continue to stress and therefore you are asserting to the reader that any deliberate reason I had contains a sinister motive. My 'snipping' (while 'deliberate' to avoid obfuscation) is purely incidental to any motives you are trying to apply to me with your use of words such as 'deliberate'.
Since you've just admitted that your snipping was deliberate, (although the 'rationale' you provided attempts to obfuscate a manipution of the context by shifting it away from the cognizant points), I will accept your conceding this point and move on.
"It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence."
The poker analogy alluded to was yours, as shown by your use of the phrase "hole card" during the course of this exchange.
You can't just make a claim like "as I have shown" and expect it to go unchallanged.[/quote]
Then neither can you, albeit you attempt to do so over and over again. Once again, my responses are still available upthread and they do show valid counters to your assertions, (not because I say so but, because the content counters your assertions).
[/quote] I indicate and highlight, you repost and obfuscate and accuse me of trying to bog down the debate?
Yet, you accuse me of obfuscation while you have practiced this tactic throughout this exchange. Bah, this tangent leads nowhere except for accusations and counter-accusations, round and round.
I've not only accused you of the above, I've indicated where you've presented evidence supporting those contentions in the form of your previous replies. A guess could be hazarded as to whom that evidence would stick to.
You are being very disingenous here. You have simply accused with no supporting evidence only to call my quotes something and then use the same quotes as evidence of the something you called them. It doesn't get much more cirular than that.
There is no disingenuity on my part in providing the evidence of your own words to substantiate my allegations. What you are falsely characterizing as "circular" is tantamount to characterizing security camera evidence of a bank robbery as 'circular' evidence supporting the contention of robbery. That's a sophist and disingenuous dodge worthy of a shyster lawyer.
That's an amusing counter; if you're implying that I'm assisting you in bogging down the debate by countering each of your diversions and bringing the discussion back around to the premise contended, (i.e.; whether or not faith and belief are irrational or rational basis).
[/quote]If you wish to abandon your position that people choose to be irrational then feel free to[/quote]
I've neither indicated nor, stated any such thing. Inferring that I did appears to stem from an irrational basis.
Are you also "indirectly" implying that all choices are made on a rational basis? Are you further implying that using an irrational basis constitutes making rational choices?
Yes I assert that every choice made can be reduced down to a weighing of values within the person choosing until such values indicate a solution (excluding such cases as chemical or electrical imbalances that generate random events and thus don't actively constitute a deliberate choice).[/quote]
Good qualifiers there however, it presumes the a priori condition that "every choice" involves making rational selections, (sans your qualifiers). Such a presumption precludes those irrational decisions that people make on a daily basis. Just because you feel that your decisions do not stem from an irrational basis does not mean that they do not. For instance, basing a "belief in god" upon an irrational basis of "faith" does not constitute making a rational decision.
[/quote]Yes I also imply that an irrational basis can be ustilized to make a rational choice, even if the chooser is aware of the irrationality of it and this is where human rationalization comes from. Without ever including the irrational there would be no need to rationalize.[/quote]
Yet, an irrational foundation can also be the basis for making an irrational choice. Further, "rationalizing" is not equivalent to logical reasoning; it is an accounting for an illogical choice by way of an excuse which is not logical.
[/quote]Being that we are not slaves to pure emotion or pure logic but also that we are inescapably influenced by both as well, we can remanipulate the weights of these variables and even add more variables in order to come up with a solution we find preferable to the purely logical solution our brains may tell us (in the case of the emotional side being too great to resist that is).[/quote]
Here, you provide support for my contention, rather than your own. Namely, that such decisions are 'remanipulated', (rationalized without logical reasoning into excuses), and that such decision-making processes are not entirely rational. Therefore, you are tacitly admitting that people do indeed make irrational decisions/choices are either pre-, or post-rationalize them. That process falls within the bounds of the definition of sophistry.
It is a dubious theory not because of what it partially accounts for but, because of what it does not - the irrational choices people do make using irrational basis. My 'theory', (not presented as one but, let's presume it was), is supported by an enormous volume of evidence of examples of people making irrational decisions. If you are not implicitly contending that those people are making irrational decisions stemming from a rational basis, we can discuss that. Again, equating excuses with reasoning is a false premise.
Without seeing some explanation of this theory of your, I will have to take the word of economists, socialogists, criminologists, psychiatrists, my own personal understanding, etc, over your theory (and to put it bluntly your theory is composed only of the assertion that the evidence indicates irrational decisions because you don't understand the people and situations behind the evidence).]/quote]
Since you'll no doubt snip what was actually wrote in order to manipulate the context again, what I actually stated was that my "theory" was not stated as one but, that it is nevertheless supported by an enormous volume of evidence of people making irrational decisions. How do we know they make irrational decisions? Because of both the irrational basis used to make those decsions, (emotional bias), and the results of such decisions. Were these decisions made upon a purely rational basis, the conclusions would be purely rational.
[/quote]An excuse is sometimes considered as justification after the fact, I know, but the excuse is often formed during the turmoil of the reasoning process and solved as a problem on its on in order to eliminate a particularly resistant variable.[/quote]
Thank you for providing either a deliberate or, accidental example of "rationalizing" in the form of your meta-rationalization of rationalization itself. And here you are claiming not to play word games, for shame.
[/quote]Your statement was "if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention". This is classic begging the question in that you assume (beg the question) that "belief" & "faith" are irrational basis for choices and this is the very point of contention.[/quote]
It is not "begging the question" since the inverse of the premise would be, 'belief and faith are a rational basis' and this is manifestly not the case, under the parameters of the meanings of those terms. Due to the justifiable a priori assumption that belief and faith are not rational aspects of the decision process by nature, the assertion that they are an irrational basis is a premise rather than a conclusion.
-
I have demonstrated your begging the question in part 1 of this post, thus affirming my assertion that it was reliance upon a disproof by fallacy.
As stated above, (unless you snip the context in response), since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.
[/quote]
[/quote]In regard to whether I snipped the context or not, I will let you decide.[/quote]
You've selectively snipped context when it suits your manipulation of the context in order to obscure and skip over those points you wish to avoid. Be that as it may, this tangent is unproductive in that you are likely to continue the pattern envinced and I'll just have to make allowances for it if I wish to continue this exchange.
[/quote]My position has always been that an irrational basis is perfectly fine for making rational decisions. I have never contended otherwise although I am not sure if I have vocalized it in just that way. They are not rationally choosing to be irrational - they are choosing to rationalize the irrational until the entire problem or question or event becomes rational.
Interesting dodge. So, you are asserting that 'rationalizing', (taking something which is irrational and attempting to reformulate it as a rational datum), constitutes conversion of an irrational basis to a rational one?
Here I would actually accuse you of word games by you contrasting 'excuses' and 'rationales' to reasons via an absurd alteration of 'reasoned reasons'. You are basically saying everything I did but altering it to say that now they don't count as reasons because they are not reasoned.
They don't count because having _a reason_ is not the same thing as 'logical reasoning'. A reason can be, (and often is), merely an excuse and not the result of a process of rational reasoning using a logical basis. Instead, a rationale is quite often an excuse for a lack of actual reasoning behind a choice.
Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.
[/quote]If they didn't know the choices were irrational then doing them would never mean they "choose to be irrational" for their position as you contend. If they did something they would normally consider irrational, such as heat of moment, they are performing an Id response or a reflex action and skipping the choosing part of the brain altogether -- there is no choice at all just action.[/quote]
I disagree. If the person making the irrational decision is aware of the irrational basis of an "Id response" and makes the decision regardless, then they are choosing to make an irrational decision. If they are unaware of the "Id response" but, make the irrational decision nonethelss, then the basis for their decision remains irrational regardless of their own awareness of this process.
Finding a "reason", (in this context, an _excuse_), for doing something irrational is not the same as using logical reasoning to arrive at that same decsion choice as you seem to be implying.
I completeley agree with you here. Humans do not base their choices purely on logic though, it is a mixture of logic and emotion -- we weigh it with logic but weight it down with emotion.
Exactly, and with that admission, you concede my point that humans do indeed choose to make irrational decisions upon such mixtures of emotion and logic, (since emotion is not a rational basis according to its defining parameters). I'd estimate that this concludes our debate at this juncture were it not for the further estimation that you're likely to attempt to wriggle free of your own admission. That's alright though, I can repost your admission as a direct quote to remove any subsequent ambiguities or obfuscations.
Variations, yes, but a totally different meaning is altogether something else.[/quote]
The definitions referenced are not "totally different", they are interlocking and necessary to convey the extent of the meaning of a term. All such definitions do so because the meaning of a term relies upon using other words, (which, in turn, have their own meanings).
[/quote]In the definition given by QoN, a simple test is to ask "does proof exist" and the answer is 'No'. In the definitions given by me from the other sources the answer would be "Indeterminate, or irrelevant". That makes the definition, not a simple variation, but a totally different animal.
The result of the test in the case of the secondary, (derivative), definition you provided was not irrelevant merely because you assert it is. Instead, I submit that it is entirely relevant to the context because it is relevant to substantiating a claim. To merely assert that one believes in something because they have faith without proof embodies the very definition of circular "reasoning".
If the dichotomy were false, the alternative would be that "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis. Is this your tacit claim?
This is another example of a false dichotomy -- you are only considering two possibilities when that is not true.
If there are other possibilities, you haven't presented them as yet. Alluding to undisclosed evidence could be considered as disingenuous. Your assumptions concerning what I have and have not considered when I asked if your tacit claim that faith and belief form a rational basis would be speculative at best. Either way, you still haven't answered the question posed by inference.
Proof in this context, as in having a logically reasoned basis for faith & belief, remains lacking. I've not dodged this point throughout this debate, contrary to your prior responses. The dichotomy becomes 'faith/belief' is a rational basis since it is not an irrational one'.
Again a false dichotomy as you are only considering two possibilities.[/quote]
What other possibilities are you implying?
[/quote]Because you lack the capacity to reason a way to accept faith as reasonable does not mean that everyone lacks this capability.[/quote]
That's very amusing; an attempt to condescend because I presumably cannot use reason/logic to rationalize faith! What a lazy way to try to get me to substantiate your point for you! As I've reiterated before; "faith" does not have a rational basis because the essential meaning of the term relies upon not having any proof/basis. If, unstead, you can provide a logical/rational basis for 'accepting faith', your reply is awaited.
This entire exchange belies your bland denial without supporting your contention. You may not perceive the counters as counters however, your perception is as subjective as anyone else's. Either the arguments were countered by my counter-arguments, (as substantiated by reading this thread), or they were not ... as claimed by your opinion?
You have given some counters that I qualify as valid. More often, though, what you call counters simply are statements of disagreement, or condescension at my points. I require a bit more than 'no' or 'poor' before I consider anything a counter.
And I require something more substantive than your empty assertions that counter-arguments are simply "statements of disagreement", (especially when specific substantiation was provided for those counter-arguments). As to condecension, this is often a subjective appearance based soley upon the bias of the claimant however, I'll be the first to admit that we've both bandied about some condescending remarks.
I intentionally snipped the context to which you were replying to emphasize a prior point. Summarily, the gist of our debate rests upon the opposing contentions that:
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are a rational basis for choice' -- Abrupt
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are an irrational basis for choice' - falcon9
Change mine to "religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are incorporated into a rational basis for choice" and I will agree.[/quote]
I cannot do so because faith and belief are not a rational basis, no matter how they are "incorporated", "remanipulated", folded, spindled or mutilated. No moving the goalposts now, as you objected to previously.
[/quote]I see your intentional (and admitted to the reader to demonstrate a point) snipping. What you have done here is a form of contextonomy in which you intentionally try to distort my meaning. You have done this so that you can qualify your earlier accusations of me doing the same[/quote]
Yep. That's because it demonstrates the pattern of "contextonomy" - you do 'quote mine' context and now you seem to object to my doing it to substantiate my contention in a display of obscuring obscurities with more obscurity. We call such dust storms, "Haboobs" around here.
-
You continually trying to get into the semantics of this no matter what I say just shows you have no actual response haha, very entertaining.
Well, if you are fond of using words without knowing what they mean, I suppose "semantics" would be anathema for you. Unfortunately, your empty opinion that my responses aren't "actual responses" merely reveals more about your 'understanding' than it does any usage of "semantics". (especially as yet another allusion to 'word games' ... as if that's a novel debating 'tactic').
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
[/quote]
So you want me to prove that I BELIEVE God is real,not that he IS real- which is two very different things. hahaha. This conversation would have been much shorter if you would have just said that in the first place instead of changing your story. Saying anything different than what I just stated will be a lie as you JUST said that I claimed "I believe He is real." Ok, here is my proof that I BELIEVE he is---I'm TELLING you--it is my BELIEF that He is. There, I proved that I believe it.
Now, since I didn't claim it to be FACT- go ahead and prove that he isn't real, since you seem to think that IS A FACT. I made a claim that I BELIEVE it- I proved it by telling you. Now you go ahead and prove that he isn't, which is your claim.
Also, thanks for asserting that I do not know what semantics means when I clearly do.
I wish we could all be as superior and genius as you THINK you are.
-
I would not say GOD is fake at all. That is why you have to have faith in him and believe in him. If you do not have faith or believe in him then he would be fake.
-
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
So you want me to prove that I BELIEVE God is real,not that he IS real-
No, the request was not that you prove that your _belief_, (although that does make for an interesting secondary claim on your behalf, hmm...). Instead, the request was that you substantiate your tacit claim of believing in something that is "real/exists" since the converse position would be that you believe in something which is unreal/doesn't exist. Unless you are seriously implying directly that your belief is in something which does not exist/is unreal?
Also, thanks for asserting that I do not know what semantics means when I clearly do.
Merely making an empty assertion that you do does not substantiate your claim that you do know. This has not been clearly demonstrated, although you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for making empty declarations, (presumably couched as unsupported opinion).
I wish we could all be as superior and genius as you THINK you are.
[/quote]
Oh, now you are claiming to know that I think such a thing. How presumptious of you! Just to set the record straight; I never claimed any such thing and it is my converse opinion that society needs folks like you in less challenging workforce positions, (unless of course, they are perpetual college students).
-
I believe in God 100 percent. I feel that their is a life after this because if their is not what do we have to look forward too. I love to go to church and was recently baptized. My husband is Greek orthodox and i wanted to learn more. I have always believed, but was not baptized. I meet with the priest for a year and he explained every thing believed and what was expected. I then was baptized on the same day as my daughter. When i came up from the water i felt relieved of all my sins and felt a light go through my body.
-
There are many things you believe in that you cannot see. Take for example, gravity. You cannot see gravity, but you believe it is there to keep you from flying out into space. The only reason you believe in gravity is because you have experienced it and what it does for you. You have to have faith that gravity exists before you jump. Once you jump, then you have proof for yourself that it exists. There are many examples like this.
In the same way, you cannot see God. The only reason you wouldn't believe in God is because you haven't really experienced what God can do for you. If you would have faith that God exists, you will find that He does and you will have proof for yourself that He exists. I don't think you can prove to someone else that God exists. You can certainly present evidence that God exists, but you have to individually prove it to yourself by experiencing Him for yourself.
Aside from this, God does not just exist; He loves you!
-
There are many things you believe in that you cannot see. Take for example, gravity. You cannot see gravity, but you believe it is there to keep you from flying out into space. The only reason you believe in gravity is because you have experienced it and what it does for you. You have to have faith that gravity exists before you jump. Once you jump, then you have proof for yourself that it exists. There are many examples like this.
This is not an accurate example since gravity is a measurable force and does not require a belief in its existance in order to exist. This is a testable 'force' and a disbelief in it does not preclude its existance.
In the same way, you cannot see God.
To use "Abrupt's" phrase; the above is a false dichotomy since "god" is not a measurable 'force' in the same degree as gravity is.
If you would have faith that God exists, you will find that He does and you will have proof for yourself that He exists.
No, that's circular 'reasoning' in that the conclusion is the premise. "Faith" does not confer existance in something.
You can certainly present evidence that God exists, but you have to individually prove it to yourself by experiencing Him for yourself.
No evidence has been presented that "god" exists. Referring to a subjective experience of "faith" does not constitute evidence.
Aside from this, God does not just exist; He loves you!
Your additional claim sans evidence is duly noted.
-
I believe in God. With our suffering there can be no compassion. I've gone thru soo much in my life and I truley realize and ahve to believe for my own sanity that there is a God and how wonderful the promise of Salvation... I also believe to each their own. But I'm sure you'll be missed if your not heaven with your family. best of luck :cat:
-
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
So you want me to prove that I BELIEVE God is real,not that he IS real-
No, the request was not that you prove that your _belief_, (although that does make for an interesting secondary claim on your behalf, hmm...). Instead, the request was that you substantiate your tacit claim of believing in something that is "real/exists" since the converse position would be that you believe in something which is unreal/doesn't exist. Unless you are seriously implying directly that your belief is in something which does not exist/is unreal?
Also, thanks for asserting that I do not know what semantics means when I clearly do.
Merely making an empty assertion that you do does not substantiate your claim that you do know. This has not been clearly demonstrated, although you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for making empty declarations, (presumably couched as unsupported opinion).
I wish we could all be as superior and genius as you THINK you are.
Oh, now you are claiming to know that I think such a thing. How presumptious of you! Just to set the record straight; I never claimed any such thing and it is my converse opinion that society needs folks like you in less challenging workforce positions, (unless of course, they are perpetual college students).
[/quote]
1st of all- what I believe in is irrelelvant as you are the one claiming God is not real(which you still have not proven your claim). I believe that is the 15th time that point has been made. When you respond with little word games AGAIN and try to make yourself sound educated I will LOL as I have been at all your other petty remarks.
2nd-Weird how I am AHEAD in my studies, yet you assert that I am likely a perpetual college student. It is clear that you are posing as something you are not on this forum and are simply here to act superior to others. YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. I hope that is clear, because the more time you waste hanging around here attempting to sound intelligent the less time you could be doing something productive or learning to make a valid point instead of hopping around every question or proof someone asks of you.
A response is not necessary as it will only mirror what you have already said and not add anything useful to the debate. Thanks.
-
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
Merely making an empty assertion that you do does not substantiate your claim that you do know. This has not been clearly demonstrated, although you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for making empty declarations, (presumably couched as unsupported opinion).
I wish we could all be as superior and genius as you THINK you are.
Oh, now you are claiming to know that I think such a thing. How presumptious of you! Just to set the record straight; I never claimed any such thing and it is my converse opinion that society needs folks like you in less challenging workforce positions, (unless of course, they are perpetual college students).
1st of all- what I believe in is irrelelvant as you are the one claiming God is not real(which you still have not proven your claim).
Firstly, your "belief" is relevant to the context of the point reiterated several times. Namely, that you either 'believe in' that which is unreal or, real. Secondly, I have not claimed that "god is unreal" and have instead requested that you provide a quoted reference - which you have repeatedly failed to do. These are not "word games", they are simple and relevant arguments.
A response is not necessary as it will only mirror what you have already said and not add anything useful to the debate. Thanks.
What a cheap 'debate' tactic you've failed to sucessfully employ; your own comments have added nothing pertinent to this debate and continue to clearly show you dissembling and dodging direct requests to substantiate your empty claims. This pattern of dishonesty is emphasized every time you dodge and weave and still get sacked before you throw the ball.
-
Show me where I came on this thread and said GOD IS REAL.
Since that was not the claim I quoted you as stating, your non sequitur is disregarded. Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
The claim therefore consists of claiming to "believe He is" (real). A "belief" is an asserted opinion which lacks substantive proof, (and is subsequently an empty opinion in that it has no discernable basis). As an aside, so much for your grand-standing, posturing "goodbye", (as in: Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 15, 2011, 03:49:38 pm:
"... you cannot support your claim that God does not exist. Goodbye."
Okay, I've reposted your claim; your turn to repost my alledged claim "that God does not exist". Failure to do so will be correctly construed as blatant dishonesty.
Merely making an empty assertion that you do does not substantiate your claim that you do know. This has not been clearly demonstrated, although you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for making empty declarations, (presumably couched as unsupported opinion).
I wish we could all be as superior and genius as you THINK you are.
Oh, now you are claiming to know that I think such a thing. How presumptious of you! Just to set the record straight; I never claimed any such thing and it is my converse opinion that society needs folks like you in less challenging workforce positions, (unless of course, they are perpetual college students).
1st of all- what I believe in is irrelelvant as you are the one claiming God is not real(which you still have not proven your claim).
Firstly, your "belief" is relevant to the context of the point reiterated several times. Namely, that you either 'believe in' that which is unreal or, real. Secondly, I have not claimed that "god is unreal" and have instead requested that you provide a quoted reference - which you have repeatedly failed to do. These are not "word games", they are simple and relevant arguments.
A response is not necessary as it will only mirror what you have already said and not add anything useful to the debate. Thanks.
What a cheap 'debate' tactic you've failed to sucessfully employ; your own comments have added nothing pertinent to this debate and continue to clearly show you dissembling and dodging direct requests to substantiate your empty claims. This pattern of dishonesty is emphasized every time you dodge and weave and still get sacked before you throw the ball.
That makes no sense considering I made NO claims here.
-
That makes no sense considering I made NO claims here.
Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
You either don't consider your claim to be a claim, (which is an irrelevant consideration since your claim falls under the parameters of making a claim), you're in some sort of pathological/ compulsive denial of making your quoted claim or, you're simply lying. Which is it?
-
That makes no sense considering I made NO claims here.
Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
You either don't consider your claim to be a claim, (which is an irrelevant consideration since your claim falls under the parameters of making a claim), you're in some sort of pathological/ compulsive denial of making your quoted claim or, you're simply lying. Which is it?
Repeating myself to you is exhausting- my only claim, if you want to call it that, is to BELIEVE something. I never claimed it was a fact that he existed, it is simply a fact that I believe in him personally.
-
That makes no sense considering I made NO claims here.
Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
You either don't consider your claim to be a claim, (which is an irrelevant consideration since your claim falls under the parameters of making a claim), you're in some sort of pathological/ compulsive denial of making your quoted claim or, you're simply lying. Which is it?
Repeating myself to you is exhausting- my only claim, if you want to call it that, is to BELIEVE something. I never claimed it was a fact that he existed, it is simply a fact that I believe in him personally.
Yes, your 'belief', (in the reality of "god"), constitutes your claim. If you are now implying that you believe in something which does not exist, that would be a curious dichotomy.
-
There are only two sides to this discussion. Let's look at this in a mathematical, logical way. God either exists or he doesn't. That means that there is at least a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance God does not exit. He either exists or He doesn't. That is a wager that everybody must take.
Three criteria decide whether or not a wager is intelligent. If you put any wager or gamble into this equation, you will be able to determine whether or not you should take the wager. The three criteria are the size of the prize, the size of the risk, and the chances of actually winning the prize. In a big lottery, the prize is very large and the risk is very small (the cost of the ticket), but the chances of winning are very small. That means that investment of even a small amount of money in such a wager may not be wise. (I do not believe in gambling, but I am not making a case for or against gambling; just bear with me for the point of illustration.)
Let's pretend that all of us who read this are not Christians and think this through logically. Let's take a look at the gospel wager. Since the Bible is the basis of Christianity, let's look at one verse in the Bible that is basically the focal point of the Bible. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
If this is true, what would be the prize? Everlasting life. That is an infinitely incomprehensibly large prize. Living forever means that the first billion years will only be a second in light of living forever. We just can't comprehend that. To look at Christianity by its own claims let's read another verse from the Bible, Mark 10:28-30. In these verses, one of the followers of Jesus, Peter, asks Jesus a question—basically “what do we get from following you, from taking this gospel wager. “Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.'” Jesus says that if we are obeying and following God, we will have a hundredfold better life in this life and when this story of earth wraps up, we will eternal life. Anyone who has lived a life as a non-christian and has been truly converted can testify to the fact they they are much happier after they become a Christian than before. The possible prize of eternal happiness, both now and for eternity has infinite value.
On its own terms, what is the chance of winning? “Whoever believes” receives the prize. If you have capacity to believe anything, you can win this wager. That means that the chances of winning the prize is 100%—100% of those who take the gospel wager will receive the prize.
What is the risk involved? There is no risk at all. To show that there is risk, you would have to prove that the life of a non-christian was superior in either quantity or quality to the life of a Christian.
The question must be asked, should I choose to live as though God exists or as though God does not exist? The safer choice is to live as though God does exist. If I am right, I gain everything (infinite happiness) and lose nothing. If wrong, I gain nothing and lose nothing.
The prize is infinitely large; the chance of winning is 100%; and there is absolutely no risk involved. Who wouldn't take a wager like that? If you take this wager, you will lose nothing because there is no risk involved. If you hold to your belief that there is no God and you are wrong, when this life wraps up, you have lost everything. On the contrary, if I hold to my beliefs that God does exist and choose to live the way He wants me to and I am wrong, when this life is over I will have lost nothing.
Won't you take the wager?
-
There are only two sides to this discussion. Let's look at this in a mathematical, logical way. God either exists or he doesn't. That means that there is at least a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance God does not exit. He either exists or He doesn't. That is a wager that everybody must take.
I wondered how long it would be until the next christian recycled [the very faulty] 'Pascal's Wager'. It seems jsuderec found it appropriate. Keep in mind there is an inherent and all encompassing 'fail factor' in using it though.
The 'Wager' applies to all gods, equally. ::)
-
There are only two sides to this discussion. Let's look at this in a mathematical, logical way. God either exists or he doesn't. That means that there is at least a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance God does not exit. He either exists or He doesn't. That is a wager that everybody must take.
I wondered how long it would be until the next christian recycled [the very faulty] 'Pascal's Wager'. It seems jsuderec found it appropriate. Keep in mind there is an inherent and all encompassing 'fail factor' in using it though.
The 'Wager' applies to all gods, equally. ::)
Exactly; the odds apply to _various_ "gods" and that reduces them significantly from 50%. Not only that, the terms of such a wager are understated to an appalling degree:
"The cost to "place the bet" is not as low as some would claim. Tithes and other contributions are just the beginning. People are dying, now, as I type, because of their religion, or because of somebody else's religion. There are people refusing medical treatment because it's "against their religion". There are people killing other people over religion. The "ethnic cleansing" in Eastern Europe was very much a religious war between Christians and Muslims. Similar conflicts are taking place in Indonesia. And let's not forget 9/11." -- http://www.jhuger.com/pascal
-
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling. There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear. The God I believe in is not a vindictive hateful God. Rather, He is a God of love who hates sin, but loves the sinner.
All of the misery in the world today is not because God is angry. Instead, it shows that God is fair and that He gives everybody a choice. They can accept God or reject Him. God will not force anyone to obey Him; I can't force anyone to believe in God. But I can present compelling evidence so that those who have open minds might be convinced.
Many people are bitter toward God because they suppose that God is causing all of this pain and discouragement in the world. No, it is not God who is causing this. It is sin; and soon God will get rid of that too. Those who refuse to let go of sin and rebellion will find out perhaps too late that the sinner must be destroyed with the sin. God is a God of love who will do everything to save the sinner; but God is also a God of justice who will destroy the sinner with the sin if he refuses to let go. I believe it is a fatal mistake to not believe in God. Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent.
What is it that brings out such bitterness and hatred toward the thought of the existence of God?
-
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling.
There's nothing especially irresistibleabout the premise of your "argument" presented thusfar.
There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear.
That's probably due to every argument in favor of "god" being unconvincing and lacking substantiation, (relying instead upon groundless "faith" & "belief").
I can't force anyone to believe in God.
Yet, others have tried and failed to do so throughout history - all in the name of one "god" or another.
But I can present compelling evidence so that those who have open minds might be convinced.
No compelling evidence has been presented to support such a contention. Groundless opinions based upon "faith" & "belief" do not constitute evidence. The 'open-minded' slur backfires due to the hypocritcal nature of teh derrogatory remark.
God is also a God of justice who will destroy the sinner with the sin if he refuses to let go. I believe it is a fatal mistake to not believe in God. Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent.
What is it that brings out such bitterness and hatred toward the thought of the existence of God?
Just speculating here but, had you considered the possibility that threatening such dire punishments, (in the name of your "god"), might have a little bit to do with not appreciating such threats? No doubt these threats are not determined to be threats by those who issue them; unfortunately for them, others will oppose such tyranny until such time as superstitious nonsense no longer blinds the human eye.
-
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling. There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear. The God I believe in is not a vindictive hateful God. Rather, He is a God of love who hates sin, but loves the sinner.
First off, there are no convincing arguments that favor your god. All of them are filled with humongous holes that only the naive and ignorant hover over when they're brought into the light of reality. This has been demonstrated countless times on this forum by the christian group. Secondly, have you ever read the OT? You believe your god is a god of love, and yet he has furiously slaughtered and commanded the slaughter of people for jealous, petty, and childish reasons. If that is love to you, I am very frightened to be typing to you right now.
All of the misery in the world today is not because God is angry. Instead, it shows that God is fair and that He gives everybody a choice. They can accept God or reject Him. God will not force anyone to obey Him; I can't force anyone to believe in God. But I can present compelling evidence so that those who have open minds might be convinced.
Okay, another point here- If he's fair and allows for choice, explain to me how either accepting him or being eternally damned to hell is a fair choice from a fair god. How is that any different from The Godfather giving you "An offer you can't refuse"? It is coercion. "Do what I say or BURN!" Not really a fair choice, is it? Seriously, try explaining it w/o spiralling away from the basic question I asked.
Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent.What is it that brings out such bitterness and hatred toward the thought of the existence of God
I assure you it has nothing to do with the god because freethinkers do not wholeheartedly believe or put faith in gods. It has to do with the believers spreading this cursing filth around to everyone because "they're commanded to do so". How ignorant does one have to be to realize that people DON'T want to be cursed to rot in a fiery afterlife just because they don't think the same way you do? From an aerial POV it is nothing more than rudeness and bitterness disguised as a 'loving' warning.
-
I don't understand that concept, either. Are you saying that there is a God but He is fake, or are you saying there is no god, fake or otherwise. I've read lots of your posts and I believe that YOU may be a fake.
-
I don't understand that concept, either. Are you saying that there is a God but He is fake, or are you saying there is no god, fake or otherwise. I've read lots of your posts and I believe that YOU may be a fake.
To whom are you directing your question, loulizee?
-
Falcon9- the OP Marieelissa. And yes, she's crazy. Literally.
-
Falcon9- the OP Marieelissa. And yes, she's crazy. Literally.
Ah well, be that as it may, the OP - Marieelisa presented the original claim hasn't bothered to support her contention since. No doubt this is what Surveymack10 has been riled up about and she remains unable to produce a quote where I'd made any such claim.
-
Falcon9 and Falconer02.
I am not trying to avoid the questions you asked and will reply to them later.
What is it that has made you so bitter to the thought of God? I am not exactly expecting you to answer this question because it is probably personal, but there must be a reason. If you can share some of your story, it might help us understand where you are coming from. I am truly sorry for whatever that may be.
This probably means very little to you based on your attitude throughout this post and many of your other posts, but I just want you to know that I will be praying for you.
-
Marieelisa presented the original claim hasn't bothered to support her contention since.
I don't think she'll be back. She has been gone for a while and she was one of the craziest posters here. 1 day she was an evangelical, the next an atheist, the next agnostic-theist, the next a cultist, etc. This all equals an internet troll.
What is it that has made you so bitter to the thought of God? I am not exactly expecting you to answer this question because it is probably personal, but there must be a reason. If you can share some of your story, it might help us understand where you are coming from. I am truly sorry for whatever that may be.
The foundation of it isn't really a personal problem. I just grew up and realized that the biblegod is just as real as all the other gods that people said existed throughout history-- long story short, through my research I found it undeniable that they're bogus romanticized stories and the people who praise this god or the stories rarely know what they're talking about when applying them to reality. The thing that really bugs me is that these ancient beliefs still actually have our society still chained to the point where they infect and influence politics and such. In that sense, it's personal.
The contradictions and how the believers hover over them are a frustrating to read though, but it's also funny so I don't know if that counts as a personal problem.
This probably means very little to you based on your attitude throughout this post and many of your other posts, but I just want you to know that I will be praying for you.
Well thanks...but that's really not necessary. People can take attitudes like this offensively because it can come off as pitying the other individual for irrational reasons which is really rude. Besides, praying is a completely contradictory effort to your god's agenda.
-
I am not trying to avoid the questions you asked and will reply to them later.
Okay, which questions were those again that you'll be getting around to answering later?
What is it that has made you so bitter to the thought of God?
Why do you presume 'bitterness' must be the reason before asking? Should I also engage in speculation and hypothesize that your assumption rests solely upon the nature of this particular debate & discussion, which you've determined stems from being "bitter" about something? It just doesn't occur to you that there could be some other basis, does it?
This probably means very little to you based on your attitude throughout this post and many of your other posts, but I just want you to know that I will be praying for you.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. The irony of that is your threats on "god's" behalf on the one hand, ("Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent." - jsuderc & supposedly, 'god'), while alternatively "praying" for the ones you've threatened on the other. That's sublime.
-
Marieelisa presented the original claim hasn't bothered to support her contention since.
I don't think she'll be back. She has been gone for a while and she was one of the craziest posters here. 1 day she was an evangelical, the next an atheist, the next agnostic-theist, the next a cultist, etc. This all equals an internet troll.
Surely you're not suggesting that those who assert unfounded claims are merely internet trolls! *gasp* :P
-
answers below by number.
I am not trying to avoid the questions you asked and will reply to them later.
Okay, which questions were those again that you'll be getting around to answering later?
1.
What is it that has made you so bitter to the thought of God?
Why do you presume 'bitterness' must be the reason before asking? Should I also engage in speculation and hypothesize that your assumption rests solely upon the nature of this particular debate & discussion, which you've determined stems from being "bitter" about something? It just doesn't occur to you that there could be some other basis, does it?
2
This probably means very little to you based on your attitude throughout this post and many of your other posts, but I just want you to know that I will be praying for you.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. The irony of that is your threats on "god's" behalf on the one hand, ("Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent." - jsuderc & supposedly, 'god'), while alternatively "praying" for the ones you've threatened on the other. That's sublime.
3
1. There were some questions in earlier posts that you asked. I will do my best to answer them later on when I have more time.
2. Perhaps bitterness was not the right word. I do realize that there could be some other basis, but would you be willing to share where you are coming from. All I was saying is that there seems to be something at the root of these feelings against the thought of a God. I am not seeking to offend in any way.
3. I am not trying to threaten you and I am sorry if I came across that way. However, I do not know how else to say what I said. My conviction is that you are making a critical mistake and you feel that you are right. One of us is wrong because we can't both be right. I am not trying to force you to change the way you believe--all I am doing is trying to share my understanding of things in this discussion.
Just a thought: I believe that you are quite intelligent and are making the best decision for yourself based on what you understand and know. Please humor me for a minute--Do you know everything there is to know in the entire universe? If we even knew 1% of what there is to know about everything in the universe, there is still 99% that we don't know about. Could it be that somewhere in the universe, in the part you don't know about, is a God like the one I believe exists? (I am not at all trying to say that I have reached a higher level and know more than you for that would be obnoxious! We are all at different points in our understanding of different things.)
-
That makes no sense considering I made NO claims here.
Your stated claim was as follows:
Reply #175 on: September 05, 2011, 03:56:46 pm, Message ID: 412682
Wherein "SurveyMack10" stated her claim that:
"I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is ..."[/endquote]
You either don't consider your claim to be a claim, (which is an irrelevant consideration since your claim falls under the parameters of making a claim), you're in some sort of pathological/ compulsive denial of making your quoted claim or, you're simply lying. Which is it?
Repeating myself to you is exhausting- my only claim, if you want to call it that, is to BELIEVE something. I never claimed it was a fact that he existed, it is simply a fact that I believe in him personally.
Yes, your 'belief', (in the reality of "god"), constitutes your claim. If you are now implying that you believe in something which does not exist, that would be a curious dichotomy.
WRONG- plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
-
There are only two sides to this discussion. Let's look at this in a mathematical, logical way. God either exists or he doesn't. That means that there is at least a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance God does not exit. He either exists or He doesn't. That is a wager that everybody must take.
Three criteria decide whether or not a wager is intelligent. If you put any wager or gamble into this equation, you will be able to determine whether or not you should take the wager. The three criteria are the size of the prize, the size of the risk, and the chances of actually winning the prize. In a big lottery, the prize is very large and the risk is very small (the cost of the ticket), but the chances of winning are very small. That means that investment of even a small amount of money in such a wager may not be wise. (I do not believe in gambling, but I am not making a case for or against gambling; just bear with me for the point of illustration.)
Let's pretend that all of us who read this are not Christians and think this through logically. Let's take a look at the gospel wager. Since the Bible is the basis of Christianity, let's look at one verse in the Bible that is basically the focal point of the Bible. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
If this is true, what would be the prize? Everlasting life. That is an infinitely incomprehensibly large prize. Living forever means that the first billion years will only be a second in light of living forever. We just can't comprehend that. To look at Christianity by its own claims let's read another verse from the Bible, Mark 10:28-30. In these verses, one of the followers of Jesus, Peter, asks Jesus a question—basically “what do we get from following you, from taking this gospel wager. “Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.'” Jesus says that if we are obeying and following God, we will have a hundredfold better life in this life and when this story of earth wraps up, we will eternal life. Anyone who has lived a life as a non-christian and has been truly converted can testify to the fact they they are much happier after they become a Christian than before. The possible prize of eternal happiness, both now and for eternity has infinite value.
On its own terms, what is the chance of winning? “Whoever believes” receives the prize. If you have capacity to believe anything, you can win this wager. That means that the chances of winning the prize is 100%—100% of those who take the gospel wager will receive the prize.
What is the risk involved? There is no risk at all. To show that there is risk, you would have to prove that the life of a non-christian was superior in either quantity or quality to the life of a Christian.
The question must be asked, should I choose to live as though God exists or as though God does not exist? The safer choice is to live as though God does exist. If I am right, I gain everything (infinite happiness) and lose nothing. If wrong, I gain nothing and lose nothing.
The prize is infinitely large; the chance of winning is 100%; and there is absolutely no risk involved. Who wouldn't take a wager like that? If you take this wager, you will lose nothing because there is no risk involved. If you hold to your belief that there is no God and you are wrong, when this life wraps up, you have lost everything. On the contrary, if I hold to my beliefs that God does exist and choose to live the way He wants me to and I am wrong, when this life is over I will have lost nothing.
Won't you take the wager?
This is a very cool comparison, I have never heard someone put it quite that way and found it very interesting!
-
Falcon9- the OP Marieelissa. And yes, she's crazy. Literally.
Ah well, be that as it may, the OP - Marieelisa presented the original claim hasn't bothered to support her contention since. No doubt this is what Surveymack10 has been riled up about and she remains unable to produce a quote where I'd made any such claim.
Talking about me instead of to me- quite mature :)
-
I am not trying to avoid the questions you asked and will reply to them later.
Okay, which questions were those again that you'll be getting around to answering later?
This probably means very little to you based on your attitude throughout this post and many of your other posts, but I just want you to know that I will be praying for you.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. The irony of that is your threats on "god's" behalf on the one hand, ("Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent." - jsuderc & supposedly, 'god'), while alternatively "praying" for the ones you've threatened on the other. That's sublime.
[/quote]
1. There were some questions in earlier posts that you asked. I will do my best to answer them later on when I have more time.
Excellent, and which questions were those, specifically?
2. Perhaps bitterness was not the right word. I do realize that there could be some other basis, but would you be willing to share where you are coming from. All I was saying is that there seems to be something at the root of these feelings against the thought of a God. I am not seeking to offend in any way.
To begin with, your "god" doesn't protect me from the follies of 'his' followers. Those followers are largely 'cultural thieves' in that they swiped much of their altered dogma from previous religions in a cherry-picked manner and the most pertinent basis is that I don't have any particularly strong "feelings" toward something which is merely claimed to exist, (similarly, I harbor no ill will toward "Santa" or, the "easter bunny").
3. I am not trying to threaten you and I am sorry if I came across that way. However, I do not know how else to say what I said.
If you're looking for suggestions on how to rephrase the inherent threat so that the threat isn't a threat afterall, I may be able to assist, (although I haven't given such dissembling much consideration as yet).
My conviction is that you are making a critical mistake and you feel that you are right. One of us is wrong because we can't both be right. I am not trying to force you to change the way you believe--all I am doing is trying to share my understanding of things in this discussion.
The difference is that I'm not the one making an unsupported claim, ("belief in god" -- note that disbelieving someone else's initial claim and requesting substantiation for such a claim is not, in and of itself, a claim). Certainly I contend that there is an overwhelming possibility that those who make such unfounded claims on the basis of "belief/faith" are drawing invalid conclusions upon that basis. However, that remains a central point of my assertion, (with substantiation), that some people choose to make irrational choices.
Please humor me for a minute--Do you know everything there is to know in the entire universe? If we even knew 1% of what there is to know about everything in the universe, there is still 99% that we don't know about.
That's a sophist stance since the probability for anything one can imagine, (or, can't imagine yet), to exist is indeterminate. It does not logically follow that the odds favor such theoretical existigencies. If one forms a theoretical premise, (in this instance, that "god" may or does exist), one cannot rationally use an indeterminate, ('we don't know everything'), as the supporting basis for such a theory. What theories are intended to do is take observed phenomenon, (or that which is directly derived from such), and posit the 'how'. Your 'theory' doesn't do that.
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
-
[a paraphrased version of Pascal's Wager]
This is a very cool comparison, I have never heard someone put it quite that way and found it very interesting!
It's still Pascal's Wager, no matter how you slice it.
-
Falcon9- the OP Marieelissa. And yes, she's crazy. Literally.
Ah well, be that as it may, the OP - Marieelisa presented the original claim hasn't bothered to support her contention since. No doubt this is what Surveymack10 has been riled up about and she remains unable to produce a quote where I'd made any such claim.
Talking about me instead of to me- quite mature :)
I often 'talk' to you, (although I wonder just as often why I bother), and was referencing something you wrote. You do recall claiming that I made some sort of claim which you remain unable to produce, don't you?
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Can you prove that God does not exist? Or is it possible that you only believe that He does not exist?
-
[a paraphrased version of Pascal's Wager]
This is a very cool comparison, I have never heard someone put it quite that way and found it very interesting!
It's still Pascal's Wager, no matter how you slice it.
Are you seriously argueing with my opinion that his spin on it was cool? It is an OPINION lol
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Please don't feel the need to summarize my claim for me as I have done it myself several times.
Also, I am PURPOSELY only stating that i BELIEVE in God, not that it is a fact.
This is so that you cannot dodge proving that God does not exist by saying that I am the one who claimed he did.
I did NOT claim God is real.
I am absolutely NOT claiming God is real by fact.
I will repeat this again if you question it again.
I CHOOSE to believe God is real, and will always believe as such. I am NOT saying his existence is a fact.
To me, God is not hypothetical.
However, if that is what you think I respect that. (It IS possible to resect another's beliefs despite what you may think).
That being said, it is not at all a "curious state of affairs" for someone to have faith in something that has not been "scientifically" proven. This is actually quite common among many people in the world. (There are quite a lot of religious people in the word).
So, since you want a summary of my so-called "claim" if that is what you would like to call it:
1.) The only thing I am claiming as fact is that I BELIEVE IN GOD.
2.) I am NOT claiming God is factually real.
3.) I do not owe you any proof for God's existence as, I am NOT claiming he exists at all, simply that I CHOOSE to believe in him.
Now, I can only hope that I will not be forced to explain this anymore times than I already have.
I am going to assume this has FINALLY been cleared up and we can move on.
Now, since you are the only who seems to think your beliefs or lack thereof are the right way and the only way- please prove so by proving God does not exist.
ANY RESPONSE TO THIS POST SAYING I CLAIMED GOD'S EXISTENCE AS FACT WILL BE A BLATANT DISREGARD TO WHAT I SAID AND AN UTTER WASTE OF TIME.
I am asking you to please respond with proof of God not existing, or with an answer saying you cannot do so instead of a lengthy analysis of what I said and what you feel is wrong with it because that will simple be a dodge.
To restate just to clarify- the question for you is:
Can you prove God is real or not?
(yes or no)
If yes, please show the proof.
If no, thank you for the honest answer.
-
[a paraphrased version of Pascal's Wager]
This is a very cool comparison, I have never heard someone put it quite that way and found it very interesting!
It's still Pascal's Wager, no matter how you slice it.
Are you seriously argueing with my opinion that his spin on it was cool? It is an OPINION lol
No, I merely stated my opinion on the subject.
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Please don't feel the need to summarize my claim for me as I have done it myself several times.
No, you kept repeating your claim in the form of a 'belief' and I summarized other inherent aspects of your claim which you did not.
Also, I am PURPOSELY only stating that i BELIEVE in God, not that it is a fact.
Yes, I know and this subsequently means that you either believe in something which does not exist or, that you are placing your belief in something that does. No other possibilities spring to mind at the moment.
This is so that you cannot dodge proving that God does not exist by saying that I am the one who claimed he did.
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
I CHOOSE to believe God is real, and will always believe as such.
That's your claim; that you "believe god is real"; it isn't the belief per se but, the claim of reality in something which constitutes the claim. As such, you cannot substantiate that claim and rely upon "belief" & "faith" which are defined as being without substantiation.
To me, God is not hypothetical.
However, if that is what you think I respect that. (It IS possible to resect another's beliefs despite what you may think).
That being said, it is not at all a "curious state of affairs" for someone to have faith in something that has not been "scientifically" proven. This is actually quite common among many people in the world. (There are quite a lot of religious people in the word).
Indeed, there are a substantial number of self-deluded people in the world. This is not disputed. The curious state of affairs refers to your belief in something which lacks substantiation, (not that billions of others do also - which falls under the same curious state of affairs).
So, since you want a summary of my so-called "claim" if that is what you would like to call it:
It _is_ your claim, which has nothing to do with what I "want to call it".
I do not owe you any proof for God's existence as, I am NOT claiming he exists at all, simply that I CHOOSE to believe in him.
Since your claim consists of the assertion that "I CHOOSE to believe God is real" and existance is an inherent aspect of reality, you are claiming that by direct inference.
ANY RESPONSE TO THIS POST SAYING I CLAIMED GOD'S EXISTENCE AS FACT WILL BE A BLATANT DISREGARD TO WHAT I SAID AND AN UTTER WASTE OF TIME.
Apparently, your insistance that stating a belief does not constitute making a claim blatantly disregards several posts contradicting that insistance.
I am asking you to please respond with proof of God not existing, or with an answer saying you cannot do so instead of a lengthy analysis of what I said and what you feel is wrong with it because that will simple be a dodge.
Firstly, I did not claim that 'god does not exist'. Secondly, it is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage, for instance and then challenging you to prove they don't.
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Can you prove that God does not exist? Or is it possible that you only believe that He does not exist?
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage, for instance and then challenging you to prove they don't.
-
Quote
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling. There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear. The God I believe in is not a vindictive hateful God. Rather, He is a God of love who hates sin, but loves the sinner.
First off, there are no convincing arguments that favor your god. All of them are filled with humongous holes that only the naive and ignorant hover over when they're brought into the light of reality. This has been demonstrated countless times on this forum by the christian group. Secondly, have you ever read the OT? You believe your god is a god of love, and yet he has furiously slaughtered and commanded the slaughter of people for jealous, petty, and childish reasons. If that is love to you, I am very frightened to be typing to you right now.
Answer
I have read those stories in the Old Testament and there is no denying that from the surface it appears that God is cruel and vindictive. However, look more closely at the stories. I believe the Bible cannot contradict itself. All through the Bible, God is shown to be loving and compassionate. How can love and justice be combined? In every instance where someone was killed or a nation was destroyed, God was not acting out of anger. He was acting out of love for He knew that if those people were allowed to stay alive, they would not change. (It is similar in many ways to an honest judge today. If the judge allowed a murderer to go free, they would likely only go out and do it again and teach others to do it.) They would only spread their wickedness and disbelief of God and grow harder and harder in their sins. If God were to slaughter innocent people for no reason, that would not be love and I would not want to serve a God like that. But that is not the kind of God I serve. You are totally misunderstanding the big picture in the Bible.
Quote
All of the misery in the world today is not because God is angry. Instead, it shows that God is fair and that He gives everybody a choice. They can accept God or reject Him. God will not force anyone to obey Him; I can't force anyone to believe in God. But I can present compelling evidence so that those who have open minds might be convinced.
Okay, another point here- If he's fair and allows for choice, explain to me how either accepting him or being eternally damned to hell is a fair choice from a fair god. How is that any different from The Godfather giving you "An offer you can't refuse"? It is coercion. "Do what I say or BURN!" Not really a fair choice, is it? Seriously, try explaining it w/o spiralling away from the basic question I asked.
Answer
That is not representative of the God I have learned to love. He does not hang threats of death over them. Rather, He gives everyone a choice. One misunderstanding here is that God does not have an eternally burning hell. The Bible teaches that everyone who dies sleeps in the grave until Jesus comes. Then, those who have chosen to not follow God will be destroyed by fire. That fire will burn forever--until it goes out and sin is totally destroyed. My evidence stated here is perhaps not conclusive, but there is plenty to back my belief in the Bible. Would it be fair for Cain to suffer 4000 years longer for murder than someone who commits the same crime? Back to the question at hand, God does not coerce people; rather He gives them the choice of life or death. It is their choice. If God were to force anybody to do anything, God would not be the loving God He says He is.
Quote
Those who don't believe there is a God will find out that they are wrong, but I really hope that you will realize that before God destroys sin and, with it, those who would not listen to His pleadings to repent.What is it that brings out such bitterness and hatred toward the thought of the existence of God
I assure you it has nothing to do with the god because freethinkers do not wholeheartedly believe or put faith in gods. It has to do with the believers spreading this cursing filth around to everyone because "they're commanded to do so". How ignorant does one have to be to realize that people DON'T want to be cursed to rot in a fiery afterlife just because they don't think the same way you do? From an aerial POV it is nothing more than rudeness and bitterness disguised as a 'loving' warning.
Answer
It is not that people will be lost because they don't believe the same way I do. People will be lost, though, if they understand the truths in the Bible and refuse to obey them. If you kill someone on purpose, the courts will give you a serious sentence. In a similar way, God's law cannot be disobeyed or else the person who disobeys and refuses to repent will receive a serious sentence. This is by no means a threat, it is a plea to change your ways and choose to believe in a God who loves you.
-
I'm sorry, my last post didn't come out formatted quite right. I hope it is still clear enough as it is
-
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling. There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear. The God I believe in is not a vindictive hateful God. Rather, He is a God of love who hates sin, but loves the sinner.
First off, there are no convincing arguments that favor your god. All of them are filled with humongous holes that only the naive and ignorant hover over when they're brought into the light of reality. This has been demonstrated countless times on this forum by the christian group. Secondly, have you ever read the OT? You believe your god is a god of love, and yet he has furiously slaughtered and commanded the slaughter of people for jealous, petty, and childish reasons. If that is love to you, I am very frightened to be typing to you right now.
Answer
I have read those stories in the Old Testament and there is no denying that from the surface it appears that God is cruel and vindictive. However, look more closely at the stories. I believe the Bible cannot contradict itself.
Secondarily, using the "bible" to support a point is using unsubstantiated hearsay to support your point. Can you offer some other contention as support?
-
[a paraphrased version of Pascal's Wager]
This is a very cool comparison, I have never heard someone put it quite that way and found it very interesting!
It's still Pascal's Wager, no matter how you slice it.
Are you seriously argueing with my opinion that his spin on it was cool? It is an OPINION lol
No, I merely stated my opinion on the subject.
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Can you prove that God does not exist? Or is it possible that you only believe that He does not exist?
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage, for instance and then challenging you to prove they don't.
So your answer is NO you cannot prove he does not exist.
-
I heard it said once that an argument does not have to be convincing in order to be compelling. There are some who will dispute any argument in favor of God, but others are willing to hear. The God I believe in is not a vindictive hateful God. Rather, He is a God of love who hates sin, but loves the sinner.
First off, there are no convincing arguments that favor your god. All of them are filled with humongous holes that only the naive and ignorant hover over when they're brought into the light of reality. This has been demonstrated countless times on this forum by the christian group. Secondly, have you ever read the OT? You believe your god is a god of love, and yet he has furiously slaughtered and commanded the slaughter of people for jealous, petty, and childish reasons. If that is love to you, I am very frightened to be typing to you right now.
Answer
I have read those stories in the Old Testament and there is no denying that from the surface it appears that God is cruel and vindictive. However, look more closely at the stories. I believe the Bible cannot contradict itself.
Secondarily, using the "bible" to support a point is using unsubstantiated hearsay to support your point. Can you offer some other contention as support?
Ah, the proof is not up to your standards. So scientists can record things that happened int he past and they are fact- but because those who recorded the Bible are not scientists it is fiction? This is simply a question as to why you assert the Bible is not an acceptable recording of history.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Can you prove that God does not exist? Or is it possible that you only believe that He does not exist?
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage, for instance and then challenging you to prove they don't.
So your answer is NO you cannot prove he does not exist.
Your reading and comprehension skills cast aspersions upon such theoretical skills. Your interpretated conclusion is invalid due to what was actually stated and quoted and not your fanciful interpretation.
-
plenty of people BELIEVE in things that are not considered proven facts--- i am not CLAIMING my God's existence is a FACT, I am simply claiming that I BELEIVE IN HIM, hope this makes more sense to ya as I am running out ways to word the same thing.
To summarize your claim then; you are asserting that you "believe" in something which lacks a factual basis for existance. In other words, you aren't claiming such an existance as a fact but, are claiming to "believe" in a hypothetical existance. This is a curious state of affairs.
Can you prove that God does not exist? Or is it possible that you only believe that He does not exist?
It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion. This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage, for instance and then challenging you to prove they don't.
So your answer is NO you cannot prove he does not exist.
Your reading and comprehension skills cast aspersions upon such theoretical skills. Your interpretated conclusion is invalid due to what was actually stated and quoted and not your fanciful interpretation.
On the contrary, you could NOT prove he did not exist and instead of admitting it made up an excuse as to why.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
-
I have read those stories in the Old Testament and there is no denying that from the surface it appears that God is cruel and vindictive. However, look more closely at the stories. I believe the Bible cannot contradict itself. All through the Bible, God is shown to be loving and compassionate. How can love and justice be combined? In every instance where someone was killed or a nation was destroyed, God was not acting out of anger. He was acting out of love for He knew that if those people were allowed to stay alive, they would not change. (It is similar in many ways to an honest judge today. If the judge allowed a murderer to go free, they would likely only go out and do it again and teach others to do it.) They would only spread their wickedness and disbelief of God and grow harder and harder in their sins. If God were to slaughter innocent people for no reason, that would not be love and I would not want to serve a God like that. But that is not the kind of God I serve. You are totally misunderstanding the big picture in the Bible.
1.) A loving god shouldn't have to (order the) murder (of) lesser beings. That's a huge contradiction in itself.
2) You established that he already knew that those people he slaughtered would not change. If that's the case, he knows every thought and action before it happens. So how is anyone able to make a free choice when your god already knows the outcome? The illusion of choice is there, but ultimately everything is pre-known by your god and therefore the outcome is incapable of changing. Considering you believe that there is a heaven and hell and that since he already knows who's going and who isn't due to their choices...explain to me how it's not a contradiction when it comes to the whole free will thing. With that, explain to me how that's not malevolence.
That is not representative of the God I have learned to love. He does not hang threats of death over them. Rather, He gives everyone a choice. One misunderstanding here is that God does not have an eternally burning hell. The Bible teaches that everyone who dies sleeps in the grave until Jesus comes. Then, those who have chosen to not follow God will be destroyed by fire. That fire will burn forever--until it goes out and sin is totally destroyed. My evidence stated here is perhaps not conclusive, but there is plenty to back my belief in the Bible. Would it be fair for Cain to suffer 4000 years longer for murder than someone who commits the same crime? Back to the question at hand, God does not coerce people; rather He gives them the choice of life or death. It is their choice. If God were to force anybody to do anything, God would not be the loving God He says He is.
This contradicts itself due to my previous 'illusion of free will' point. And again, this does not explain how it's not Godfather-like coercion. All you've done here is say "Follow him or burn!" in a more technical and positive manner.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
Good grief! Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick! Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already......... And why, indeed, is it unnecessary? Sounds one-sided, for sure.
-
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
[/quote]
Good grief! Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick! Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already......... And why, indeed, is it unnecessary? Sounds one-sided, for sure.
[/quote]
These are neither technicalities nor circular reasoning examples; they illuminate what happens when someone bases a conclusion upon an initially false premise. The stated premise, (that "just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue"), is inherently false because the factual or non-factual nature of that premise is not dependent upon what it is "considered" to be. The premise is either factual or, it is not. In the instance pertaining to that premise, the earth never was flat despite it being "considered" to be flat. This means that determing that asserting something which has a non-factual basis as a conclusion, (i.e., that it isn't untrue when based upon an untruth), constitutes arriving at a innaccurate conclusion based upon a false premise according to the form of logical reasoning being replaced by the sophistry replied to.
In other words, it is far more likely that a conclusion which is based upon something which is untrue will be untrue as well, (as opposed to somehow transforming itself into a 'truth' based upon a lie).
Her repetition of the same unsupported conclusion was unnecessary since she'd posted the same previously. What seems even more "one-sided" is the specious way in which you and a few others expect your unsupported opinions and assertions to go unchallenged. Further, that you appear to have similar expectations that your dissembling, when challenged, constitutes a reasoned rebuttal.
-
My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.
Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
Good grief! Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick! Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already......... And why, indeed, is it unnecessary? Sounds one-sided, for sure.
It is CONSTANT- he refuses to answer any question and dodges them by attacking the wording of everyone else's statements. Abrupt proved this many times while debating with him
-
It is CONSTANT- he refuses to answer any question and dodges them by attacking the wording of everyone else's statements. Abrupt proved this many times while debating with him
Your accusations and contentions are blatantly false. Unlike you, I do reply to questions without dodging them. For instance, when are you going to produce that quote where I allegedly claimed that 'god doesn't exist'? *crickets chirping*
As to Abrupt, he "proved" no such thing as you allege without substantiation. Merely claiming that he "proved" it isn't the same as providing evidence that he did so. As it happens, an objective perusal of those portions of the threads where we debated various points clearly show Abrupt conceding several points to my arguments. Therefore, you are merely blowing smoke.
-
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.
Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod). To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).
Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
Good grief! Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick! Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already......... And why, indeed, is it unnecessary? Sounds one-sided, for sure.
[/quote]
These are neither technicalities nor circular reasoning examples; they illuminate what happens when someone bases a conclusion upon an initially false premise. The stated premise, (that "just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue"), is inherently false because the factual or non-factual nature of that premise is not dependent upon what it is "considered" to be. The premise is either factual or, it is not. In the instance pertaining to that premise, the earth never was flat despite it being "considered" to be flat. This means that determing that asserting something which has a non-factual basis as a conclusion, (i.e., that it isn't untrue when based upon an untruth), constitutes arriving at a innaccurate conclusion based upon a false premise according to the form of logical reasoning being replaced by the sophistry replied to.
In other words, it is far more likely that a conclusion which is based upon something which is untrue will be untrue as well, (as opposed to somehow transforming itself into a 'truth' based upon a lie).
Her repetition of the same unsupported conclusion was unnecessary since she'd posted the same previously. What seems even more "one-sided" is the specious way in which you and a few others expect your unsupported opinions and assertions to go unchallenged. Further, that you appear to have similar expectations that your dissembling, when challenged, constitutes a reasoned rebuttal.
[/quote]
Just because something is not considered a fact by 'falcon9' on the fusioncash forum does not mean it is untrue- Also, just because the existence of God is not considered a fact by some people does NOT make it untrue, you cannot show proof that God is not real...When something is actually not a fact it can usually be disproven (for example- it can be disproven that the world is flat) (it can be disproven that a brick is a liquid) (it can be disproven that 5 is not more than 4) ...Now, I am not claiming that God's existense is factual, but it is not considered untrue either- more of an unknown. This is why there is so much disagreement about it all over the world.
Now, do not respond to this and say that I admitted to not knowing if God exists because my opinion of his existense has nothing to do with this statement.
-
Also, just because the existence of God is not considered a fact by some people does NOT make it untrue, you cannot show proof that God is not real...When something is actually not a fact it can usually be disproven (for example- it can be disproven that the world is flat) (it can be disproven that a brick is a liquid) (it can be disproven that 5 is not more than 4) ...
The burden of proof rests with those who make the initial claim, (in this instance, that 'god exists'), and not shifted to those who challenge that initial claim, (by insisting that challengers prove "god does not exist"). Your examples of demonstrating a false claim do not extend to the metaphysical realm of non-physical deities and invisible unicorns because they are not verifiable in the same manner as physical proofs.
Now, I am not claiming that God's existense is factual, but it is not considered untrue either- more of an unknown. This is why there is so much disagreement about it all over the world.
This 'argument' is tantamount to asserting that since the hypothetical existance of invisible unicorns cannot be 'proven' as factual, those unicorns must exist. This is sophist and not logical reasoning since the initial claim defaults to one where the 'believer' believes in unreal invisible unicorns. The default deduction is _not_ 'you can't prove they don't exist, so they could exist'.
Now, do not respond to this and say that I admitted to not knowing if God exists because my opinion of his existense has nothing to do with this statement.
That's hilarious since your "opinion of his existance" is your unsupported claim. However, we've been around and around on this and your bland denials belie your false claims.
-
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)
This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!
-
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)
An unsupported opinion is not equivalent to a substantiated opinion.
This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!
Yep, you can accurately attribute that to Surveymack10's evading repeated requests for her to quote the claim she alleges I made and her tedious repetition of previously refuted evasions. I'll take partial responsibility for fencing with an unarmed opponent. That's terrible of me.
-
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)
An unsupported opinion is not equivalent to a substantiated opinion.
To whom is your opinion substantiated? Is it possible that your opinion is just as unsupported as you claim our opinions are?
This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!
Yep, you can accurately attribute that to Surveymack10's evading repeated requests for her to quote the claim she alleges I made and her tedious repetition of previously refuted evasions. I'll take partial responsibility for fencing with an unarmed opponent. That's terrible of me.
Surverymack10 has not been evading your requests. She has stated her opinion quite clearly and has repeated it at your request many times. Your assumption that she is an unarmed opponent is not a fair one. She has plenty of evidence on her side. Just because you do not see that the evidence a Christian can give is logical and realistic does not mean that that evidence is insufficient. There will always be people in this world that will do all they can to lead people to believe that there is no God. Belief in God takes faith. And that faith grows with experience.
Debate accomplishes nothing except stir up the ire of people. That attitude is not Christ-like nor becoming to a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that everything I post must be polite and respectful to the person I am writing to and I endeavor to do that. However, I cannot disguise what I believe to be true. If I do not share what I believe as a Christian, than I am responsible in a way for the people that I could have helped but didn't. Please stop attacking anyone who states that they believe differently then you do.
-
Surverymack10 has not been evading your requests.
Incorrect. She has been asked several times to provide a quote wherein I claimed that "god does not exist", (as she initially claims I alleged). This has not been forthcoming, therefore she has evaded the repeated requests.
She has stated her opinion quite clearly and has repeated it at your request many times.
Not precisely; her repeated opinion, (one without substantiation), has consisted of her trying to redirect the emphasis of her claim onto her "belief" itself instead of upon _what_ she claims to believe. That wasn't the only request she's been evading, (as mentioned in the first reply above).
Your assumption that she is an unarmed opponent is not a fair one.
That conclusion was arrived at after several exchanges where she goes around and around evasively, rather than actually debating with reasoning. (what she has attempted to use in lieu of reasoning falls under the definition of sophistry instead)
She has plenty of evidence on her side.
On the contrary, neither she nor you have provided anything remotely resembling "evidence" to support the contentions made, (hint: unsupported opinions do not constitute evidence).
Just because you do not see that the evidence a Christian can give is logical and realistic does not mean that that evidence is insufficient.
Oh, it isn't just me or my 'opinion' which evaluates the veracity of evidence. If the "evidence" consists of unfounded hearsay, unsupported opinion and plain old irrationality then it isn't evidence by definition. From Mirriam-Webster:
"Definition of EVIDENCE (noun):
1
a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter"
Debate accomplishes nothing except stir up the ire of people.
Be that as it may, this forum is entitled "Debate + Discuss", not 'Dodge + Dissemble'.
-
Falcon9,
Yet I see you constantly trying to dissemble what people are trying to say who do not agree with you. Ultimately, we have to agree that we disagree and move on. In the meantime, if you choose to state there is no God and that you do not believe in a god, then that is for you. If someone else is stating that they believe in God, yet He is not seen publicly to prove He's real or not, then that is for that someone. Their statements, choices, and beliefs are not hurting yours, nor are yours hurting them.
-
God is a very lovingg God Whom Died A very Hard & painful Death To Save The world from There Sins I believe In THe One True & Loving God . you try giving up your only begoten son
-
i agree. that is true in my understanding. people who belive differently than me, them not believing in what i believe does not physically hurt me in any way. i admit, i feel a little saddness, as i feel is right by my beliefe since i believe that if you dont have jesus you go to a bad place when you die and i would like to see everyone happy, but other than a slight inside feeling, it doesnt bother me none. god also said that he made some to go to a good place when they die and he made some specifically for His war to go to a bad place when they die. i accept all of God's creations with love, as is another part of my beliefe.
-
falcon9,
you seem to only be looking for a hostile argument- that is not what I am here for.
I doubt you will agree to disgree- but the fact is that I believe in God and you do not.
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
I am not the one who is here trying to convince anyone of anything.
The only things I have said here is that
1) I believe in God
2) I am not claiming his existence as a scientific fact, just my personal belief
3) I have no reason to sit here and prove to you God's existence when I just said he is not a physical being and that believing in him is my right- not anything I am trying to force up on anyone else
I can hope that you will have the maturity to say that it is OKAY for others to not believe the same way you do.
I have seen 3 other Christians post on this thread and say everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
It would do a lot for your side of the debate if you showed the same amount of respect as opposed to arrogance in saying your way is the only way.
I know you WANTED me to claim that God's existence is a fact so that you could try to force me into showing scientific proof- I am sorry that you could not twist my words into that no matter how hard you tried.
If you want proof that I believe in God- then I am here to tell if you from the source- I BELIEVE IN GOD.
I have proven my claim to believe in God.
I have told you that if you have a different belief system that is your decision.
If you would like to prove that your beliefs are the one and only way then by all means prove that God does not exist, if you choose not to that is fine.
I have summarized everything from my side of the debate in a polite, respectful way.
If you respond to this and try to twist my words into something else it will only make people see that you do not want to respect anyone other's beliefs, and I hope that is not the case.
-
Falcon9,
Yet I see you constantly trying to dissemble what people are trying to say who do not agree with you.
On the contrary, I've quoted the exact, unaltered words of what some people are using in lieu of reasoning. That's fine, there's no specific requirement for those folks to be rational and therefore, no need for me to dissemble. Your baseless accusation, (that means, with no supporting evidence other than your bare, dubious say-so), becomes merely a faint counter-attack.
Ultimately, we have to agree that we disagree and move on. In the meantime ...
There is no meantime; I'm not agreeing to disagree, (since that is a cop-out to preserve what's left of your tattered position), but, I accept your tacit surrender in this aspect of the debate with you.
-
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
I can hope that you will have the maturity to say that it is OKAY for others to not believe the same way you do.
Already did - not my concern that you lack basic comprehension skills.
opposed to arrogance in saying your way is the only way.
Since I never stated nor implied that my "way is the only way", I reject your penchant for attempting to attribute things I didn't say to me. That constitutes lying, which makes you a liar. Knock it off or you'll be called on it as bluntly as this, got it? As a reminder, you've still failed to produce that quote of my claiming that "god is not real" - have you got that one handy or, are you okay with your lie?
I am sorry that you could not twist my words into that no matter how hard you tried.
Since I quoted your words, none were "twisted" unless you did the twisting. That you fail to acknowledge the meaning of your own claim is unltimately your own self-deception; you aren't deceiving me no matter how hard you've tried.
I have summarized everything from my side of the debate in a polite, respectful way.
Bit late for that after your previously hostility and diversions.
-
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
I can hope that you will have the maturity to say that it is OKAY for others to not believe the same way you do.
Already did - not my concern that you lack basic comprehension skills.
opposed to arrogance in saying your way is the only way.
Since I never stated nor implied that my "way is the only way", I reject your penchant for attempting to attribute things I didn't say to me. That constitutes lying, which makes you a liar. Knock it off or you'll be called on it as bluntly as this, got it? As a reminder, you've still failed to produce that quote of my claiming that "god is not real" - have you got that one handy or, are you okay with your lie?
I am sorry that you could not twist my words into that no matter how hard you tried.
Since I quoted your words, none were "twisted" unless you did the twisting. That you fail to acknowledge the meaning of your own claim is unltimately your own self-deception; you aren't deceiving me no matter how hard you've tried.
I have summarized everything from my side of the debate in a polite, respectful way.
Bit late for that after your previously hostility and diversions.
I will "acknowledge the meaning of my own claim" again.
I beleive in God means...I BELIEVE IN GOD.
You actually did imply that your way was the only way by continuously trying to convince every Christian on this forum that God is not real and saying that our religious beliefs are irrational.
It doesn't bother me, but you shouldn't deny it happened as it is here in writing.
You say you never claimed God wasn't real, yet you have repeatedly told me that I believe in something that is untrue- which would mean you are saying God is not real.
Why is it that when crib, me, and jsuderc all make an effort to say "Hey, you are entitled to your beliefs as we are to ours and it's not hurting anybody!" that you cannot be a big enough person to acknowledge that there is a possibility that others don't agree with you, and that doesn't make them morons.
Showing arrogance and not letting others exercise their rights (or as we might say God-given rights) doesn't make you look superior, it makes you look immature.
And I am not saying this in an insulting or mean way, and I hope that is not how it is coming across, I just want you to realize that on this thread you do not represent your cause in a positive way.
You are doing exactly what you complain about Christians doing- (throwing religion in your face and trying to convince you that their path is right)
You are throwing your belief system in our face while insulting ours, AND refuse to agree to disagree.
It's simply childish.
-
[a simply childish diatribe]
It's simply childish.
No doubt.
-
Falcon9,
Yet I see you constantly trying to dissemble what people are trying to say who do not agree with you.
On the contrary, I've quoted the exact, unaltered words of what some people are using in lieu of reasoning. That's fine, there's no specific requirement for those folks to be rational and therefore, no need for me to dissemble. Your baseless accusation, (that means, with no supporting evidence other than your bare, dubious say-so), becomes merely a faint counter-attack.
Ultimately, we have to agree that we disagree and move on. In the meantime ...
There is no meantime; I'm not agreeing to disagree, (since that is a cop-out to preserve what's left of your tattered position), but, I accept your tacit surrender in this aspect of the debate with you.
I have given no tacit surrender in this aspect of the debate with you. Is your way of ending it? You are very good at using technical words in this debate - I will give you that. However, you are no more willing to give an inch on your side of the debate, as a person of opposite view is no more willing to give an inch on their side. Everyone can debate and discuss and agree/disagree until they are "blue" in the face, but it is not changing how the person thinks or feels or believes about or in something or someone.
-
[a simply childish diatribe]
It's simply childish.
No doubt.
wow
-
Falcon9,
Yet I see you constantly trying to dissemble what people are trying to say who do not agree with you.
On the contrary, I've quoted the exact, unaltered words of what some people are using in lieu of reasoning. That's fine, there's no specific requirement for those folks to be rational and therefore, no need for me to dissemble. Your baseless accusation, (that means, with no supporting evidence other than your bare, dubious say-so), becomes merely a faint counter-attack.
Ultimately, we have to agree that we disagree and move on. In the meantime ...
There is no meantime; I'm not agreeing to disagree, (since that is a cop-out to preserve what's left of your tattered position), but, I accept your tacit surrender in this aspect of the debate with you.
I have given no tacit surrender in this aspect of the debate with you.
On the contrary, I've quoted the exact, unaltered words of what some people are using in lieu of reasoning. That's fine, there's no specific requirement for those folks to be rational and therefore, no need for me to dissemble. Your baseless accusation, (that means, with no supporting evidence other than your bare, dubious say-so), becomes merely a faint counter-attack. These have been countered without effective rebuttal from you, which is considered to be a tacit surrender on your part.
-
SWEETIE EVERY ONE HAS DIFF FEELINGS ON THIS & I FOR ONE AM NOT GONNA PUT YOU DOWN ON THIS :)& IF YOU EVER NEED A SHOULDER OR AN EAR PLS FEEL FREE TO POST ME & I USE 2 FEEL THE SAME WAY PRETTY MUCH BUT NOW I AM IN THE CHURCH & SWEETIE THATS THE BEST PLACE YOU CAN BE & SWEETIE GOD DONT JUST PUT ALL PEOPLE IN BAD PLACES WHEN THAY DIE HES A LOVING CARING GOD & HE GIVES PEOPLE CHOSE WEATHER OR NOT TO BELIVE ON HIM HE FORCES NO ONE SWEETIE I WOULD LIKE 2 HEAR MORE ON WHAT YOU THINK & I'D LOVE 2 BE COME UR FRIEND HERES MY YAHOO ID I LOVERED56562000@YAHOO.COM
-
Falcon9, since you have been accusing Christians of not providing proof, dissembling, etc., I would like to ask a few questions.
1. Why do radical atheists oppose, with such a vengeance, something they say doesn’t exist, and why does it bother them that someone else chooses to believe in Christ?
2. Why do athiests say Christians are too pushy and delusional, etc., (while we try to tell them that not all Christians are that way and should not be boxed in the same one box); yet can't admit that there are athiests who also are too pushy, delusional, vocal, and even threatening? Here is a new article that has come out: What do you think this "top athiest" means by saying we Christians need to be eradicated? Do you agree with this man? Is he psycho? Should Christians lump him in the same box as all athiests?
"e·rad·i·cate /ɪˈrædɪˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled[ih-rad-i-keyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate: to eradicate smallpox throughout the world.
2. to erase by rubbing or by means of a chemical solvent: to eradicate a spot.
3. to pull up by the roots: to eradicate weeds."
(Sounds like a threat on Christians' lives, in my opinion)
Link:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/09/top-atheist-calls-for-eradication-of-dangerous-damaging-and-disingenuous-christians.php#ixzz1YiDAYpdB?source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=11&ppc=&utm_campaign=Bible&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=att.net
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
[/quote]
Mackenzie, I don't know if this is what you have been looking for in regards to falcon9 saying God is not real. He is not saying that in those exact words but is implying that it would be 'irrational and tacitly wrong to make a claim based on baseless belief.'
-
It's very easy to see why you would think that "God is a fake"... because most of His "followers" go to church on Sunday mornings and before they have even left the church parking lot, they have forgotten the basics of Christianity. I grew up in a completely different society and have a completely different perspective of America, but all bias aside... Americans have one interesting way of life in the Christian society and life in general. Most are extremely disrespectful. (That's the case everywhere, though.) There is an interesting piece of psychology that comes with the "disrespectfulness." It turns your attention from God to Godlessness. The devil loves it!
-
god is not a fake because he made this world, he the one that made us who we are today, his the one who made humans everything around us. He Created this world for us to do whats right and figure whats your true meanings of life. I hope ya understand what im trying to say. :D :angel11:
-
if god is not real then who woke u up this morning read the story of adam and eve. :heart:
-
Of course he is real. how else would we all be here. Do you believe an explosion could create life.
-
Of course he is real. how else would we all be here. Do you believe an explosion could create life.
Well...as far as our research has shown, there is physical evidence of the big bang happening. There are a lot of holes between then and now, but that's no reason to throw a specific defined god or gods into the mix. It's called a "god of the gaps" scenario and it's a completely fallible argument.
-
1. Why do radical atheists oppose, with such a vengeance, something they say doesn’t exist, and why does it bother them that someone else chooses to believe in Christ?
If you mean, why do _some- of the more radical atheists oppose some of the more radical xtians with such a "vengence", I could offer some speculative opinions, (numbered below, in correspondance with your numbered, multi-part questions). Here's the inverse question back at you; why do some of the more radical xtian react with such spiteful vengence when their "faith" is challenged? Is it that weak a faith? Why would such a challenge bother them in the least, were their faith as strong as they claim it to be? *
2. Why do athiests say Christians are too pushy and delusional, etc., (while we try to tell them that not all Christians are that way and should not be boxed in the same one box); yet can't admit that there are athiests who also are too pushy, delusional, vocal, and even threatening?
2. Again, I'd be speculating here however, I'd estimate a strong possibility rests with a combination of highly subjective perceptions of what constitutes "too pushy" and "delusional", (as opposed to reasoned, unemotional determinations as to what actually constitutes such descriptive aspects), and with there being _some_ of both on both ends of the religious/nonreligious spectrum.
Here is a new article that has come out: What do you think this "top athiest" means by saying we Christians need to be eradicated? Do you agree with this man? Is he psycho? Should Christians lump him in the same box as all athiests?
"e·rad·i·cate /ɪˈrædɪˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled[ih-rad-i-keyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate: to eradicate smallpox throughout the world.
2. to erase by rubbing or by means of a chemical solvent: to eradicate a spot.
3. to pull up by the roots: to eradicate weeds."
(Sounds like a threat on Christians' lives, in my opinion)
Link:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/09/top-atheist-calls-for-eradication-of-dangerous-damaging-and-disingenuous-christians.php#ixzz1YiDAYpdB?source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=11&ppc=&utm_campaign=Bible&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=att.net
3. If you really do want to take that tactic, I could easily come up with 'authortive xtian' opinions regarding nonxtians which are just as hostile. My own view on that matter of "eradication" of opponents is to do so through defeating their 'arguments' via reasoning, (as opposed to sophistry/pseudo-reasoning, or relying upon 'blind faith', for instance). Although I would be remiss were I not to point to the documented historical exaamples of religiously-based atempts to 'convert the nonbelievers by sword' on a much vaste scale than any uch attempts by "atheists" to convert 'believers' to atheism.
*-1) My own speculations on your first set of questions would be that some atheist/nonreligious persons might well view such vehemently- evangelical-fundamentaliist and faith-based opinions as offenive to critical thinking and reason. Again, this is merely speculation and the 'rationale' behind such opposition of 'blind faith' can, (and does), vary from person to person. I've seen a few of the excuses put forth by these evangelical fundamenalists however, in order not to assume yours, which one explains why you do it?
[/quote]
-
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
Mackenzie, I don't know if this is what you have been looking for in regards to falcon9 saying God is not real. He is not saying that in those exact words but is implying that it would be 'irrational and tacitly wrong to make a claim based on baseless belief.'
[/quote]
He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns, but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words, even though it is clear in most of his posts that he was accusing me of believing in something imaginary and calling me irrational. It is just a technicality he uses to get out of proving his claim that God does not exist. In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief", but I would say it is a safe bet he will make an excuse as to why that is not good enough prove that he said God does not exist just so he does not have to support the claim...
-
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
I can hope that you will have the maturity to say that it is OKAY for others to not believe the same way you do.
Already did - not my concern that you lack basic comprehension skills.
opposed to arrogance in saying your way is the only way.
Since I never stated nor implied that my "way is the only way", I reject your penchant for attempting to attribute things I didn't say to me. That constitutes lying, which makes you a liar. Knock it off or you'll be called on it as bluntly as this, got it? As a reminder, you've still failed to produce that quote of my claiming that "god is not real" - have you got that one handy or, are you okay with your lie?
I am sorry that you could not twist my words into that no matter how hard you tried.
Since I quoted your words, none were "twisted" unless you did the twisting. That you fail to acknowledge the meaning of your own claim is unltimately your own self-deception; you aren't deceiving me no matter how hard you've tried.
I have summarized everything from my side of the debate in a polite, respectful way.
Bit late for that after your previously hostility and diversions.
I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?
-
He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns
Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought. Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established. As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in. This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.
but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words ...
It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way. As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.
In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"
Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.
-
I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?
Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious. Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?
-
I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?
Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious. Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
-
He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns
Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought. Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established. As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in. This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.
but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words ...
It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way. As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.
In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"
Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.
Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims). Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
[/quote]
^^above is a direct quote from falcon9, the only thing that has been altered is that I bolded a significant portion.
-
I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?
Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious. Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
As the quote shows, (_not_ as your interpretation accuses), I clearly stated that "you are free to believe any nonsense you wish" and so is anyone else. Your particular beliefs were not specifically classified as nonsense, (although it was 'implied' and not explicit, I've previously outlined the reasons for contending that "faith" & "belief" form an insubstantial basis and therefore, can result in believing in such things as invisible unicorns). If you wish to conclude an inference that this means your _particular_, (and vague), "beliefs" are nonsense, go ahead.
-
I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?
Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious. Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?
falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.
Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me. And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish. Good luck with that.
As the quote shows, (_not_ as your interpretation accuses), I clearly stated that "you are free to believe any nonsense you wish" and so is anyone else. Your particular beliefs were not specifically classified as nonsense, (although it was 'implied' and not explicit, I've previously outlined the reasons for contending that "faith" & "belief" form an insubstantial basis and therefore, can result in believing in such things as invisible unicorns). If you wish to conclude an inference that this means your _particular_, (and vague), "beliefs" are nonsense, go ahead.
You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.
-
He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns
Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought. Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established. As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in. This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.
It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way. As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.
In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"
Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence). It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim. By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.
-
You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.
An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim. If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile. Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise. As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false). Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false. Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie. You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated). Is this complusive or, pathological for you?
-
You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.
An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim. If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile. Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise. As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false). Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false. Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie. You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated). Is this complusive or, pathological for you?
When you said nonsense you were referring to my God. Anyone who reads that post can see that for themselves, therefore your attempt at using a technicality to prove your point has failed.
-
He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns
Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought. Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established. As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in. This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.
It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way. As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.
In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"
Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence). It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim. By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.
I provided direct quotes as to where you referred to my belief in God as a baseless belief and as nonsense, yes you still assert that I have not - you seem desperate for a way out of this debate and cannot find one without admitting that you did make the assertion that my God is not real, and therefore can be called on to prove such a claim. Your attempts at evading this are amusing to watch though.
-
You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.
An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim. If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile. Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise. As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false). Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false. Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie. You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated). Is this complusive or, pathological for you?
When you said nonsense you were referring to my God. Anyone who reads that post can see that for themselves, therefore your attempt at using a technicality to prove your point has failed.
As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood. As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you. The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
-
As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood. As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you. The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.
-
Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought. Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established. As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in. This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.
It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way. As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.
In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"
Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.
I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.
Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real. There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief. Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative. This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work. It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence). It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim. By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.
[/quote]
I provided direct quotes as to where you referred to my belief in God as a baseless belief and as nonsense, yes you still assert that I have not
That's because the quote actually states, "... going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief ... " and _not_ the direct or explicit claim you asserted. Therefore, you did NOT provide a direct quote of mine claiming a specific belief of yours was baseless; instead, you provided a quote stating that you made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to base it on "belief".
- you seem desperate for a way out of this debate and cannot find one ...[/claim]
On the contrary, your various weak prevarications strongly suggest a hypocritical degree of desparation. Regardless of such repeated failed attempts of yours of diversion, prevarication and ironic evasions you keep trying to use them.
Your attempts at evading this are amusing to watch though.
Your hypocrisy is unamusing.
-
As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood. As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you. The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.
Once again, the context was and is, 'belief itself', not _what_ is allegedly believed in, (not "The" belief itself - although I realize that either this distinction escapes you entirely or, you're being intentionally obstuse). Therefore, I "admitted" no such thing and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd cease this endless faulty translation of what I actually state into some skewed version you fervently wish I had meant.
-
As shown in the text quoted, the reasoning used does not constitute a "technicality" despite your continued insistance upon this falsehood. As for your 'interpretation', (based upon that false premise), the "nonsense" referred to was to the "belief" itself, as repeated clarified and ignored by you. The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
You just admitted that "the nonsense referred to was the belief itself"- that belief being God. Therefore you admitted referring to my belief in God as nonsense.
Once again, the context was and is, 'belief itself', not _what_ is allegedly believed in, (not "The" belief itself - although I realize that either this distinction escapes you entirely or, you're being intentionally obstuse). Therefore, I "admitted" no such thing and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd cease this endless faulty translation of what I actually state into some skewed version you fervently wish I had meant.
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational. Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.
The pattern you've established by way of your own words in at least two D+D threads has been to obfuscate, ignore challenges to claims you made, lie, attempt to divert the debate away from you not supporting your claims and launch specious counter-attacks in lieu of rebuttal. This pattern is readily shown by your quoted replies and does not rely upon interpretations, but rather upon your direct statements.
I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)
2) that you asserted that God was not real (as you have now admitted to comparing Him to unicorns you have proven that you did assert that He is not real)
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
2)Showing where you compared God to unicorns (by quoting you and also getting you to admit comparing "the belief" in God to such invisible unicorns- this comparison is equivalent to asserting that God does not exist depsite your attempt to use a technicality as support that it is not)
I have not lied.
I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)
My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false. Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
-
I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)
Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real. This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.
2) that you asserted that God was not real
This claim from you has been proven to be false therefore, you did lie.
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was you failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
I have not lied.
Your own words betray your lie. "you asserted that God was not real" - SurveyMack10
I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)
There are numerous examples of your attempts to divert this discussion, (it is only half debate since I have been debating and you have been diverting), which can be requoted for you to ignore again. Therefore, your contention that you have not attempted to divert is once again betrayed by your own words.
My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false.
Your flat denial with nothing but your unsupported opinion is false and thus, you've lied again, (and once again provided evidence of your lie here). Further, your bare assertion that "any comment made otherwise by you is false" is an empty (unsupported) accusation. There is abundant evidence consisting of your own words to support the contention that you make many unsupported claims.
Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.
Since I have demonstrated where and how you've lied, (by quoting your exact words, without 'translating' them as you are wont to do), I choose not to comply with your 'terrorist demands' to cease making you eat your own words. You're a proven hypocrit, prevaricator, liar and maker of unsupported claims. It's probably far too late to 'stick a fork in you' because you've been done (and overdone) for awhile.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
[/quote]
-
I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)
Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real. This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.
2) that you asserted that God was not real
This claim from you has been proven to be false therefore, you did lie.
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was you failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
I have not lied.
Your own words betray your lie. "you asserted that God was not real" - SurveyMack10
I have not attempted to divert the debate away from any claim as I answered all challenges to my claims (shown above)
There are numerous examples of your attempts to divert this discussion, (it is only half debate since I have been debating and you have been diverting), which can be requoted for you to ignore again. Therefore, your contention that you have not attempted to divert is once again betrayed by your own words.
My direct statements have been truthful and any comment made otherwise by you is false.
Your flat denial with nothing but your unsupported opinion is false and thus, you've lied again, (and once again provided evidence of your lie here). Further, your bare assertion that "any comment made otherwise by you is false" is an empty (unsupported) accusation. There is abundant evidence consisting of your own words to support the contention that you make many unsupported claims.
Whether or not something is truthful is not an opinion, so unless you are ready to show me where I lied then do not make that claim again.
Since I have demonstrated where and how you've lied, (by quoting your exact words, without 'translating' them as you are wont to do), I choose not to comply with your 'terrorist demands' to cease making you eat your own words. You're a proven hypocrit, prevaricator, liar and maker of unsupported claims. It's probably far too late to 'stick a fork in you' because you've been done (and overdone) for awhile.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
[/quote]
Claiming to believe in something is not the same as claiming it as fact. It is simply me saying I choose to believe in something (as I am free to do). I am not claiming it as fact and am acknowledging your choice to believe otherwise. I am not claiming God is real or not real, simply that I believe in him by choice. Point being, I am not trying to convince you of God’s existence as I cannot even pretend to care about your religious faith as it has no bearing on my life (as mine has no bearing on yours although you act as if it is offensive for me to have religious faith). So, to summarize my claim is that I BELIEVE IN GOD it is not that GOD IS REAL therefore I have proven that I believe in God, I have not proven that God is real because I have not made that claim.
Furthermore, if you are going to assert that by saying that I believe in God that I am claiming God is real then you are also asserting that when you claim belief is nonsense that you are claiming the belief in God to be nonsense. ( you cannot have it both ways) If I cannot claim to believe in God and without claiming he is real then you cannot claim belief is nonsense and say you were not referring to any belief at all but belief in general.
You equated God with invisible unicorns, so unless you are saying that invisible unicorns are real then you did assert that God is not real simply by equating Him with invisible unicorns. Therefore, I did not lie.
You say that I must prove that God exists. I know that you REQUESTED that I prove that God exists. However, since I never claimed that he exists I do not bear that burden. Therefore, I did not fail to answer any challenges to any CLAIMS THAT I MADE. I may have failed at a challenge to a claim I did not make, but since I did not EVER claim on this thread that God is real I do not have to prove his existence.
I have not lied as I proved were you asserted that God was not real multiple times, you just choose to ignore it and divert the attention away from being proven wrong by using technical terms that you feel are impressive but actually are not and can easily be recognized as a defense tactic.
Stating an opinion does not require proven evidence. I have openly stated that my belief in God is simply a personal choice. Holding this opinion does not require me to prove his existence to you as I am not claiming that he is real, simply that I choose to believe in him. You said that I lied by making unsubstantiated opinions. This does not make sense as opinions are simply that, opinions.
To summarize
-you did NOT prove that I lied as I have not lied.
(all you have proved is that anytime you disagree with an opinion of mine you call it a lie.)
-you did not prove that I was a hypocrite and actually did not even address that issue so adding that into your closing statement was based on no support shown in your argument
-I am not a (prevaricator, liar, and maker of unsupported claims) for all the reasons stated above. Also, it is unnecessary to use 3 diff words with the same meaning to make a point.
Your opinion that I am done seems more like a hope of yours because you cannot outwit me as you wish you could.
Also, I know you are not mature enough to agree to disagree, but it would be much more becoming of you to find the adulthood in you to admit I never claimed God was real and that I have a right to my own religion. Also, I am aware we are not going to agree in this debate- but I will not let you make defamatory marks about me and all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.
That is like me randomly pulling something off the top of my head and asking you to prove it just because I want you to- you would have no responsibility to do so as it was not a claim that you made.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.
-
I made 2 claims-
1) that I believe in God (not that he is real by fact)
Then by inference, if your belief is _in_ something which you are not contending is "real", your belief is _in_ something which isn't real. This inference does not constitute a contending claim on my part as it follows logically from your admitted claim.
Claiming to believe in something is not the same as claiming it as fact. It is simply me saying I choose to believe in something
I am not claiming God is real or not real, simply that I believe in him by choice.
So, to summarize my claim is that I BELIEVE IN GOD it is not that GOD IS REAL therefore I have proven that I believe in God, I have not proven that God is real because I have not made that claim.
Then, to summarize; your belief is either in a real or, unreal god. If it is in a real god, then your initial claim of belief inherently consists of a belief in a real god. If that belief is in an unreal god, then the inherent claim contains an even deeper irrationality than previously inferred.
You equated God with invisible unicorns, so unless you are saying that invisible unicorns are real then you did assert that God is not real simply by equating Him with invisible unicorns. Therefore, I did not lie.
No, as the actual posted replies show, (as opposed to the twisted version you fabricate); I didn't equate _what_ was being believed, I equated the 'act of believing', (regardless of whether that act of belief is in unicorns, gods, impending alien invasion fleets, etc.). If you are presenting additional evidence of your deficient comprehension ability, it is accepted as evidence of such.
You say that I must prove that God exists. I know that you REQUESTED that I prove that God exists. However, since I never claimed that he exists I do not bear that burden. Therefore, I did not fail to answer any challenges to any CLAIMS THAT I MADE. I may have failed at a challenge to a claim I did not make, but since I did not EVER claim on this thread that God is real I do not have to prove his existence.[/claim]
Alright, since you keep insisting that you don't have to support an _implied_ claim, neither do I.
I have not lied as I proved were you asserted that God was not real multiple times, you just choose to ignore it and divert the attention away from being proven wrong by using technical terms that you feel are impressive but actually are not and can easily be recognized as a defense tactic.'/quote]
You've presented no conclusive evidence to support your contention that I asserted what you claim. Instead, quoted references are still available which show your own words fabricating an implicit translation of what you think I really meant. I have spoken and written English for longer than you've been alive and have no need of your faulty 'interpreter' services.
Stating an opinion does not require proven evidence. I have openly stated that my belief in God is simply a personal choice. Holding this opinion does not require me to prove his existence to you as I am not claiming that he is real, simply that I choose to believe in him. You said that I lied by making unsubstantiated opinions. This does not make sense as opinions are simply that, opinions.
Your comprehension skills would make Jesus cry. To reiterate yet again; your unsupported "opinion"/belief was not challenged, (in that yes, you do appear to hold unsupported opinions/beliefs).
-you did NOT prove that I lied as I have not lied.
False. The evidence of your lie was presented in the recent previous posted reply. Snipping it and denying your lie does absolutely nothing to support your further lie about your previous lie.
(all you have proved is that anytime you disagree with an opinion of mine you call it a lie.)
Incorrect. I quoted your lie in your own words, showed the form your lie took and provided the reasoning used to conclude that you were lying. You're a liar; the only remaining question is whether you are a compulsive or, pathological liar.
quote author=SurveyMack10 link=topic=26632.msg422109#msg422109 date=1316996331]
-you did not prove that I was a hypocrite and actually did not even address that issue so adding that into your closing statement was based on no support shown in your argument
It's all there, in your own words contained in the previous posts on these two threads in D+D. Your own words betray your hypocrisy, which is the bulk of the evidence presented to support my contention that you are a hypocrite.
quote author=SurveyMack10 link=topic=26632.msg422109#msg422109 date=1316996331]
-I am not a (prevaricator, liar, and maker of unsupported claims) for all the reasons stated above.
Your bland denials of these aspects of your 'character', (and lack thereof), fall flat in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Also, I am aware we are not going to agree in this debate- but I will not let you make defamatory marks about me and all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore.
As any competent attorney will confirm; remarks are not defamatory if there is conclusive evidence that they are true. I know you'll contest that 'conclusive evidence' qualifier because you've been saying the equivalent of "ut-uh" throughout this thread, (that is, denying without supporting your denial with facts). Your denial that "all of the things you are saying are completely false as I have proven repeatedly and you continue to ignore" has been proven to be false by using conclusive evidence provided by quoting your exact words and using substantiated reasoning. They haven't been ignored since this thread is chock-full of my replies to your prevarications. On the other hand, it contains several examples, in your own words, of contended points being ignored by you as you go off on your own tangents.
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
Wow, this is a new claim within this discussion. You are seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/nonsense?
-
I god in gravity :D
(Ok I'll shutup now)
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.
Nope, that wasn't my challenge. My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely). As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the beleif itself IS God" = a claim that god is real. If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead. That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.
Then someone is forging replies which seemed to have been coming from "SurveyMack10".
-
I god in gravity :D
(Ok I'll shutup now)
But, you don't have to god in gravity because that satellite is coming down whether you god in it or not.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.
Nope, that wasn't my challenge. My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely). As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the beleif itself IS God" = a claim that god is real. If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead. That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.
I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of religion, I choose to believe in God. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.
-
I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)
That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection. The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in. You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.
If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.
I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.
I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.
Then someone is forging replies which seemed to have been coming from "SurveyMack10".
Very cute! Your condescending attitude is really helping your point get across (sarcasm)
-
My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely). As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real. If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead. That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.
I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.
This is what was meant by your continued dodging your own claims; you also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your words. "Real" means having the quality of _existance_. This means that you are indeed claiming that 'god is real/exists'. Otherwise, the tacit claim would be that you believe in something which doesn't exist. There's not of lot of wriggle room there, despite your squirming. In case you conveniently 'forget' what you claimed again;
What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god. You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God". Those are your unaltered, quoted words. The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief itself is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'.
By all means, feel free to wriggle and squirm as much as you want. The fish enjoy that.
-
My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely). As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real. If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead. That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.
I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.
This is what was meant by your continued dodging your own claims; you also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your words. "Real" means having the quality of _existance_. This means that you are indeed claiming that 'god is real/exists'. Otherwise, the tacit claim would be that you believe in something which doesn't exist. There's not of lot of wriggle room there, despite your squirming. In case you conveniently 'forget' what you claimed again;
What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god. You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God". Those are your unaltered, quoted words. The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief itself is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'.
By all means, feel free to wriggle and squirm as much as you want. The fish enjoy that.
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith, not simple science which is why I did not claim he is real by fact. I hope you can wrap your mind around this sometime soon.
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact. Yet you allow yourself to claim that belief in general is nonsense without that meaning belief in God is nonsense.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time. This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
-
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...
You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.
As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance. By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist. Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning. Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.
Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Your non sequitur disregarded.
Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.
These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning. If so, I should be famous by now. Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).
This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above. Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters. The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.
-
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...
You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.
As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance. By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist. Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).
I have admitted many times that my belief is not in something that is considered fact, so I do not know why you are acting as if you are putting me in my place by saying God's existence is not considered fact as that is what I have been saying all along.
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning. Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).
this is false and your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is.
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.
Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
You act like it is new that I say I believe in God. I have been saying that all along. Also, I have been emphasizing that I am not claiming his existence as fact. Therefore your attempt to make it seem like you "tricked" me into saying that is immature and false as I have been the one saying it all along without need of coertion by one 'falcon9."
I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Your non sequitur disregarded.
Your attempt at appearing superior duly noted.
Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.
These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning. If so, I should be famous by now. Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).
Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum. I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have).
This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above. Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters. The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.
Luckily you demonstrated none of that in your reply and instead just attempted once again to appear superior, and failed. Please strengthen your arguments for the next reply so this will be more time worthy.
-
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...
You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.
As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance. By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist. Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning. Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).
this is false and ...
No, it isn'ty false merely becauses you don't like it and declare it to be false. Where's the reasoning beneath such a declaration? Ah, there isn't any, is there? Shameful debating tactic on your part.
your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is.
What a load of weaseling crap! Your own words were quoted, not "twisted". Thank you for again demonstrated your severe lack of reading comprehension, (and lame ad hominem insults - right back atcha).
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.
Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
You act like it is new that I say I believe in God.
On the contrary, I acted like "belief IS God" was your newest claim - because it was. I never expected you to substantiate this new claim, (based upon evidence that you've consistantly declined to do so since this began).
I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.
Yes, that aspect was already covered in my rebuttal, (which you apparently don't comprehend). To reiterate, (even though you quoted it); now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.
These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning. If so, I should be famous by now. Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).
Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum.
When I have more time, I'll list them by message ID for you to speciously deny again, alright?
"I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have)." <-- your hypocritically-ironic words apply more accurately to you, Mack.
This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above. Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters. The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.
-
one day u will see, u will meet him one day. and that is a date u will not be late for
-
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...
You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.
As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance. By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist. Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning. Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).
this is false and ...
No, it isn'ty false merely becauses you don't like it and declare it to be false. Where's the reasoning beneath such a declaration? Ah, there isn't any, is there? Shameful debating tactic on your part.
your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is.
What a load of weaseling crap! Your own words were quoted, not "twisted". Thank you for again demonstrated your severe lack of reading comprehension, (and lame ad hominem insults - right back atcha).
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.
Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
You act like it is new that I say I believe in God.
On the contrary, I acted like "belief IS God" was your newest claim - because it was. I never expected you to substantiate this new claim, (based upon evidence that you've consistantly declined to do so since this began).
I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.
Yes, that aspect was already covered in my rebuttal, (which you apparently don't comprehend). To reiterate, (even though you quoted it); now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.
These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning. If so, I should be famous by now. Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).
Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum.
When I have more time, I'll list them by message ID for you to speciously deny again, alright?
"I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have)." <-- your hypocritically-ironic words apply more accurately to you, Mack.
This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above. Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters. The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.
I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.
-
This is a very disturbing topic. To me, it sounds as though maybe you haven't been dealt the best hand in life, and therefore are blaming this on God. Just remember that some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers. I pray for you that you will find your faith again one day.
-
I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...
You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.
As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance. By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist. Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).
I have admitted many times that my belief is not in something that is considered fact, so I do not know why you are acting as if you are putting me in my place by saying God's existence is not considered fact as that is what I have been saying all along.
Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.
This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning. Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).
Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.
Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).
You act like it is new that I say I believe in God. I have been saying that all along. Also, I have been emphasizing that I am not claiming his existence as fact. Therefore your attempt to make it seem like you "tricked" me into saying that is immature and false as I have been the one saying it all along without need of coertion by one 'falcon9."
Please define whatever a "coertion" is supposed to be.
I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.[/b]
Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.
These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning. If so, I should be famous by now. Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).
This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.
The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above. Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters. The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.
Luckily you demonstrated none of that in your reply and instead just attempted once again to appear superior, and failed. Please strengthen your arguments for the next reply so this will be more time worthy.
Unfortunately for your empty denial, you quoted where this was demonstrated in this posted reply. Your mere empty denial, without substantiation, does not refute this. Although, you have established that as your pattern of simply gainsaying what you don't like, in your opinion, (which, likfe 'faith', is that which lacks substantive evidence).
-
I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.
No. This organization does not comply with terrorist demands. In other words, make due or make haste.
-
I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.
No. This organization does not comply with terrorist demands. In other words, make due or make haste.
I am not sure where you added into that post and as soon as you add come clarity to that situation I will be glad to reply as I am not going to dig through and find what information is new and what is not. It is not a difficult request, but clearly you do not want me to respond to what you said or you would comply.
If you choose not to that is perfectly fine, but considering I have other things to do that sit on the FC forum I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize. I assume this is the last of the conversation as you have shown you will not reorganize. So it has been nice talking to you and I respect that you do not believe in God as it is a choice, I hope you can respect the beliefs of others as well. Goodbye.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.
Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.
Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig but as it was a typo it did not come across as such.
Please respond to said post with dig in place of dif. Thanks.
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye. (You could have asked directly instead of disguising the question with an insult). Since you said you were not going to organize your post into a readable structure where I could tell where you added your responses and since I am not going to dig through the posts to see where you threw stuff in, I assumed the conversation was over. However, if you would like to reorganize your post into an effective structure I'd be glad to continue the conversation. Sorry that you were confused as to why the good-bye was there and glad we have cleared it up.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead. [/quote]
Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.
I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.
-
I am not going to sit and dif through a post that would take you mere seconds to effectively organize.
For a moment, I'd considered letting you know that I don't have time to sit and "dif" through several posts however, I don't want to assume what "dif" means.
Ah I will be glad to clear that up. The word is meant to be dig
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.
I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.
[/quote]
I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.
Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over,I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand." Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye. You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word. Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary. Hope that cleared that up for you!
-
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.
I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.
I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.
Your own confusion over what the word, "goodbye" means and your failure to 'confuse' me do not mean that I'm the confused one.
Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over ...
There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demands. Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.
I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand."
Again, I "implied" no such thing; I directly and explicitly refused to comply with your demand because your inability to follow a discussion in which you are a primary participant is not my responsibility. This point was emphasized by exaggerating your repeated demand as a terrorist one, (alluding to a form of coerision you were attempting to use to get me to follow your 'instructions', 'or else').
Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye.
Once again you've shown that you are unable to follow the course and _sequence_ of the discussion. Message IDs list the date and time of replies and these show that you posted your "goodbye" _before_ these subsequent contentions of yours --
« Reply #377 on: September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm » Message ID: 423049
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm:
"Goodbye."
« Reply #381 on: September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm » Message ID: 423177
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm:
"Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye."
These posted replies of yours occurred _before_ I commented about not complying with your terrorist demands.
You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word.
No, I replied with a speculation that _you_ were one of those people who feel the need to 'get in the last word' by stating who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary.
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part. On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself. Why was this a contradiction? Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating. It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).
-
Who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in', at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye.
I remain disinterested as to "why" you said it since I'm already aware of what the word means. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what "goodbye" actually indicates, however.
I see you are still confused, I will restate it in a different way.
Your own confusion over what the word, "goodbye" means and your failure to 'confuse' me do not mean that I'm the confused one.
Whenever you implied that you would not reorganize your post into a readable form I assumed the conversation was over ...
There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demands. Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.
I was not expecting another reply from you as you had implied you would not at all rephrase or reorganize into a more effective format and even called this a "terrorist demand."
Again, I "implied" no such thing; I directly and explicitly refused to comply with your demand because your inability to follow a discussion in which you are a primary participant is not my responsibility. This point was emphasized by exaggerating your repeated demand as a terrorist one, (alluding to a form of coerision you were attempting to use to get me to follow your 'instructions', 'or else').
Notice how this could give me the idea that the conversation was over. That is why I said goodbye.
Once again you've shown that you are unable to follow the course and _sequence_ of the discussion. Message IDs list the date and time of replies and these show that you posted your "goodbye" _before_ these subsequent contentions of yours --
« Reply #377 on: September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm » Message ID: 423049
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 03:37:31 pm:
"Goodbye."
« Reply #381 on: September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm » Message ID: 423177
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 27, 2011, 08:55:26 pm:
"Oh I will be glad to explain why I said goodbye."
These posted replies of yours occurred _before_ I commented about not complying with your terrorist demands.
You then replied, showing that the conversation was either not over, or that you wanted the last word.
No, I replied with a speculation that _you_ were one of those people who feel the need to 'get in the last word' by stating who knows what you mean since you ended your previous post with a "goodbye". Apparently, this means 'keep trying to get the last word in", at least in 'Mackenzie-speak'. Everyone else must be mistakenly using the accepted meaning of that word instead.
Since you decided to reply after the initial goodbye the insinuation that the conversation was over was contradicted so the goodbye proved not necessary.
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part. On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself. Why was this a contradiction? Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating. It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).
Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed. Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation. I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion. Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message. I hope that clears this simple topic up as there aren’t many more ways to explain something that is not at all complicated.
To summarize- You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.
“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s. Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”
Please show any INVALID assumptions. Since the assumption was that you would not reorganize the post, and you just said that was correct- that shows that the correct term would be VALID assumption.
Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.
Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you. This immature behavior does not help prove your point.
Your continued dwelling on the topic of me saying goodbye shows that you are further trying to avoid the actual debate. (Please see the first few sentences of this post for a lengthy explanation of the posting of said good-bye). I will again summarize here- your admittance that you would not post the information in an organized manner gave off the impression that the conversation was over as I am not going to sift through an entire post and find what was added. Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.
Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie, especially when you have admitted multiple times to not complying with my request for you to present your information in an organized manner. This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig through your messy post and find what was added.
To help clear up your confusion- the reason I said good-bye is because I was not expecting any further response from you as you made it clear you were not going to reproduce your post in an organized manner. When you DID reply that expectation of the non-response was not met, so the good-bye was no longer needed as you continued the conversation onto more petty points that were being discussed earlier. This should help you understand why the good-bye was posted and why your response deemed in unnecessary.
-
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 12:35:46 pm
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part. On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself. Why was this a contradiction? Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating. It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).
Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed.
Your attempt to dismiss the example of your documented response, (your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself), is dismissed as being irrational.
Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation.
Your "explanation" was a weak excuse. I routinely ignore weak excuses, there's nothing special about ignoring your excuses.
I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion.
This is was was meant by your repeating this 'request' constituting an endless loop, (and then denying that you are repeating it even after using the word "repeat" yourself). Such self-delusion on your part is non-productive because self-delusion is seldom, (if ever), productive.
Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message.
Well, you certainly need look no further than this posted exchange to find examples of your denied repetitious loops. They are right here, in your own unaltered words and it remains a mystery as to why you are denying what you wrote. I could speculate however, such speculations would be inconclusive as I am not a mental health diagnostician.
I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.
“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s. Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”
Please show any INVALID assumptions.
The invalid assumptions you made were that "You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over" and that my refusal to duplicate recorded posts constituted a lack of evidence.
You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over.
Obviously, (since the conversation continued), this constitutes an invalid assumption on your part. Your request to provide examples of your making these particular invalid assumptions has been granted. Your other specious request remains denied.
Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.
You stated that you assumed the conversation was over unless I complied with your demand. The implied 'or else', (not stated as a quote of yours, hence the ' ' instead of using " "), was that you were terminating the conversation unless your demands were met. This was why I used a phrase to parallel the situation, metaphorically, (i.e., characterizing your implicit 'or else' as a terrorist demand).
Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you.
It isn't a libelous "insult" if the contention is accurate and it was. Since you keep insisting that I duplicate posts which you cannot recall, (despite the available record of these threads), then you are either unable to follow this conversation or, you are initiating another of these endless loops you employ to attempt dodging challenges to your specious claims. Which one is it? (note: presenting a third option would be specious).
Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.
Ironically then, you keep posting in an attempt to get in the last word. This is not why I keep posting since I'm not the one who said "goodbye" and then proceeded to make the invalid assumption that the conversation was over. Conclusively, if the conversation _were_ over, you simply cease replying and since you didn't, it wasn't, (this providing conclusive evidence of your invalid assumption in that regard).
Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie
I asserted that your "insinuation" was fabricated because your interpretation, (or "misinterpretation" to use your quoted word), was inaccurate - for whatever reasons. Whether intentionally so, (a lie), or unintentional, (ignorance), was considered irrelavent to your engaging in insinuation.
This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig ...
Again, your decision to end the conversation based on your criteria of being too lazy or busy to do so was yours, (and as it happened, you didn't end the conversation even after assuming it was over. Why? Because I responded and your reply directly indicates that the 'last word' theory holds some credence).
-
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 12:35:46 pm
Rather, since such an "insinuation" was entirely a fabrication in your own mind, (as shown by the text itself, not your unneeded mistranslations of English), there was no contradiction on my part. On the other hand, your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself. Why was this a contradiction? Because if someone says "goodbye" to another and then keeps yammering away, that person's implicit intention is to be exasperating. It's unclear whether or not you've previously mistaken exasperation for successful debating however, that cheap trick is ineffective with me, (if it were effective, it would've worked days ago).
Your insinuation that I do not know what good-bye means has been dismissed.
Your attempt to dismiss the example of your documented response, (your "goodbye", (followed by more blithering repetitions and denials), did serve as evidence that you contradicted yourself), is dismissed as being irrational.
Notice that in my last reply I addressed this topic and you ignored the explanation.
Your "explanation" was a weak excuse. I routinely ignore weak excuses, there's nothing special about ignoring your excuses.
I will repeat it to satisfy your confusion.
This is was was meant by your repeating this 'request' constituting an endless loop, (and then denying that you are repeating it even after using the word "repeat" yourself). Such self-delusion on your part is non-productive because self-delusion is seldom, (if ever), productive.
Since you announced that you would not reorganize your post I assumed the conversation was over and was not expecting a response from you- this is why I said goodbye as I thought that would be the ending message.
Well, you certainly need look no further than this posted exchange to find examples of your denied repetitious loops. They are right here, in your own unaltered words and it remains a mystery as to why you are denying what you wrote. I could speculate however, such speculations would be inconclusive as I am not a mental health diagnostician.
I assumed the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.
“There was no implication; I explicitly refused to comply with your demand’s. Any invalid assumptions you made from that remain your unsupported opinion.”
Please show any INVALID assumptions.
The invalid assumptions you made were that "You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over" and that my refusal to duplicate recorded posts constituted a lack of evidence.
You refused to reproduce the information in an organized matter, so I assumed the conversation was over.
Obviously, (since the conversation continued), this constitutes an invalid assumption on your part. Your request to provide examples of your making these particular invalid assumptions has been granted. Your other specious request remains denied.
Your statement that I told you to reorganize “or else” has been dismissed as the petty attack and attempt to evade my request that it is.
You stated that you assumed the conversation was over unless I complied with your demand. The implied 'or else', (not stated as a quote of yours, hence the ' ' instead of using " "), was that you were terminating the conversation unless your demands were met. This was why I used a phrase to parallel the situation, metaphorically, (i.e., characterizing your implicit 'or else' as a terrorist demand).
Your implication that I cannot follow a conversation has been disregarded as I am not here to get into an insulting match with you.
It isn't a libelous "insult" if the contention is accurate and it was. Since you keep insisting that I duplicate posts which you cannot recall, (despite the available record of these threads), then you are either unable to follow this conversation or, you are initiating another of these endless loops you employ to attempt dodging challenges to your specious claims. Which one is it? (note: presenting a third option would be specious).
Your reply accusing me of wanting to get the last word in was a prime example of your immature attempt at getting in the last word.
Ironically then, you keep posting in an attempt to get in the last word. This is not why I keep posting since I'm not the one who said "goodbye" and then proceeded to make the invalid assumption that the conversation was over. Conclusively, if the conversation _were_ over, you simply cease replying and since you didn't, it wasn't, (this providing conclusive evidence of your invalid assumption in that regard).
Your attempt to compare my insinuation to a fabrication was been disregarded as it is clearly false. A misinterpretation is not equivalent to a lie
I asserted that your "insinuation" was fabricated because your interpretation, (or "misinterpretation" to use your quoted word), was inaccurate - for whatever reasons. Whether intentionally so, (a lie), or unintentional, (ignorance), was considered irrelavent to your engaging in insinuation.
This would show that the conversation in over as I am not going to dig ...
Again, your decision to end the conversation based on your criteria of being too lazy or busy to do so was yours, (and as it happened, you didn't end the conversation even after assuming it was over. Why? Because I responded and your reply directly indicates that the 'last word' theory holds some credence).
I in fact did not dismiss the questioning of the stated goodbye, but have actually explained it multiple times. Please try to read the following and not ignore it.
-Your statement that you would not reorganize the comment, which in result I would not reply to, gave the impression that the conversation was over. Hence the goodbye.
You characterization as a weak excuse is illogical as I need no excuse for saying “goodbye.”
I did not deny repeating it, but denied that it constitutes an endless loop on my part as you are the one refusing to prove your claim (that there are unanswered challenges).
Your insinuation that I have mental health problems was amusing, thanks for the laugh. You using it as an attempt to sound superior has failed and further lowered your credibility.
Insulting others shows immaturity and lack of intelligence, which lowers you credibility.
Did you post inside the green quoted box? I am not going to attempt to read through it and see if anything was added. If you did post in the box please reply with a simple yes and I will go back and answer any additional comments you made in this unorganized manner.
-
Thats interesting. Why do you believe that God is a fake? What God did u believe in before you changed your mind?
I believe in Jesus.
-
there is no such thing as what type of god you believe in but if u believe or not because there is only one god not any "types of gods" that is just bs. there is only one god
-
Most people don't really believe in God in the first place. At least not in my vicinity. They go to church mostly when the doors are open, but outside church is the devils playground for probably 80% of the church goers. It's a bit humorous.
-
Most people don't really believe in God in the first place. At least not in my vicinity. They go to church mostly when the doors are open, but outside church is the devils playground for probably 80% of the church goers. It's a bit humorous.
It's a tad more hypocritical than humorous. Then again, going to church doesn't make somebody a xtian anymore than parking yourself in the garage makes you a car.
-
i know for a fact there is a god.ive known this now for like 8 years now cause when i was getting strangled to near death i asked god for a favore and it was granted i9n seconds..it was nothing extra super great but it was what i needed from him at that moment..thankfuly i survived or i wouldnt be posting this but even after that god has never let me fall flat on my face with my kids..we have been real broke but an okay broke..you dont always get super great things from god but i got what i needed when i needed it most so i know hes there.
-
i know for a fact there is a god.
Making such a factual claim puts the burden of proof on the claimaint, (that'd be you).
ive known this now for like 8 years now cause when i was getting strangled to near death i asked god for a favore and it was granted i9n seconds..it was nothing extra super great but it was what i needed from him at that moment..thankfuly i survived or i wouldnt be posting this but even after that god has never let me fall flat on my face with my kids..we have been real broke but an okay broke..you dont always get super great things from god but i got what i needed when i needed it most so i know hes there.
Ancedotal testimony which inconclusively attributes an effect to a cause, (sans evidence of such a causal relationship), does not constitute 'proof'.
-
I know that there Is a God he is the Father of are sole and we live with Him before we can too earth when we die we go too a place to what for his son two come back too earth.
-
I know that there Is a God he is the Father of are sole ...
This is the first attribution of a 'god' to shoemaking that I've come across. Is this why they claim Lucifer was 'booted' out of heaven?
-
I don't think god i fake. God is just different to everyone.
-
This is the first attribution of a 'god' to shoemaking that I've come across. Is this why they claim Lucifer was 'booted' out of heaven?
HIYOOOOOO!
-
This is the first attribution of a 'god' to shoemaking that I've come across. Is this why they claim Lucifer was 'booted' out of heaven?
HIYOOOOOO!
It just occurs to me that its no wonder the whole religion sounds as if its been 'cobbled-together' ...
-
A huge amen for pointing out that god is fake. There is no physical proof whatsoever. If your "God" is so great, why is he ashamed to show himself? Perhaps he is your imaginary friend. It's time to put away your childish ideas and grow up!
-
i know for a fact there is a god.
Making such a factual claim puts the burden of proof on the claimaint, (that'd be you).
ive known this now for like 8 years now cause when i was getting strangled to near death i asked god for a favore and it was granted i9n seconds....you dont always get super great things from god but i got what i needed when i needed it most so i know hes there.
Ancedotal testimony which inconclusively attributes an effect to a cause, (sans evidence of such a causal relationship), does not constitute 'proof'.
[/quote]
Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.
-
A huge amen for pointing out that god is fake. There is no physical proof whatsoever. If your "God" is so great, why is he ashamed to show himself? Perhaps he is your imaginary friend. It's time to put away your childish ideas and grow up!
That's a mature post,if ever I read one. ::)
-
A huge amen for pointing out that god is fake. There is no physical proof whatsoever. If your "God" is so great, why is he ashamed to show himself? Perhaps he is your imaginary friend. It's time to put away your childish ideas and grow up!
That's a mature post,if ever I read one. ::)
That opinion might carry some weight were you an objective arbitratrator of what constitutes a "mature" post. However, you're not so, it doesn't.
-
:crybaby2:
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
-
:dog:
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?
Either or neither is fine, apparently.
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?
Either or neither is fine, apparently.
Apparently?
-
God Bless America!!!!
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?
Either or neither is fine, apparently.
Apparently?
Too subtle, huh?
-
The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?
Either or neither is fine, apparently.
Apparently?
Too subtle, huh?
Your attempt to insult rather than explain further shows insecurity. Thanks. (why you posted on this forum after weeks just to attempt to insult me shows that you have an immense amount of time on your hands that could better be directed elsewhere).
-
Apparently?
Too subtle, huh? [/quote]
Your attempt to insult ...
That wasn't intrinsically an insult; it was a question related to your question which was 'apparently' a bit more subtle than merely answering a question with a question, (given your defensive response).
-
that is your opinion -people are mostly fake like the hip hoppers.
-
that is your opinion -people are mostly fake like the hip hoppers.
The original poster, ("marieelissa"), started this thread with her opinion that "I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God", did phrase it ambiguously. I'm curious however, about your opinion that hip hoppers are mostly fake people; are they cleverly-designed androids instead?
-
It doesn't matter if God is fake or real. All that matters is being a good person and believing what you want. Sure, I think God is real, but I have to accept the possibility I may be wrong and not be quick to judge others who think differently.
-
It doesn't matter if God is fake or real. All that matters is being a good person and believing what you want. Sure, I think God is real, but I have to accept the possibility I may be wrong and not be quick to judge others who think differently.
I'd actually concur that it doesn't matter if the deity claimed to be believed in is real or not since such belief, (or even a disbelief), would have no impact on such a being's reality/existence. That is, such a being either exists or does not and any external belief/disbelief in it is irrelavent to that condition.
-
That is a question that kinda leans back to how many relegions that there are, I mean they all worship God under thier own religeous beliefs. does this mean that there are as many gods as there are relegions. Or are they all worshiping the same God. If they are worshiping the same God, then why all of the relegions.
-
That is a question that kinda leans back to how many relegions that there are, I mean they all worship God under thier own religeous beliefs. does this mean that there are as many gods as there are relegions. Or are they all worshiping the same God. If they are worshiping the same God, then why all of the relegions.
On the the contrary, there have been several religions, gods and goddesses 'worshipped' throughout history and these were _not_ all the same god/deity. Even today, there remain some extant which are distinctly not the same deity.
-
one simple answer to this is that you can neither prove he exists or prove that he does not exist. it is all a matter of what you believe
-
one simple answer to this is that you can neither prove he exists or prove that he does not exist. it is all a matter of what you believe
Your "simple answer" is a logical fallacy. Belief does not confer existence any more than disbelief confers non-existence therefore, belief is not a factor of existence.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
-
(http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cthulhu1.jpg)
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn!! :notworthy:
-
(http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cthulhu1.jpg)
This. I didnt even read the rest. Just this. You win at this thread.
-
no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer
-
no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer
I disagree due to the distinction between requiring evidence to support the claim and the lack of substantiation for a belief. The "simple answer" is therefore, 'case dismissed on the basis of a lack of evidence'.
-
no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer
I disagree. Countless people have had their reasons for abandoning superstition, and it wasn't because they woke up one day and decided, "I think I'll stop believing in god now."
Planting the seeds of reason is never a bad thing.
-
no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer
I disagree. Countless people have had their reasons for abandoning superstition, and it wasn't because they woke up one day and decided, "I think I'll stop believing in god now."
Planting the seeds of reason is never a bad thing.
Some have reported having a "crisis of faith" however, this was not a reasoned decision process. I knew a catholic priest who suggested that questioning empty faith can cause such a 'crisis' and that's likely why few do it.
-
no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer
I disagree due to the distinction between requiring evidence to support the claim and the lack of substantiation for a belief. The "simple answer" is therefore, 'case dismissed on the basis of a lack of evidence'.
I can agree with that, there is no evidence in the existence of god.
-
The God I know is real and authentic. He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.
:heart:
-
The God I know is real and authentic. He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.
While you are free to place belief in whatever you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidential basis for your claim that "the god I know is real and authentic". Indicating that is not an attempt to "take away" your belief; it is placing an emphasis on the lack of attributable substantiation in _what_ is claimed that belief is in. The difference being that the 'belief' itself may be "real and authentic" however, it is false to claim that "god" is "real and authentic" without substantive and directly-attributable evidence.
-
The God I know is real and authentic. He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.
:heart:
:thumbsup:
-
The God I know is real and authentic. He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.
While you are free to place belief in whatever you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidential basis for your claim that "the god I know is real and authentic". Indicating that is not an attempt to "take away" your belief; it is placing an emphasis on the lack of attributable substantiation in _what_ is claimed that belief is in. The difference being that the 'belief' itself may be "real and authentic" however, it is false to claim that "god" is "real and authentic" without substantive and directly-attributable evidence.
You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?
-
You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?
I don't see the correlation. Let's rewrite the original statement-
"The Gods I know are real and authentic. They're like very loving fathers and mothers who want the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me."
By stating that this is an unverifiable claim, no where does it state that the person debating it is a god. It's just a statement pointing out the obvious lack of evidence for the claim.
-
You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?
I don't see the correlation. Let's rewrite the original statement-
"The Gods I know are real and authentic. They're like very loving fathers and mothers who want the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me."
By stating that this is an unverifiable claim, no where does it state that the person debating it is a god. It's just a statement pointing out the obvious lack of evidence for the claim.
Yes, and just to clarify even more concisely, an inherent claim of 'gnosis' remains an unverifiable claim, (rather than an implicit claim by challengers to be making a 'godlike' claim by challenging those initial claims). That is, 'gnosis', ("knowing that one knows'), is a circular claim.
-
You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows. If she knows, then it is real to her. Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.
-
You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows. If she knows, then it is real to her. Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.
Conversely, you and others making the implicit claim that a "god" exists to "know" are missing the point that claiming to "know" something doesn't mean that the claimaint does "know", (especially sans evidence).
-
You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows. If she knows, then it is real to her. Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.
Conversely, you and others making the implicit claim that a "god" exists to "know" are missing the point that claiming to "know" something doesn't mean that the claimaint does "know", (especially sans evidence).
I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it. I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know. I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart. What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars. While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect. Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?
-
I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it. I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know. I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart. What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars. While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect.
Unless you are unwilling to accept the evidence of different detected frequency wavelengths which correspond to colors, (whether _you_ can see them visually or not), then this does not parallel someone claiming to 'detect/sense' something which cannot be conclusively verified. You did, however tacitly acknowledge wavelength analysis as evidence that colors which may not be within someone's visual spectrum do exist.
Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?
On the contrary, it can be proven that such colors exist, (all along the spectrum, not just in normal visual ranges). What cannot be similarly proven is that a color exists which is indetectable along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
-
I am well aware that a person can claim something and be deliberately lying about it. I am also aware that someone can know something that I can never know. I don't detect certain colors the same as most people and you can place varying shades of reds or greens side by side and in equal spaced bars on a chart. What I will see are thinner bars and thicker bars. While I understand there are certain optics in existence that MIGHT help alter the colors so that I can more easily detect them (also wavelength analysis can reveal differences), I can only say that without them you can never prove to me that there is anything different from what I am able to detect.
Unless you are unwilling to accept the evidence of different detected frequency wavelengths which correspond to colors, (whether _you_ can see them visually or not), then this does not parallel someone claiming to 'detect/sense' something which cannot be conclusively verified. You did, however tacitly acknowledge wavelength analysis as evidence that colors which may not be within someone's visual spectrum do exist.
Since you cannot prove to me what you see should I then take the presumptuous and foolish position that you do and claim that you are imagining the color or that you are lying?
On the contrary, it can be proven that such colors exist, (all along the spectrum, not just in normal visual ranges). What cannot be similarly proven is that a color exists which is indetectable along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
There was nothing tacit about my mentioning of wavelength analysis.
When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand. When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work. When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.
I don't know what you see or attribute to such things. Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is. Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know.
You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape. I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.
You have proven my point, albeit indirectly. We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.
-
When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand.
That is an unsubstantiated attribution you _choose_ to apply; which doesn't make it an accurate one, (especially given the complete lack of supportive evidence to substantiate such a claim).
When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work. When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.
Waxing poetically does not confer accurate attribution of those things to a deity.
I don't know what you see or attribute to such things. Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is. Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know.
I've already mentioned how I perceive such things, not that you asked.
You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape. I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.
"Green" is a specific wavelength, (560-490 nm and 610-670 THz in frequency). There is nothing in that which is directly attributable to a deity. The tacit claim that nature is "god's work" cannot be substantiated.
You have proven my point, albeit indirectly. We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.
On the contrary, I have consistently remarked that such are not conclusive attributions and therefore, I do not falsely attribute such things to deities.
-
When life's difficulties assault me from all angles and I am at the end of my abilities, and yet somehow I manage to press on and even smile and redouble my efforts -- I feel God's hand.
That is an unsubstantiated attribution you _choose_ to apply; which doesn't make it an accurate one, (especially given the complete lack of supportive evidence to substantiate such a claim).
When I see a tree and am washed over by the beauty and complexity and uniqueness of it -- I see God's work. When I gaze at the stars and appreciate them through the knowledge of my understanding of physics and the universe and I explore the countless possibilities that such a view suggest to me -- I sense a glimmer of the love and generosity and wonder of God.
Waxing poetically does not confer accurate attribution of those things to a deity.
I don't know what you see or attribute to such things. Maybe they are a muddy wash of the same thing that the thing next to it is. Maybe you reduce them to the collection of the particles that make them up and formed in a way that is best suited to survival and longevity of them all as a whole -- I don't know.
I've already mentioned how I perceive such things, not that you asked.
You can show that there is a wavelength between yellow and blue, but you cannot prove that shade of green you see to me even though we both can see the shape. I can show you God's work in nature all day long but all you will ever see are trees and rivers and mountains, etc.
"Green" is a specific wavelength, (560-490 nm and 610-670 THz in frequency). There is nothing in that which is directly attributable to a deity. The tacit claim that nature is "god's work" cannot be substantiated.
You have proven my point, albeit indirectly. We may look at the same things, and where I can see God through his work you do not.
On the contrary, I have consistently remarked that such are not conclusive attributions and therefore, I do not falsely attribute such things to deities.
You don't really understand at all do you? I am not actively choosing to apply anything any more than you actively choosing to apply anything to those particular colors you see that I cannot. My supportive evidence, in the example of the tree, is the tree. This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green. Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me. Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.
Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such. My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree. That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work and it isn't something I conjure up to describe an overwhelming of senses. I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God". It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me. I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.
-
You don't really understand at all do you?
Sure I do; I can read and comprehend English as well as applied logic.
I am not actively choosing to apply anything any more than you actively choosing to apply anything to those particular colors you see that I cannot. My supportive evidence, in the example of the tree, is the tree.
Not quite; you used the tree as a specific example of "god's work", thus attributing the tree's existence to a deity without providing any substantiating evidence of this attrbution.
This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green.
Firstly, I did not provide evidence stating that "the shade of green being the shade of green". I listed the wavelength frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum which corresponds to the color "green". Secondly, it is far from being the same thing as attibuting a perception, (or, lack of perception), to a supernatural deity. You present a false parallel and I completely disagree with it on the basis described.
Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me. Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.
That must make it difficult to discern a green traffic signal.
Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.
The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented. That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).
As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'. Indeed, there is ample evidence throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.
My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree. That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...
To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.
I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God". It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me.
It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim. Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no?
I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.
Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale. The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work". Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.
-
You don't really understand at all do you?
Sure I do; I can read and comprehend English as well as applied logic.
Yet you consistently miss what is presented to you as is evident by your pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions.
Not quite; you used the tree as a specific example of "god's work", thus attributing the tree's existence to a deity without providing any substantiating evidence of this attrbution.
You need to look closer at how I worded that. I was specific in my manner so as to distinguish the difference. I cued it well enough that it should have been obvious to most anyone. I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that, but that is not what I said in my post above.
This is exactly the same as your supporting evidence in the shade of green being the shade of green.
Firstly, I did not provide evidence stating that "the shade of green being the shade of green". I listed the wavelength frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum which corresponds to the color "green". Secondly, it is far from being the same thing as attibuting a perception, (or, lack of perception), to a supernatural deity. You present a false parallel and I completely disagree with it on the basis described.
Disagree all you want. I have indicated a case where you see something in a way that I cannot, just as I apparently see something in a way that you cannot. Granted there are devices that allow for detection of the wavelengths of light, but there always were not and in knowing that we see through the illusion of difference you wish to suggest. Where you suggest supernatural I realize that God is the most natural thing there is.
Realize, the shade of green is not invisible to me, it is just not distinct like it is to you and if you were to paint a house this color I will obviously see it as it isn't hidden from me. Place a circle of this color on a square colored other shades of green and I will not be able to detect it.
That must make it difficult to discern a green traffic signal.
Well that is why traffic lights are uniform in their positions (least here in the US). Interestingly it is why I was not allowed as a tank crewman in the military.
Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.
The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented. That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).
As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'. Indeed, there is ample evidence throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.
I don't imply any 'spiritual sense' and I am not sure if you keep using that term to try and ridicule me or what. Where I have used it earlier in a hypothetical was to get a point across regarding senses and perception and the inability to detect things accordingly. I don't see dead people or anything like that and have never intended to imply that I do.
You are again looking at it wrong in your comparison of color-blindness and 'spiritual blindness' (again, really is that what you think I was saying?). I am speaking of spirituality but not in some mystical way as it seems you perceive it to be. It is very natural to the point of being the only thing that really does make any sense at all.
My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree. That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...
To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.
Again, as I stated above I am not attributing them to "God's work", they are revealing themselves to me as "God's work". There is a very distinct difference in that an I am thinking you don't understand what I mean by it. I suppose it would sort of (but not quite) be like if I suddenly could see the colors I was missing before, I wouldn't attribute them to anything I would simply see them as they were presented and could only acknowledge them as such. My acknowledgement of them as themselves is not an overt attribution, but simply my discernment of things I wasn't seeing previously (things that that were not invisible or even hidden, just unnoticed by me).
I do not say to myself "hey that is both complex and natural...it must have been made by God". It is revealed to me in the nature of what it is and not by any vanity or scrutiny, or acts of attribution by me.
It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim. Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no?
The hilarious thing is I actually did that this morning. What can I say, the dog was not around to blame it on.
I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.
Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale. The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work". Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.
Again even in your denial here you again assert that I am attributing when I am not. You are quite mistaken here and this is perhaps due to your limitations on how you perceive things or my limitations on explaining that what I take in is recognized by my perceptions as from God in much the same way as your viewing green is recognized by your perceptions as green. I am not processing along the lines of "this is wonderful and unexplained and thus must be of God" and I am similarly not thinking "this is a tree and thus is from God ipso facto". I see the tree and I also see God's work within and without the tree -- but I didn't always I used to only see the tree and then it was quite boring and plain and uninspiring (except for maybe during autumn).
-
Yet you consistently miss what is presented to you as is evident by your pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions.
Merely claiming that there is an "evident" "pattern of continual misrepresentation of discussions" isn't going to go unchallenged, (as you no doubt know by now). You claimed it, now substantiate your claim or, it must be concluded that your accusation itself misrepresents the pattern of our discussions.
You need to look closer at how I worded that. I was specific in my manner so as to distinguish the difference. I cued it well enough that it should have been obvious to most anyone. I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that, but that is not what I said in my post above.
Then there was no significant difference; you admit to attributing the tree's existence to "god" and yet, still provide no substantiating evidence to support that attribution.
I have indicated a case where you see something in a way that I cannot, just as I apparently see something in a way that you cannot. Granted there are devices that allow for detection of the wavelengths of light, but there always were not and in knowing that we see through the illusion of difference you wish to suggest.
It isn't an "illusion of difference", since mechanical devices cannot detect "illusions" in the same way the human eye/brain can be spoofed.
Where you suggest supernatural I realize that God is the most natural thing there is.
You can claim to "realize" whatever wished however, such a 'realization' is not an a priori fact. Further, that 'realization' is another way of presenting an unsupported claim since there is no evidential support for a 'realized' claim that "god is the most natural thing there is.
Conversely, a deity is defined as any supernatural being, (not at my 'suggestion' but, a thesaurus').
Well that is why traffic lights are uniform in their positions (least here in the US). Interestingly it is why I was not allowed as a tank crewman in the military.
Why, aren't tanks allowed to advance with or without a greenlight signal?
Your senses reveal to you the wavelength of green as a color and you do not apply any active attribution to do this, for me to do this I would have to apply such.
The attribution alluded to was that of a hypothetical "spiritual sense" akin to this color perception/imperception example you presented. That attribution, (to a hypothetical deity), has no substantiation to support it and is a circular argument, (e.g.; "trees exist, god made trees, therefore the existence of trees is attibutable to god" contains two unsubstantiated attibutions).
As far as color-blindness goes, the analogy does not parallel some hypothetical 'spiritual blindness'. Indeed, there is ample evidence throughout human history of 'spirituality' blinding reason.
I don't imply any 'spiritual sense' and I am not sure if you keep using that term to try and ridicule me or what. Where I have used it earlier in a hypothetical was to get a point across regarding senses and perception and the inability to detect things accordingly.
What you wrote attempted to conflate a hypothetical "spiritual sense" with an actual ability to "sense" that which those who do not possess it cannot by contrasting an inability, (color blindness), with it's logical parallel, ('spiritual blindness'). If this was not your intention, the reasoning is asysemetric and an inconsistent sophistry.
You are again looking at it wrong in your comparison of color-blindness and 'spiritual blindness' (again, really is that what you think I was saying?).
See the remarks above your question.
I am speaking of spirituality but not in some mystical way as it seems you perceive it to be. It is very natural to the point of being the only thing that really does make any sense at all.
It's "mystical" by default since no substantive evidence has been provided to support such 'spiritual' attributions as you've made/claimed. Further claims that it is "very natural" remain unsupported as well. Indeed, using one unsubstantaited claim to support another constitutes a mystically insubstantive syllogism.
My eyes reveal to me the tree as the shape and color of a tree of course, my hands the feel of bark and leaf, my nose the smells associated with the season and species of the tree. That isn't all I take in, though, there is this awestruck wonder of God's work ...
To reiterate the cognizant point there; attributing these things to "god's work" constitutes an unsupported claim.
Again, as I stated above I am not attributing them to "God's work", they are revealing themselves to me as "God's work". There is a very distinct difference in that an I am thinking you don't understand what I mean by it.
No, the substitution of "revealing" for 'attributing' makes no contextual difference at all. The 'revealation' remains an unsupported claim because it lacks evidence whether it's called a "revealing" or an revealed attribution. Summarily, you previously stated that "I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ..." earlier in _this_ posted reply. Now, you are trying to split some imagined hair between 'attributing' and "revealing"? Really?
I suppose it would sort of (but not quite) be like if I suddenly could see the colors I was missing before, I wouldn't attribute them to anything I would simply see them as they were presented and could only acknowledge them as such. My acknowledgement of them as themselves is not an overt attribution, but simply my discernment of things I wasn't seeing previously (things that that were not invisible or even hidden, just unnoticed by me).
Such a claimed "discernment" remains an unsupported attribution, no matter how you try to spin it. You stated that, "I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ..." and that's a direct attribution. Whether or not you can come up with similar 'euphemisms' for not really attributing such as "discerning", "reveal", "realize" your admission to the unsupported attribution remains.
It doesn't matter what you tell yourself if your are still attributing such things as being "made by god" without any substantiation for such an attribution beyond the empty claim. Do you fart and claim "god made it" or, no? [/quote]
The hilarious thing is I actually did that this morning. What can I say, the dog was not around to blame it on.
That works as well as blaming it on grandma, (and if she's passed away, her barking spider is a sign from beyond the grave?).
I must stress that last point as you seem to remain constant on this false idea that somehow I invoke a studied reflection on what I take in when actually nothing is farther from the truth.
Since I never suggested nor stated such a strawman idea instead, I'll clarify my position on your haybale. The only relevant point in regards to not reflecting, (reasoning), about what you perceive is that it lead to an unsupported attribution to "god's work". Whereas some reasoning about what is perceived leads at least to the provisional conclusion that there's no evidence to substantiate attributing what's perceived to a supernatural deity.
Again even in your denial here you again assert that I am attributing when I am not.
It isn't my denial; it's your denial of your own quoted words, ""I do, though, attribute the tree's existence to God and I have no problem saying that ...". Further claiming some undefined "limitations" on my part, (no doubt in some attempt to discredit the reasoning used to determine what is an attribution and what constitutes some sort of 'different' realization/discernment/revelation), is disingenuous.
You are quite mistaken here and this is perhaps due to your limitations on how you perceive things or my limitations on explaining that what I take in is recognized by my perceptions as from God in much the same way as your viewing green is recognized by your perceptions as green.
There is no rational comparison between unsubtantiated "perceptions as from god" and substantiated perceptions of physical wavelength frequencies. Specifically, the former is claimed by hearsay and lacks supportive evidence, while the latter is supported by physical objective evidence.
I am not processing along the lines of "this is wonderful and unexplained and thus must be of God" and I am similarly not thinking "this is a tree and thus is from God ipso facto".
As previously indicated, the only significance of your not using any reasoning process to inaccurately attribute the tree to "god" is that it provides some substantiation for a prior contention that 'faith' is not derived from a reasoning process. Regardless, it remains an unsupported attribution.
I see the tree and I also see God's work within and without the tree -- but I didn't always I used to only see the tree and then it was quite boring and plain and uninspiring (except for maybe during autumn).
Do you 'see' that claiming to "see God's work within and without the tree" is an attribution without substantiation or, must we circle 'round and 'round the tree like unto some pagan ritual of yore?
-
I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist. How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist.
-
I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist. How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist (posted by :acarswell)
Because just because you believe something doesnt mean it does exist either.
-
check this out under the news section on yahoo: New find sheds light on ancient site in Jerusalem The man usually credited with building the compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary is Herod, a Jewish ruler who died in 4 B.C. Herod's monumental compound replaced and expanded a much older Jewish temple complex on the same site.
But archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority now say diggers have found coins underneath the massive foundation stones of the compound's Western Wall that were stamped by a Roman proconsul 20 years after Herod's death. That indicates that Herod did not build the wall — part of which is venerated as Judaism's holiest prayer site — and that construction was not close to being complete when he died.
this is not directly related but shows one example of science disproving some things..or at least casting more doubt
-
I believe God is real. I believe that just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doenst exist. How can you look around at the beauty in the world and not realize that God exist.
A belief doesn't confer the reality of substantive existence. It isn't a matter of not seeing something, (such devices as microscopes to telescopes allow us to extend our sight); it's a matter of verifiable detection. As to "beauty"; there is no attributable connection to a deital source for that concept, (an aesthetic conception).
Because just because you believe something doesnt mean it does exist either.
Some theorize about hypothetical 'egregores', (thoughtforms which are posited as an aggregate of a group of people's beliefs). Although not all such egregores are considered to be metaphysical in nature, (thoughtforms such as 'memes' and 'money', for instance), some supposedly have a religious content. Interestingly, if "gods/goddesses" are egregores, they are human creations by definition, (rather than the other way around).
If these are not egregores, then they do not require 'belief' to sustain them yet, that's all they've got to support claims of their existence, ('faith').
Any claims attributing aspects of, (or, all of), the universe to various "gods" remain speculative and unsubstantiated.
-
Yes.....yes he is.....
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
To each their own opinion. I'm guessing by the way this is stated you believe in a higher entity, right? I believe in higher power and God, but not fully sure if God created by biblical/Christian religion is fully factual. Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.
-
Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.
That's your reasoning? Have you ever watched the news?!
-
Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.
Pure pure naivety.
-
Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.
That's your reasoning? Have you ever watched the news?!
What reasoning? Chaotic confusion and fear abounds due to a lack of reasoning.
-
To answer your question, I believe in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is my God.
-
Dewey, The Ant Hill God.
Sums it up pretty good.......
http://youtu.be/Y2p6bKD3YIw
-
To answer your question, I believe in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is my God.
Agreed!
-
I think we all create our own God, perhaps that is why religion is the biggest debate. I do believe theirs a God our creation, what a blessing.
-
If you believe that God is fake, then I feel sorry for you. God is FREE and the Almighty is always there for EVERYONE, even for those who think the Almighty is not the Almighty...
-
God is not fake. God is real. God is Love.
-
we all are individuals... Its great to have a belief system.. its even better to allow others to have theirs w/o passing judgements. God is the way to freedom, justice, love & equality, I thought. Its a blessing to acknowledge I'm not here to NOT pass judgement but to stirve for abundance of everything thats beautiful. May you be bless always.
-
GOD IS NOT A FAKE but those in hip hip /rap are fake microphone checkers.
-
Gotta figure Something makes this complex world stable! Otherwise we'd all be in chaotic confusion and fear.
That's your reasoning? Have you ever watched the news?!
If you feel this way than u are too for he made you in His image. God help you
-
If you believe that God is fake, then I feel sorry for you. God is FREE and the Almighty is always there for EVERYONE, even for those who think the Almighty is not the Almighty...
I feel sorry for anyone that has to believe in an invisible friend that loves and cares for them to be able to cope with life rather then dealing with reality.
-
YIKES...God isnt just your friend he is your creator and he isnt imaginary. But you can believe what you want I guess thats your right. But my right is to believe that he is real. I know He is!!! :)
-
God is FREE and the Almighty is always there for EVERYONE, even for those who think the Almighty is not the Almighty...
What an arrogant and completely baseless presumption that is. Were it not, evidence could be provided for such an assumption.
-
he is your creator and he isnt imaginary.
My parents created me, and as for god... godisimaginary.com (http://godisimaginary.com) ;)
-
he is your creator and he isnt imaginary.
My parents created me, and as for god... godisimaginary.com (http://godisimaginary.com) ;)
Thanks for that link, QoN. Although I've used several of the 50 arguments over the years, it's good to have a concise summation of them all in one place. I especially enjoyed the abiogenesis information.
-
This is awesome ! I need to paint this lol! (http://i.imgur.com/Yw4NF.jpg)
-
Thanks for that link, QoN.
Oh yeah, it's a great one! Anyone who reads through it with honesty and critical thinking will walk away changed.
Cuppycake: Love the depiction of a FSM Jesus! :D
-
Thanks for that link, QoN.
Oh yeah, it's a great one! Anyone who reads through it with honesty and critical thinking will walk away changed.
Somehow, it is doubtful that those who do not demonstrate much along the lines of critical thinking skills will consider the 50 arguments. I found a few 'loose ends' in some of the reasoning employed however, I'm disinclined to lead every horse to water.
-
Thanks for that link, QoN.
Oh yeah, it's a great one! Anyone who reads through it with honesty and critical thinking will walk away changed.
Cuppycake: Love the depiction of a FSM Jesus! :D
Thanks lol! My husband found it and I had to share lol! :D
-
If God is fake, then where did all those Dinosaur bones come from?
-
If God is fake, then where did all those Dinosaur bones come from?
you do realize that evolution voids information provided by those that believe in creationism. one reason , all those dinosaur bones as you call the for the most part predate the dates listed in the bible. as it is proven that man did not coexist with the dinosaurs at the same time.
-
If God is fake, then where did all those Dinosaur bones come from?
Those came from dinosaurs who died millions of years before xtianity was fabricated from other cultural myths.
-
If God is fake, then where did all those Dinosaur bones come from?
X-D Where have you been, man!? I miss you!
Those came from dinosaurs who died millions of years before xtianity was fabricated from other cultural myths.
Explain Raptor Jesus then!
-
If God is fake, then where did all those Dinosaur bones come from?
Those came from dinosaurs who died millions of years before xtianity was fabricated from other cultural myths.
Explain Raptor Jesus then!
Must be the work of cro-magnon satan.
-
I don't believe in a god per-say. but let me elaborate...
I'm not christian. I grew up in a church and what is believed I find ridiculous. Born of a virgin, rose three days later, new testament written hundreds of years after his death? sounds a litle shady to me. I believe in reason. Scientific theories seem to make the most sense but If you have a better explanation I will listen and consider it. I don't believe that there was someone THAT remarkable on the earth. I also do not believe that there is a person that will pick a few people to go to this "Heaven" and send, lets say for example, Buddhist monk who will not kill a fly or ant or spider or any creature and spends days meditating in peace, into this "Hell" just because he does not believe in him.
I like aspects of certain religions though. I appreciate the philosophy of Buddhism and love the calming effect of meditation. I also love Wicca for all the love of nature that runs though it.
Personally, I believe in mother earth. I believe in nature. I'm not a hippie or tree huger but I love how deeply I can connect with this living thing called nature. It's just me though. I absoutly respect every religion... as long as you can respect that I do not believe in it. I will listen to any views one may have but never be offended if I respectfully say "I do not believe that" It's not you... it's me :peace:
-
I don't believe in a god per-say. but let me elaborate...
I'm not christian. I grew up in a church and what is believed I find ridiculous. Born of a virgin, rose three days later, new testament written hundreds of years after his death? sounds a litle shady to me. I believe in reason. Scientific theories seem to make the most sense but If you have a better explanation I will listen and consider it. I don't believe that there was someone THAT remarkable on the earth. I also do not believe that there is a person that will pick a few people to go to this "Heaven" and send, lets say for example, Buddhist monk who will not kill a fly or ant or spider or any creature and spends days meditating in peace, into this "Hell" just because he does not believe in him.
I like aspects of certain religions though. I appreciate the philosophy of Buddhism and love the calming effect of meditation. I also love Wicca for all the love of nature that runs though it.
Personally, I believe in mother earth. I believe in nature. I'm not a hippie or tree huger but I love how deeply I can connect with this living thing called nature. It's just me though. I absoutly respect every religion... as long as you can respect that I do not believe in it. I will listen to any views one may have but never be offended if I respectfully say "I do not believe that" It's not you... it's me :peace:
From what I'm reading here, would I be correct in saying that you, in return of my respect for your belief, would also extend the same respect for my belief? If so, then I thank you for that. It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect like you are talking about.
-
It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect ...
More often than not, religious believers do not respect opposing reason, (even while applying the misnomer of 'belief' to reasoning). Instead, many of these believers claim to extend "respect" to other 'religions' but, not to non-religious positions. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect.
-
It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect ...
More often than not, religious believers do not respect opposing reason, (even while applying the misnomer of 'belief' to reasoning). Instead, many of these believers claim to extend "respect" to other 'religions' but, not to non-religious positions. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect.
My question was to the other poster. I already know where you stand in regards to my beliefs. I respect your beliefs (or non-beliefs) and am not wanting to go in circles with you. Thank you. :)
-
It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect ...
More often than not, religious believers do not respect opposing reason, (even while applying the misnomer of 'belief' to reasoning). Instead, many of these believers claim to extend "respect" to other 'religions' but, not to non-religious positions. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect.
My question was to the other poster. I already know where you stand in regards to my beliefs. I respect your beliefs (or non-beliefs) and am not wanting to go in circles with you. Thank you. :)
You have it exactly right! ^_^ I believe that everyone has their own religious path that they make and who am I to say that they are wrong?! I have no right. In fact, upon listening to them, I may be swayed t'words their belief. If it makes sense to you and helps you in the hard times and proves its self again and again to be right, then how am I suppose to say it's wrong? It may not be the way for me, but I am happy you have found something so inspirational and meaningful. ^_^ As long as someone is happy and understands it completely and it makes sense then it is right. Just don't try to tell me I'm wrong just because I have found that happiness and understanding in a way that is different. :heart:
-
It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect ...
More often than not, religious believers do not respect opposing reason, (even while applying the misnomer of 'belief' to reasoning). Instead, many of these believers claim to extend "respect" to other 'religions' but, not to non-religious positions. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect.
My question was to the other poster. I already know where you stand in regards to my beliefs.
Since this is an open forum, anyone is free to comment or not on what is posted, (regardless of who it was posted to). That said, baseless religious beliefs do not "respect" reason, they disregard it.
I respect your beliefs (or non-beliefs) and am not wanting to go in circles with you. Thank you. :)
I can understand your not wanting to debate this topic however, I dispute your claim to "respect" my position that your "beliefs" disrepect reason.
-
It is each our own choice as to what we believe and I respect others for their choices that are different from mine. Some people of opposite beliefs call my beliefs fairy tale, myth, etc. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect ...
More often than not, religious believers do not respect opposing reason, (even while applying the misnomer of 'belief' to reasoning). Instead, many of these believers claim to extend "respect" to other 'religions' but, not to non-religious positions. That is not extending the same courtesy of respect.
My question was to the other poster. I already know where you stand in regards to my beliefs.
Since this is an open forum, anyone is free to comment or not on what is posted, (regardless of who it was posted to). That said, baseless religious beliefs do not "respect" reason, they disregard it.
I respect your beliefs (or non-beliefs) and am not wanting to go in circles with you. Thank you. :)
I can understand your not wanting to debate this topic however, I dispute your claim to "respect" my position that your "beliefs" disrepect reason.
Your responses are exactly why I respectfully do not want to go in the same circles of discussion that we have already had in previous threads and posts. You can dispute my claim and that's your choice. Your disputation does not change my view or my beliefs in any way whatsoever. Just because you, as one person, dispute my beliefs because in your view mine disrespect reason, does not mean that you are the almighty correct judge.
Rupprechts10, thank you for your kind and understanding response! :)
-
Your responses are exactly why I respectfully do not want to go in the same circles of discussion that we have already had in previous threads and posts.
I concur. As previously indicated, non-reasoned 'belief/faith' seems only able to argue in "circles" in the face of reason.
You can dispute my claim and that's your choice. Your disputation does not change my view or my beliefs in any way whatsoever.
Exactly; unreasoned 'faith/belief' so often claims to be impervious to reason while retreating before it nonetheless.
Just because you, as one person, dispute my beliefs because in your view mine disrespect reason, does not mean that you are the almighty correct judge.[/color]
First, it is not just one person disputing this, (as multiple replies from several others have shown). Secondly, I never claimed to be an "almighty correct judge"; instead, I've questioned the basis of religious beliefs in general, (as well as specifically challenging your beliefs). How strong is a "belief" which cannot withstand questioning it?
-
First, it is not just one person disputing this, (as multiple replies from several others have shown). Secondly, I never claimed to be an "almighty correct judge"; instead, I've questioned the basis of religious beliefs in general, (as well as specifically challenging your beliefs). How strong is a "belief" which cannot withstand questioning it?
Precisely. A faith-based/religious belief is pretty much the same as an empty opinion. The only difference between the two is one you must tread carefully with since the person may hold it as truth and get disgruntled when the reality of the falsehood is presented. The other is usually up for discussion/agrument and malleable to reason.
-
A faith-based/religious belief is pretty much the same as an empty opinion. The only difference between the two is one you must tread carefully with since the person may hold it as truth and get disgruntled when the reality of the falsehood is presented.
In practice, there really is no discernable difference between the two since a person clinging to an empty opinion, (that is, one with no valid basis or, having a false basis), will just as often hold it as a truth and get defensively-disgruntled when such an opinion is demonstrated to be empty. While there may be varying degrees of emotional investment in either an empty opinion or, a faith-based religious belief, neither stands up to reason.
The other is usually up for discussion/agrument and malleable to reason.
Sometimes however, more often than not, those holding such empty opinions are disinclined to engage in reasoned debate which questions them.
Given several previous responses regarding this matter, such resistance to rationality is probably a common human behaviour among many. As pervasive as the phenomenon appears to be, there remain those who are open to reason and argumentative discussion.
-
In practice, there really is no discernable difference between the two since a person clinging to an empty opinion, (that is, one with no valid basis or, having a false basis), will just as often hold it as a truth and get defensively-disgruntled when such an opinion is demonstrated to be empty. While there may be varying degrees of emotional investment in either an empty opinion or, a faith-based religious belief, neither stands up to reason.
I suppose so. In my experience, religious beliefs are just so awkwardly and reluctantly sealed from reason whereas discussing other interests with people (such as politics for instance) they seem much more willing to think when the obvious evidence goes against their belief. Granted this is not always the case...I suppose I'm talking from my perspective only since this is just the trend that I've noticed.
Given several previous responses regarding this matter, such resistance to rationality is probably a common human behaviour among many. As pervasive as the phenomenon appears to be, there remain those who are open to reason and argumentative discussion.
I'm one to think that the older religious generations of people aren't worth arguing religion with since it's so 'default' and has been hammered into them all of their life. Any resistance to their belief sytems usually turns into circular reasoning (or just plain nonsense) which you've already pointed out. I still find it entertaining though!
Oh btw I haven't been posting much lately and have sort of bailed on a few past threads. December = super busy for me. Hope you and everyone else are doing well!
-
In my experience, religious beliefs are just so awkwardly and reluctantly sealed from reason whereas discussing other interests with people (such as politics for instance) they seem much more willing to think when the obvious evidence goes against their belief. Granted this is not always the case...I suppose I'm talking from my perspective only since this is just the trend that I've noticed.
It seems to me that there is an almost 'natural' tendency of resistance to challenging any belief. Ranging from mild reluctance to extreme defensiveness.
I'm one to think that the older religious generations of people aren't worth arguing religion with since it's so 'default' and has been hammered into them all of their life. Any resistance to their belief sytems usually turns into circular reasoning (or just plain nonsense) which you've already pointed out. I still find it entertaining though!
Entrenched positions cannot be overcome without extensive artillery support and ground forces.
Oh btw I haven't been posting much lately and have sort of bailed on a few past threads. December = super busy for me. Hope you and everyone else are doing well!
No worries. Have a good solstice and post when convienent.
-
If you were saved you would know different
-
If you were saved you would know different
But I have been. Saved through medical technology. If that didn't exist when I was 5, I would have surely died.
-
God is not fake. God is real. God is Love.
If god is your idea of love then I'd never want to see what you do to people you hate.
-
If you were saved you would know different
If jesus saves, the devil would have a more disversified investment portfolio and therefore, a greater rate of return. Fortunately, both are mythical investors and neither pays significant dividends.
-
I would like to say I am disturbed by your comment, but I'm not. So many people are disbelievers. And I feel sympathy for them. I know what God has done in my life and continues to do in my life. You are entitled to your beliefs and I can't judge for them. I can just pray one day you will realize that God loves you always. :angel11:
-
I would like to say I am disturbed by your comment, but I'm not. So many people are disbelievers. You are entitled to your beliefs
By definition, a disbelief is not a belief. You are entitled to irrationality however, as one would suppose.
-
To think that there is a God is not a bad thing. I know there is a God because without him who do you put your faith in.
-
I would like to say I am disturbed by your comment, but I'm not. So many people are disbelievers. And I feel sympathy for them. I know what God has done in my life and continues to do in my life. You are entitled to your beliefs and I can't judge for them. I can just pray one day you will realize that God loves you always. :angel11:
my stepmother went to church, eas baptised and loved to drink the blood of the lord.. then would turn to physical and emotional abuse to et her point accross. so why would he be there for her, but not for a child?
-
To think that there is a God is not a bad thing.
Tell that to the families of the those who died because of religious beliefs.
I know there is a God because without him who do you put your faith in.
The 'reasoning' is faulty since there is no need to put "faith" in any unfounded premise. Further, claiming to "know" without evidence isn't knowledge, it's an unsupported opinion.
-
So many people are disbelievers.
Incorrect. We are still in the minority.
I can just pray one day you will realize that God loves you always.
Most nonreligious were once religious...therefore, we have pretended that your invisible friend liked us at one point. ;)
-
This topic is still on the first page? ???
It's the topic that wouldn't DIE!!!!!!!! :o
-
Yes, JediJohnnie, I agree. I can't believe this is still going on. Can someone stop it?
BTW, how many of those people on here who do not believe in God celebrated Christmas? Just wondered.
-
BTW, how many of those people on here who do not believe in God celebrated Christmas? Just wondered.
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
-
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
God made Christmas Eve. Not Christmas Steve.
-
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
God made Christmas Eve. Not Christmas Steve.
Like Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (I heard that this week.)
-
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
God made Christmas Eve. Not Christmas Steve.
It is the sun's declination, rather than a mythic deity's inclination, which results in the winter solstice being less luminous.
There's no inclination, sans declaration, to attribute Steve, Eve or Adam's being to a source more or less numinous.
-
It is the sun's declination, rather than a mythic deity's inclination, which results in the winter solstice being less luminous.
There's no inclination, sans declaration, to attribute Steve, Eve or Adam's being to a source more or less numinous.
Proposterous! There's nothing wrong with christian historical facts! Not one thing at all!
-
It is the sun's declination, rather than a mythic deity's inclination, which results in the winter solstice being less luminous.
There's no inclination, sans declaration, to attribute Steve, Eve or Adam's being to a source more or less numinous.
Proposterous! There's nothing wrong with christian historical facts! Not one thing at all!
Not a thing - unless you're a stickler for accuracy.
-
BTW, how many of those people on here who do not believe in God celebrated Christmas? Just wondered.
Not me. Although it has more to do with the commercialism than your imaginary friend.
BTW, how many of those people on here who do believe in god partook in any one of the countless pagan traditions associated with the holiday?
Checkmate, hypocrite.
-
Yes, JediJohnnie, I agree. I can't believe this is still going on. Can someone stop it?
BTW, how many of those people on here who do not believe in God celebrated Christmas? Just wondered.
so you honestly believe that christmas is based on christianity. lets keep taking credit for everything even when that is not where christmas holiday came from
-
It breaks my heart to see all the arguments in the particular section. This is the devil at his finest. We are all entitled to our different opinions, doesnt mean we have to argue or have harsh words. I believe in the Almighty God and Jesus Christ our Saviour. This is my opinion! :angel12:
-
It breaks my heart to see all the arguments in the particular section. This is the devil at his finest. We are all entitled to our different opinions, doesnt mean we have to argue or have harsh words. I believe in the Almighty God and Jesus Christ our Saviour. This is my opinion! :angel12:
Unfortunately, some in here do not agree with our believing in God. They don't consider it an opinion either. Rather that we believe in a myth or fairytale, etc. They refuse to listen to any other view point unless a Christian can show proof of God from a scientific point of view only. They don't believe in the "faith" approach. I hope you had a Merry Christmas (which they don't agree with our reason of why we celebrate it either) with your family and friends. :)
-
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
God made Christmas Eve. Not Christmas Steve.
It is the sun's declination, rather than a mythic deity's inclination, which results in the winter solstice being less luminous.
There's no inclination, sans declaration, to attribute Steve, Eve or Adam's being to a source more or less numinous.
Wow! Such nice big words to try and make your point. At least you are consistent in this and never give up. Doesn't change anything, however, but keep up the hard work.
-
We acknowledged winter solstice at my house. What's this "christmas" you write of?
God made Christmas Eve. Not Christmas Steve.
It is the sun's declination, rather than a mythic deity's inclination, which results in the winter solstice being less luminous.
There's no inclination, sans declaration, to attribute Steve, Eve or Adam's being to a source more or less numinous.
Wow! Such nice big words to try and make your point. At least you are consistent in this and never give up. Doesn't change anything, however, but keep up the hard work.
It was merely some sardonic solstice poetry however, irrational religious beliefs cannot change the phenomenon of solstice into something fictional.
-
Unfortunately, some in here do not agree with our believing in God. They don't consider it an opinion either. Rather that we believe in a myth or fairytale, etc. They refuse to listen to any other view point unless a Christian can show proof of God from a scientific point of view only. They don't believe in the "faith" approach.
Basic proof is all that is asked for. People who do not agree with religious dogma do not refuse to listen. If that were true, the creationist movement would have never broken and collapsed into the ID movement. The problem is the "evidence" provided by believers is full of massive obvious problems and deranged thought processes (example- "To know I am right about my god existing, you must use faith and not know.") . When the problems are shed to light and challenged, it always goes back to the childish 'god-of-the-gaps' reasonings. And when you can fill a hole with a deity, you can fill it with literally anything that comes to mind.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas (which they don't agree with our reason of why we celebrate it either) with your family and friends.
Well you do know the christians flat-out stole the original celebrations and morphed it into their own, right? In that case you'd be correct. We don't want to associate ourselves with thieves attempting to cover up the blotches on their record. But, like the *bleep* history of soccer, we like what it has become in the present- a good excuse to get together with friends and family and have a great time. With those aspects, I hope you had a Merry Xmas too!
-
Unfortunately, some in here do not agree with our believing in God. They don't consider it an opinion either. Rather that we believe in a myth or fairytale, etc. They refuse to listen to any other view point unless a Christian can show proof of God from a scientific point of view only. They don't believe in the "faith" approach.
Basic proof is all that is asked for. People who do not agree with religious dogma do not refuse to listen. If that were true, the creationist movement would have never broken and collapsed into the ID movement. The problem is the "evidence" provided by believers is full of massive obvious problems and deranged thought processes (example- "To know I am right about my god existing, you must use faith and not know.") . When the problems are shed to light and challenged, it always goes back to the childish 'god-of-the-gaps' reasonings. And when you can fill a hole with a deity, you can fill it with literally anything that comes to mind.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas (which they don't agree with our reason of why we celebrate it either) with your family and friends.
Well you do know the christians flat-out stole the original celebrations and morphed it into their own, right? In that case you'd be correct. We don't want to associate ourselves with thieves attempting to cover up the blotches on their record. But, like the *bleep* history of soccer, we like what it has become in the present- a good excuse to get together with friends and family and have a great time. With those aspects, I hope you had a Merry Xmas too!
Thank you for backing up what I explained to the other poster. At least it proved I was telling her the truth. :)
-
Unfortunately, some in here do not agree with our believing in God. They don't consider it an opinion either.
On the contrary, such beliefs are nominally considered to be baseless opinions, (that is, having no evidentiary foundations).
Rather that we believe in a myth or fairytale, etc. They refuse to listen to any other view point unless a Christian can show proof of God from a scientific point of view only.
Your characterization isn't entirely accurate. Firstly, there is no evidence that such religious beliefs have any substantive basis other than baseless 'faith'. Secondly, no effective rational arguement has been presented to support such views, (sans the logically-invalid Pascal's Wager), let alone any "scientific point of view".
They don't believe in the "faith" approach.
That was ironically phrased, (in essence, not having 'faith' in 'faith' is a humorous phrasing) however, it is basically correct since 'faith' is a belief despite, (and even in spite of), a lack of evidence. If unreasoned spite constitutes an aspect of 'faith', more irony ensues.
-
Thank you for backing up what I explained to the other poster. At least it proved I was telling her the truth. :)
What truth; that empty religious claims are often made and challenged?
-
Thank you for backing up what I explained to the other poster. At least it proved I was telling her the truth.
+
What truth; that empty religious claims are often made and challenged?
I suppose it depends on what the person thinks the difference is between "opinion" and "belief".
-
Well you do know the christians flat-out stole the original celebrations and morphed it into their own, right? We don't want to associate ourselves with thieves attempting to cover up the blotches on their record. But, like the *bleep* history of soccer, we like what it has become in the present- a good excuse to get together with friends and family and have a great time.
It's a wonder how these xtians can selectively overlook such facts which contradict their evidence-lacking beliefs. Must be an xmyth miracle.
-
I suppose it depends on what the person thinks the difference is between "opinion" and "belief".
There remains a distinctive difference between a substantiated, (or, 'considered'), opinion and an unsupported one which continues to escape those holding religious 'beliefs'.
-
I was an atheist until I realized I was God. That is too cool.
Why didn,t I think of that.
-
There remains a distinctive difference between a substantiated, (or, 'considered'), opinion and an unsupported one which continues to escape those holding religious 'beliefs'.
True.
-
I looked at this discussion shortly after it began - waaaay back when. Then I looked at it a few days ago when I realized it was still going. That is when I made a comment. I don't mind if people call me names (although I thought that was not allowed on the forum). However, it is interesting to me how vitriolic people can be when it comes to this subject. It makes me wonder why people expend so much energy on a subject when neither side is likely to be swayed. And, after all, you are entitled to your own opinions, as am I. I also wonder how many people have done any in-depth studies on the subject - and I mean higher education, not just the Internet. Have you really studied ancient Greek and Latin to find out how the languages have developed to the modern day, and thus many of the customs? Have you studied archeology? More and more of the modern archeologists have said that their work is proving that Biblical narratives and locations are more accurate than many people have believed. Have you studied ancient history up to the modern day to see how countries and customs have evolved? There is so much more involved than just taking a theory that someone has put forth and repeating it as fact. Many years ago when I was a teenager I had many questions about the Bible and how certain things and events could have really been possible. I have learned much since then after studying in college and doing personal research. When you know how ancient writers wrote and how the Bible has been translated again and again, you realize that, although much of it is written in the symbolism of the day, the core of the message is always the same. I am not a literalist; I have a brain. I hope you guys can find something more constructive to do than throwing slurs and calling people names and passing judgement on people you don't even know. There are so many better ways to spend your energies - like helping the less fortunate.
-
It makes me wonder why people expend so much energy on a subject when neither side is likely to be swayed.
The point is educating the uneducated and showing the obvious faults of their reasonings.
Have you really studied ancient Greek and Latin to find out how the languages have developed to the modern day, and thus many of the customs? Have you studied archeology? More and more of the modern archeologists have said that their work is proving that Biblical narratives and locations are more accurate than many people have believed. Have you studied ancient history up to the modern day to see how countries and customs have evolved?
You ask these questions but post no proofs about what you mean.
Many years ago when I was a teenager I had many questions about the Bible and how certain things and events could have really been possible. I have learned much since then after studying in college and doing personal research. When you know how ancient writers wrote and how the Bible has been translated again and again, you realize that, although much of it is written in the symbolism of the day, the core of the message is always the same.
First, where did you attend school? Second, if the core message exists, why are there thousands upon thousands of different sects of christianity that argue about the most mildest of things? "This word means this!" "No! It means this!". They tend to promote completely different core messages. Example being Catholicism vs. Westboro vs Latter Day Saints vs. etc. If you're going to tell me they fall to the good ol' "misinterpretation" excuse, you fall into a massive contradiction with your words.
I hope you guys can find something more constructive to do than throwing slurs and calling people names and passing judgement on people you don't even know. There are so many better ways to spend your energies - like helping the less fortunate.
Or maybe learning a thing or two on some random forum that gives you money.
-
I looked at this discussion shortly after it began - waaaay back when. Then I looked at it a few days ago when I realized it was still going. That is when I made a comment. I don't mind if people call me names (although I thought that was not allowed on the forum).
In which replies were you called names? Your complaint had no specific references and made an unspecified claim.
However, it is interesting to me how vitriolic people can be when it comes to this subject. It makes me wonder why people expend so much energy on a subject when neither side is likely to be swayed. And, after all, you are entitled to your own opinions, as am I.
As mentioned, there is significant difference between an unsupported opinion, (religious belief), and a substantiated one. Your 'entitlement' to an unsubstantiated opinion remains however, it still cannot be conflated to one which has a substantive basis. It is somewhat revealing when religious proponents comment that they are unlikely to be swayed, (by reason opposing their 'faith').
I also wonder how many people have done any in-depth studies on the subject - and I mean higher education, not just the Internet. Have you really studied ancient Greek and Latin to find out how the languages have developed to the modern day, and thus many of the customs? Have you studied archeology?
Yes, yes and yes. I found my comparative religions courses to be remarkably similar to mythology studies. The evidence showing how different cultures "borrowed" various beliefs and modified them was particularly emphasized by xtian cultural thefts.
More and more of the modern archeologists have said that their work is proving that Biblical narratives and locations are more accurate than many people have believed.
Which ones; what references support your claim?
Have you studied ancient history up to the modern day to see how countries and customs have evolved? There is so much more involved than just taking a theory that someone has put forth and repeating it as fact.
Yep, have you, (not including any parochial schooling)?
Many years ago when I was a teenager I had many questions about the Bible and how certain things and events could have really been possible. I have learned much since then after studying in college and doing personal research. When you know how ancient writers wrote and how the Bible has been translated again and again, you realize that, although much of it is written in the symbolism of the day, the core of the message is always the same. I am not a literalist; I have a brain. I hope you guys can find something more constructive to do than throwing slurs and calling people names and passing judgement on people you don't even know.
Again, what "slurs and calling people names" are you referring to? This 'injured martyr' bit isn't uncommon when those making unsupported religious claims are challenged to substantiate their claims.
-
It makes me wonder why people expend so much energy on a subject when neither side is likely to be swayed.
The point is educating the uneducated and showing the obvious faults of their reasonings.
Also, there is the off-chance that reason will be employed instead of making unreasoned and unsupported claims.
-
God is different for everyone. It is not a matter of fake or real. It is about what gets you through the day.
-
I once prayed for a bike. I got said bike. God.... or the Secret?
-
I once prayed for a bike. I got said bike. God.... or the Secret?
Inapplicable attribution, (unless "god" personally showed up with your bike - 'working through others' does not constitute a valid attribution).
-
I once prayed for a bike. I got said bike. God.... or the Secret?
Inapplicable attribution, (unless "god" personally showed up with your bike - 'working through others' does not constitute a valid attribution).
Even then, if someone told me a giant being claiming to be god showed up and gave him his bike I would think he was either lying or hallucinating. Heck, if I saw it I would think I was hallucinating.
-
I once prayed for a bike. I got said bike. God.... or the Secret?
Inapplicable attribution, (unless "god" personally showed up with your bike - 'working through others' does not constitute a valid attribution).
Even then, if someone told me a giant being claiming to be god showed up and gave him his bike I would think he was either lying or hallucinating. Heck, if I saw it I would think I was hallucinating.
Good point ... how about a physical receipt?
-
think what you wanna think but please respect others peoples beliefs... its true that some think that way i have no problem with that im born raised christian but no one cant control anyones behaviors... so i suggest please be respectful to others as we respect yours...
-
think what you wanna think but please respect others peoples beliefs... its true that some think that way i have no problem with that im born raised christian but no one cant control anyones behaviors... so i suggest please be respectful to others as we respect yours...
You must mean, 'unless yours consist of celebrating a fake fat man with a beard', aye?
-
think what you wanna think but please respect others peoples beliefs... its true that some think that way i have no problem with that im born raised christian but no one cant control anyones behaviors... so i suggest please be respectful to others as we respect yours...
You must mean, 'unless yours consist of celebrating a fake fat man with a beard', aye?
knock it off stop stalkin me.. reread what i said in the other posts.... damn you need to lighten up you *bleep*... thats what youve been saying too haven't you??? so stop with the bashing...
-
think what you wanna think but please respect others peoples beliefs... its true that some think that way i have no problem with that im born raised christian but no one cant control anyones behaviors... so i suggest please be respectful to others as we respect yours...
You must mean, 'unless yours consist of celebrating a fake fat man with a beard', aye?
knock it off stop stalkin me..
Responding to publically-written posts is not "stalkin". Anyone can choose to reply, (or not), to any posts made in these forums. Your false martyrdom stance will not support false 'victimhood'. We're both choosing to post replies here. Whining about the content of a debatable subject is specious.
reread what i said in the other posts....
I have read your barely articulate posts and replied to a few, (not all), of them. Were I "stalkin" you, I'd have replied to every one of your posts. Since this has not been the case, your martyred accusations are false.
damn you need to lighten up you *bleep*...
Direct name-calling in these forums, (e.g., "you *bleep*"), is frowned upon by the Admin.
thats what youve been saying too haven't you??? so stop with the bashing...
No, that's not what I've been writing. As far as "bashing" goes, look to your own bashing of "fake fat guy with a beard" before clinging to your false martyrdom so tightly.
-
i think religion has made me not believe in god sometimes i do and other times i don't
-
What do you mean as God is a fake??? You NEED to define what "fake" means to you.
I'm a Christian and I believe that God is real because I believe that He is real. He leads my life toward the right direction, forgives me when I makes a mistake, and provides me comfort when I need it. It's all about believing, hence being a religion!!!
-
I'm a Christian and I believe that God is real because I believe that He is real. He leads my life toward the right direction, forgives me when I makes a mistake, and provides me comfort when I need it. It's all about believing, hence being a religion!!!
Just to kindle a discussion- how do you know that it's a god and not actually you (or your mind) doing these things for you? And I'm one to believe there's a difference between an individuals spirituality and a religion, so I'm under the impression you meant spirituality as your last word. I could be wrong-- if so, correct me.
-
I'm a Christian and I believe that God is real because I believe that He is real. He leads my life toward the right direction, forgives me when I makes a mistake, and provides me comfort when I need it. It's all about believing, hence being a religion!!!
Just to kindle a discussion- how do you know that it's a god and not actually you (or your mind) doing these things for you? And I'm one to believe there's a difference between an individuals spirituality and a religion, so I'm under the impression you meant spirituality as your last word. I could be wrong-- if so, correct me.
I'm wondering about the "I believe that God is real because I believe that He is real" circularity. Maybe the OP can elaborate upon this without relying upon 'belief'?
-
First off; Christian stop thinking you have the answer for every God question. You'll don't bit more know anything more about God than any other religion. This is just America and so Christianity is largely promoted. Many believe, many don't. The real question is if you don't believe God put you here then you don't believe in a purpose of humankind. Do you believe your life is just because we evolved from animals in an intellectual standard. Do you believe in good and evil or positive and negative energy.
-
The real question is if you don't believe God put you here then you don't believe in a purpose of humankind.
What about alternative purposes which have nothing to do with deities?
Do you believe your life is just because we evolved from animals in an intellectual standard.
Belief doesn't enter into my considerations. Either life evolves or, it doesn't. Belief is irrelevant to the processes of life.
Do you believe in good and evil or positive and negative energy.
"Good and evil" are relative, subjective terms. "Positive and negative energy" either refers to cathodes and anodes, (possibly matter & anti-matter as well), or, some metaphysical and subjective value judgements. Since there is evidence that matter, anti-matter, positrons and electrons exist then 'belief' in them is unnecessary. There is no evidence of completely objective "good and evil" therefore, belief in either is a judgement-call.
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
I myself believe in my heavenly god and i believe that he is my personal savior some of the things thats happened to me had to come straight from god and thats my belief.
-
I myself believe ... and i believe ... and thats my belief.
The intervening wordage was omitted to emphasize the circularity expressed. The emphasis was made to pose this question; what would change if one did not engage in such in irrational process?
-
I believe in the God who became human and redeemed His creation by dying on a cross. Let's dispense with the "A Diety can't die" line of reasoning mainly because it happened. No other religion can make that claim. If one doesn't believe in that God, which is one's decision, then one is left to create a god of one's liking. Then you're back where you started with no god at all. Actually what happens is you make yourself god.
-
:icon_rr:
I believe in the God who became human and redeemed His creation by dying on a cross.
Although phrased as a belief, what is the rationale behind that idea?
Let's dispense with the "A Diety can't die" line of reasoning mainly because it happened.
Actually, that isn't a "line of reasoning", it's another belief and a declaration that "it happened" is another belief.
No other religion can make that claim.
On the contrary, the same idea came from prior pagan myths of Odin hanging from a tree for nine days to 'gain the runes' and an even earlier one concerning the Aegyptian Horus.
If one doesn't believe in that God, which is one's decision, then one is left to create a god of one's liking.
That isn't the only option available. If one doesn't believe in that "god", (or any "gods"), one is an atheist and there is no inherent requirement to create a "god" or, become one's own "god".
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe? I "believe" this is just your method of achieving your daily post.
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
To me God is my everything. If I keep my mind modervated in him I believe he will lead me and guide me from doing anything. But then if I stray from the wayside. He will be there to pick me and turn me around in the right direction. In order to feel this away. You much be born again in Christ. Know more about him by reading the Holy Bible. :wave: :angel12:
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page.
You have noticed that falcon9 isn't posting responses to his/her own posts, right? I mean, others (obviously) are participating in this discussion (topic), or there would be no posts for falcon9 to respond to.
What does it matter to you what other people believe?
Likewise, what does it matter to you that other people's beliefs matter to falcon9? If this is actually the case at all.
I don't think so, I think f9's responses simply address and challenge comments/statements that people are posting.
I "believe" this is just your method of achieving your daily post.
You believe that this is f9's method to achieve daily/monthly posts: OK. And your point is.......WHAT exactly?
I've seen "methods" people use, JUST to get those posts made, that are considerably more ridiculous, with CONSIDERABLY less effort put into the posts that are made.
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do ... (?)
I don't have a "frenetic urge" to post; it's more of a measured response to irrationality posted by others. I don't believe you are "just wondering" about this; I'd estimate that these challenges to others are uncomfortable to contemplate because you don't like 'faith' being questioned. If you honestly look within, is this a close estimate?
- day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe?
For one thing, it isn't "day after day, page after page"; I do reply to other posts, on other subject matters. As for what others may believe, it doesn't concern me until it leaves them realm of their own minds and impinges upon a public forum where comments ensue. Once such beliefs are made public, anyone can comment, (or not upon them). My comments reflect a disinclination for delusions promoted by religious beliefs. Such "beliefs" have directly lead to the deaths of millions of people, the technological impediment of millions of living people, (those who do not recall the dark ages may have to repeat them remedially), and these detriments have outweighed any 'benefits' of religious irrationality.
I "believe" this is just your method of achieving your daily post.
As stated, people are free to hold whatever 'beliefs' they wish to hold. It could be speculated that those expressing their 'beliefs' are doing so to acheive their 30 posts in the forums. If so, what does it matter?
-
You have noticed that falcon9 isn't posting responses to his/her own posts, right? I mean, others (obviously) are participating in this discussion (topic), or there would be no posts for falcon9 to respond to.
True, while I've started few topics so far, the vast majority of my posts have been responsive replies to others since I probably talk to myself quite enough already.
I think f9's responses simply address and challenge comments/statements that people are posting.
That's essentially what is done, although most of those to whom challenges are posted seem to feel that their unsupported opinions should go unchallenged. I'm not sure why that is, unless critical thinking is uncomfortable for them.
I've seen "methods" people use, JUST to get those posts made, that are considerably more ridiculous, with CONSIDERABLY less effort put into the posts that are made.
The speculation made sparked the converse speculation that some posters were making 'controversial' posts just to hit their 30 post mark, ("jedi johnnie" admitted to doing this himself for instance). That's fine with me and merely emphasizes that such speculations are made in lieu of actually answering the challenges.
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe?
This is what religious people always say when a topic gets discussed "too often" by an intelligent poster. Care to say something original for a change?
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe?
This is what religious people always say when a topic gets discussed "too often" by an intelligent poster. Care to say something original for a change?
:thumbsup: TY!! :)
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe?
This is what religious people always say when a topic gets discussed "too often" by an intelligent poster. Care to say something original for a change?
Such comments as several of those religious people made also come across as diversionary. Rather than examine why questioning or challenging their paradigms or beliefs makes them so uncomfortable, they'd prefer to divert attention away from their own discomfort. There may be a variety of explanations for this phenomenon however, the most common one is 'lazy thinking'. It's apparently much easier for some to avoid reasoning than it is to reason.
-
God is not a fake!
-
God is not a fake!
Naturally, you can produce substantive evidence for your claim then, can't you?
-
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure ...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
-
Just wondering, Falcon9, why you have this frenetic urge to post the responses you do - day after day, page after page. What does it matter to you what other people believe?
This is what religious people always say when a topic gets discussed "too often" by an intelligent poster. Care to say something original for a change?
I think the point was Why do Athiests here seem to have an ax to grind against people with faith?Not One post can go by making a simple statement of faith without being challenged.
BTW,there hasn't been an original thing said in defence of athiesm for 20 pages here.It's still the same tired "Prove it to me!!!!" nonsence.
-
I think the point was Why do Athiests here seem to have an ax to grind against people with faith?
What makes you assume that the only dissenting respondants are "atheists"? Why do religionists have "an axe to grind" against those who do not believe such nonsense?
Not One post can go by making a simple statement of faith without being challenged.
That's simply false. There are several declarations of "faith" posted here with no challenging replies made. Only a small cross-section of those declarations were challenged or, questioned.
BTW,there hasn't been an original thing said in defence of athiesm for 20 pages here.It's still the same tired "Prove it to me!!!!" nonsence.
Requesting substantiation of specious religious claims is not "prove it to me nonsence", (nonsense). Making unsubstantiated religious claims is specious nonsense. The reason, (and it is actually 'reason' used), that the same request is made is because the same specious religious claims continue to be made. Come up with some new claims, (instead of the "same tired" ones), and new refutations may ensue.
-
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
-
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
“The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives” - M. gandhi
-
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"Stop grabbing your quotes from the daily FC emails!!!"
-- Falconer02
lololololololololol
-
Each person has his/her own kind of faith, be it atheism, spiritual, christian, whatever. This is what gives us that inner strength to cope with the daily tribulations or get through the heart wrenching times. It is also what makes us unique. My vote goes to "Live and let live".
-
Each person has his/her own kind of faith, be it atheism, spiritual, christian, whatever. This is what gives us that inner strength to cope with the daily tribulations or get through the heart wrenching times. It is also what makes us unique. My vote goes to "Live and let live".
The thing is, atheism isn't any kind of "faith". While those holding opposing 'faiths' have killed one another, (and others), under the blood-soaked banner of religion for centuries. Where was the "live and let live" then?
-
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"Stop grabbing your quotes from the daily FC emails!!!"
-- Falconer02
lololololololololol
My dad used to say, "if the fish you're trolling for turns out to be a Marlin - outweighing you 5 to 1 - you might get yanked off the boat."
"For every quote, a counter-quote can be found." - falcon9
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
I can't belive people can say God is fake.Do you think about what is happening aoround you? Who worke you up this morning?
-
I can't belive people can say God is fake.Do you think about what is happening aoround you? Who worke you up this morning?
The fallacy of a false attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. No deities are required in order to wake up from sleep; conversely, believing in them is the opposite of awakening.
-
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"Stop grabbing your quotes from the daily FC emails!!!"
-- Falconer02
lololololololololol
My dad used to say, "if the fish you're trolling for turns out to be a Marlin - outweighing you 5 to 1 - you might get yanked off the boat."
"For every quote, a counter-quote can be found." - falcon9
"You can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up the bull's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." - Big Tom Callahan
-
"You can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up the bull's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." - Big Tom Callahan
Callahan is in error; that'd be a rump-roast.
-
"You can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up the bull's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." - Big Tom Callahan
Callahan is in error; that'd be a rump-roast.
You're in error.
-
"You can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up the bull's a$$, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." - Big Tom Callahan
Callahan is in error; that'd be a rump-roast.
You're in error.
Not in this instance; the "loin" is not the same as the '*bleep*-end'.
-
You're the "*bleep*-end"
-
You're the "*bleep*-end"
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than indicating a diversion from being incorrect. Here's one back atcha; were your parents siblings or, do you come by your idiocy inherently?
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
I believe in the one true God. The Christian God. To me there is no other God(s). Why are your 'realizing' that God is fake? What is bringing you to that decision?
-
I believe in the one true God. The Christian God. To me there is no other God(s).
How pretentious and denigrating to the believers in other deities and to those who believe in none. Perhaps the same disregard in your beliefs is warranted by such an attitude.
-
You're the "*bleep*-end"
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than indicating a diversion from being incorrect. Here's one back atcha; were your parents siblings or, do you come by your idiocy inherently?
You're an idiocy inherently.
-
You're an idiocy inherently.
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than demostrating your diminished literacy.
-
Lol, ha ha ha! Finally, some humor in here!!!
-
Lol, ha ha ha! Finally, some humor in here!!!
There's been a few instances of humor in here, mixed in among the 'bug-zapping' posts.
-
You're an idiocy inherently.
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than demostrating your diminished literacy.
You're a diminished literacy.
-
Lol, ha ha ha! Finally, some humor in here!!!
There's been a few instances of humor in here, mixed in among the 'bug-zapping' posts.
I was going to point out MY attempts at humor here, but I might be getting :confused1: confused as to which topics I have actually tried to throw bits of humor in......
I think I'm OKAY with the funny over in "Do you believe in god" but I don't know about here....
YET!!! ;D HA!
-
You're an idiocy inherently.
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than demostrating your diminished literacy.
Gotta agree with the falcon here.....
You're a diminished literacy.
:confused1: WTF IS that ??
You can't BE a diminished literacy.....you can HAVE it (as we've seen), and you can SHOW it (again, as seen here)
But you CANNOT BE A DIMINISHED LITERACY!!!!!
Especially not at the same time as you are busy being "an idiocy inherently" (whew I get tired just thinking about everything involved in being THAT)
and FOR SURE not while you are being a FALCON9 (I think that's the BIG falcon, not the JUNIOR falcon that we've heard about).
Where is that damn junior anyway??
-
You're an idiocy inherently.
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than demostrating your diminished literacy.
Gotta agree with the falcon here.....
You're a diminished literacy.
:confused1: WTF IS that ??
You can't BE a diminished literacy.....you can HAVE it (as we've seen), and you can SHOW it (again, as seen here)
But you CANNOT BE A DIMINISHED LITERACY!!!!!
Especially not at the same time as you are busy being "an idiocy inherently" (whew I get tired just thinking about everything involved in being THAT)
and FOR SURE not while you are being a FALCON9 (I think that's the BIG falcon, not the JUNIOR falcon that we've heard about).
Where is that damn junior anyway??
Can't you though? Think about it.
-
I like all the pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that gets thrown around here as much as anybody,so why hasn't anybody addressed the fact that the name of the topic is complete fallacy?You can believe that God exists or not,but He cannot exist and be a "fake". That's like saying God's the Wizard of Oz running some kind of light show while just being a man behind the curtain.It makes no sense. ::)
-
You're an idiocy inherently.
Your empty opinion is meaningless, other than demostrating your diminished literacy.
[/quote]
You're a diminished literacy.
Given the evidence you've submitted, you're an illiterate moron.
-
I like all the pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that gets thrown around here as much as anybody
Likely because you're the main source of such rhetoric.
so why hasn't anybody addressed the fact that the name of the topic is complete fallacy?You can believe that God exists or not,but He cannot exist and be a "fake". That's like saying God's the Wizard of Oz running some kind of light show while just being a man behind the curtain.It makes no sense. ::)
It may make no sense to you, (probably due to your diminshed reasoning ability) however, if the most commonly-believed conceptions of "god" were presented each aspect can be considered "fake" if not substantiated by evidence.
-
:confused1: WTF IS that ??
You can't BE a diminished literacy.....you can HAVE it (as we've seen), and you can SHOW it (again, as seen here)
But you CANNOT BE A DIMINISHED LITERACY!!!!!
Especially not at the same time as you are busy being "an idiocy inherently" (whew I get tired just thinking about everything involved in being THAT)
and FOR SURE not while you are being a FALCON9 (I think that's the BIG falcon, not the JUNIOR falcon that we've heard about).
Where is that damn junior anyway??
Can't you though? Think about it.
WUTT? ? ? :BangHead: I can't believe what I'm seeing sometimes...maybe I go have a cocktail(s) and see if I can read this _ _ _ _ ( :bs:) better then.
-
WUTT? ? ? :BangHead: I can't believe what I'm seeing sometimes...maybe I go have a cocktail(s) and see if I can read this _ _ _ _ ( :bs:) better then.
It's much more probable that "siggy" has failed to distract attention away from his not thinking about such things to any depth and is encouraging others to do it for him, (evidence exists in the form of several posts he made to that effect).
-
WUTT? ? ? :BangHead: I can't believe what I'm seeing sometimes...maybe I go have a cocktail(s) and see if I can read this _ _ _ _ ( :bs:) better then.
It's much more probable that "siggy" has failed to distract attention away from his not thinking about such things to any depth and is encouraging others to do it for him, (evidence exists in the form of several posts he made to that effect).
DID I?
-
DID I?
Indeed. By continued repetitions of the same inane inquiry, you've provided sufficient evidence to support the claim, haven't you?
[estimated response before this estimation: 'Have I?']
-
DID I?
Indeed. By continued repetitions of the same inane inquiry, you've provided sufficient evidence to support the claim, haven't you?
[estimated response before this estimation: 'Have I?']
Was it?
-
Just to explain how it works around here for the newbies.....If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
Have fun! :wave:
-
Just to explain how it works around here for the newbies.....If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists
That's how the process of debate works; by making a claim, the burden of proof falls to the claimant. Any evidence produced to then discussed, debated, refuted or substantiated. Any failure to produce substantive evidence renders the claim as specious.
-
If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/SMpfeWkPzkI/AAAAAAAAEQ4/9qjwWIzbM0w/s400/Real_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp)
If you're attempting to bash people who question magic and mythology, I believe you were born a little late-- the dark ages already came and went.
*rimshot*
I'm really sorry that all of these arguments pertaining to logic and reason are annoying you, but it's quite entertaining to us to watch you not add anything and instead try to come up with weak insults while keeping your cowardly religious zealotism shield up. Jolly good show!
-
If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/SMpfeWkPzkI/AAAAAAAAEQ4/9qjwWIzbM0w/s400/Real_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp)
If you're attempting to bash people who question magic and mythology, I believe you were born a little late-- the dark ages already came and went.
*rimshot*
I'm really sorry that all of these arguments pertaining to logic and reason are annoying you, but it's quite entertaining to us to watch you not add anything and instead try to come up with weak insults instead of putting your cowardly religious zealotism aside for a minute. Jolly good show!
It's becoming less entertaining to see them reuse Argumentum ad ignorantium - a logical allacy that something must be true because it has not been, or can't be, proven false. 'If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that means he must exist.'
-
It's becoming less entertaining to see them reuse Argumentum ad ignorantium - a logical allacy that something must be true because it has not been, or can't be, proven false. 'If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that means he must exist.'
That fallacy along with the others you had posted are usually boring, yes. How the person presents the fallacies is what keeps me interested.
-
That fallacy along with the others you had posted are usually boring, yes. How the person presents the fallacies is what keeps me interested.
That's a valid criteria. What if the way it's done by them is repetitious?
-
That's a valid criteria. What if the way it's done by them is repetitious?
Perhaps the freethinkers here are doing the same thing? Except...y'know...we're the sensible repitition?
-
Perhaps the freethinkers here are doing the same thing? Except...y'know...we're the sensible repitition?
It may be unreasonable to anticipate a different response to the same repetitions, however. On the other hand, one could consider such as a challenge to more creatively saying the same thing in a different way.
-
and FOR SURE not while you are being a FALCON9 (I think that's the BIG falcon, not the JUNIOR falcon that we've heard about). [/i]
Where is that damn junior anyway??
Hmm, I find it odd that the religious masses have labeled Falconer02 as the "junior", because he is actually the original "falcon" of this forum! As per usual, they don't pay attention to the facts... ;)
-
"Wheeee, wheeee, whee, whee, wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!" "Beer.....Adrenalin"
-
Hmm, I find it odd that the religious masses have labeled Falconer02 as the "junior", because he is actually the original "falcon" of this forum! As per usual, they don't pay attention to the facts... ;)
That is humorous although technically, a 'falconeer' is a falcon handler and not the falcon. That being said, I already have one of those according to my gf. As an aside, 'falcon9' happens to be an old airforce call-sign as well.
-
Just to explain how it works around here for the newbies.....If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
Have fun! :wave:
:thumbsup:
-
Hey Mack!Good to see you around again! :wave:
-
It may be unreasonable to anticipate a different response to the same repetitions, however. On the other hand, one could consider such as a challenge to more creatively saying the same thing in a different way.
Hmm, I find it odd that the religious masses have labeled Falconer02 as the "junior", because he is actually the original "falcon" of this forum! As per usual, they don't pay attention to the facts...
That is humorous although technically, a 'falconeer' is a falcon handler and not the falcon. That being said, I already have one of those according to my gf. As an aside, 'falcon9' happens to be an old airforce call-sign as well.
All true statements. What is the specific origin of your username?
-
What is the specific origin of your username?
I was honorably discharged from the USAF some time ago and was amused to see that call-sign used for the SpaceX Dragon series of rockets.
-
Will the real God please reveal yourself? Oh, wait, He has.
-
If we create a god to our liking then we become our own god.
-
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
-
Just to explain how it works around here for the newbies.....If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
Have fun! :wave:
:thumbsup:
Hey there, Mack! It's really nice to see you again! :)
-
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/prtee33/Jesusfood.jpg)
-
Sister Sharon Falconer, revivalist, states to Jim Lefferts, a newspaper reporter and agnostic/athiest, "Are you too proud to kneel Mr. Lefferts? God won't mind if you get a little dirt on your knees. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you" ;) :angel12: :angel11: :thumbsup: :wave: :peace:
-
Sister Sharon Falconer, revivalist, states to Jim Lefferts, a newspaper reporter and agnostic/athiest, "Are you too proud to kneel Mr. Lefferts? God won't mind if you get a little dirt on your knees. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you" ;) :angel12: :angel11: :thumbsup: :wave: :peace:
:thumbsup:
-
Sister Sharon Falconer, revivalist, states to Jim Lefferts, a newspaper reporter and agnostic/athiest, "Are you too proud to kneel Mr. Lefferts? God won't mind if you get a little dirt on your knees. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you"
To which Lefferts replied "I don't give head."
HIYOOOOOOOO!
-
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Darkness is not merely the absence of light unless light is merely the absence of darkness. - falcon9
-
Hey Mack!Good to see you around again! :wave:
You too! I've been extremely busy with school and work and finally had time to pop in!
-
Just to explain how it works around here for the newbies.....If you make a statement of Faith or profess to believe in God,you must submit the proof of your claims that God exists before the forum's tribunal of atheists.If your proof is anything less than a trip in Doc Brown's time machine to witness the Dawn of Time,the parting of the Red Sea,the Resurrection of Christ,etc,you are eligible to be summarily deemed a mental incompetent by the atheist's Superior intellect.
Have fun! :wave:
:thumbsup:
Hey there, Mack! It's really nice to see you again! :)
Same to you! Hope everything is going well, I see everything is still going strong here at D&D!
-
Will the real God please reveal yourself? Oh, wait, He has.
I don't watch "Ghost Hunters" and likely missed that episode.
-
"You got to be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there."
- Yogi Berra (1925-)
-
Will the real God please reveal yourself? Oh, wait, He has.
I don't watch "Ghost Hunters" and likely missed that episode.
Maybe it happened on an episode of "Ghost Hunters International".....
or even likelier.....on "Looking for Bigfoot"....?
:-X
-
"You got to be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there."
- Yogi Berra (1925-)
"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else." - Y. Berra
-
Nobody goes there, it's too crowded
-Yogi Berra
-
Nobody goes there, it's too crowded
-Yogi Berra
“You can observe a lot just by watching.” - Y. Berra
-
He who laughs last, laughs best.
-
He who laughs last, laughs best.
He who laughs last is slowest on the uptake.
-
I feel sorry for you that you think God is fake and I will pray for you! :angel11:
-
I feel sorry for you that you think God is fake and I will pray for you! :angel11:
That's nearly as presumptuous as the OP proclaiming the opposite with a lack of evidence. The 'praying' part also shows hubris and rudeness.
-
Wow, those are some SERIOUS words you are claiming there. I would rather die a believer and find that he DOESN'T exist, than to die a non-believer and find out he does!!!!
-
Wow, those are some SERIOUS words you are claiming there. I would rather die a believer and find that he DOESN'T exist, than to die a non-believer and find out he does!!!!
Your are paraphrasing Pascal's Wager, which is a false dichotomy. That is, either such an entity exists or, it does not and a belief or disbelief cannot affect the reality of such existance. If such existance is dependent upon 'belief' and non-existance upon disbelief, then reality is more pliable than currently experienced by both believers and non-believers.
-
About one second after you die you will realize the folly of your statement that God is a fake. Sadly, once you cross the line of death, you can't go back and change your mine. God gives you many opportunities to accept His free gift of eternal life with Him. But you gotta do it while your still alive. Another fact HELL is for eternity, with no escape clause included. I pray that you will come to know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and believe in Him before its to late.
-
God gives you many opportunities to accept His free gift of eternal life with Him.
How is adamantly obeying the rules of a god with harsh consequences on the other end a 'free gift'?
-
It's a free gift because you have to do anything to earn it. God gave you a free will. He doesn't want a bunch of robots in Heaven so He gave you a free will so you could choose to accept or reject Him. The only bad consequence is when you reject Jesus Christ and you then choose to spend eternity in Hell. So the only bad consequence is the decision you make when you reject Christ and His free gift. It's so amazing its free and you don't have to earn your way to Heaven. He's taken all the work out of He. He is a great and awesome God.
-
God gave you a free will.
That would be an unsubstantiated belief with which I do not concur.
He doesn't want a bunch of robots in Heaven so He gave you a free will so you could choose to accept or reject Him.
That would be a restatement of an unsubstantiated belief with which I still don't concur.
The only bad consequence is when you reject Jesus Christ and you then choose to spend eternity in Hell. So the only bad consequence is the decision you make when you reject Christ and His free gift.
Since I don't believe the empty claim, (empty, because it lacks any substantive basis whatsoever), the 'threat' of spending "eternity in hell" is an empty one. That being the case, there are no verifiable consequences of either accepting or rejecting such foundationless beliefs.
-
About one second after you die you will realize the folly of your statement that God is a fake.
The original poster of the thread title hasn't participated much since however, your claim is without basis, ('faith' being an unsubstantiated basis). This is because there is no way to verify your claim, (which makes it a dubious one).
Sadly, once you cross the line of death, you can't go back and change your mine. God gives you many opportunities to accept His free gift of eternal life with Him. But you gotta do it while your still alive.
What about those people who've been "clinically-dead" and 'returned'/resuscitated? Be that as it may, such beliefs again constitute empty claims because they rely upon empty 'faith'.
-
It's a free gift because you have to do anything to earn it.
Did you miss a word? I don't want to assume anything, so please rewrite if you wish.
He doesn't want a bunch of robots in Heaven so He gave you a free will so you could choose to accept or reject Him.
Rejecting him leads to eternal torture. Accepting him leads to a blissful eternity. Let's say you own a business and a mob boss walks in one day. He says "I own this street. You should follow and do what I say and accept me as your boss and I'll take good care of you. If you don't, I will have my goons beat you up and kill you." Obviously you have a choice, but are you exercising a free choice? You'd be coerced into saying "You're my boss" because you fear for your life-- just as you fear for your 'eternal soul' with your god.
The fact that fear plays a major element in both of these instances eliminates all traces of freedom. So how are either of these instances free or...more importantly...fair? Why can't one just run an honest business without fear of a mob boss?
-
It's a free gift because you have to do anything to earn it.
Did you miss a word? I don't want to assume anything, so please rewrite if you wish.
It's a good guess that the word "don't" was intended between "you" and "have". Nonetheless, your following analogy emphasizes that it is neither a "gift" nor, "free".
He doesn't want a bunch of robots in Heaven so He gave you a free will so you could choose to accept or reject Him.
Rejecting him leads to eternal torture. Accepting him leads to a blissful eternity. Let's say you own a business and a mob boss walks in one day. He says "I own this street. You should follow and do what I say and accept me as your boss and I'll take good care of you. If you don't, I will have my goons beat you up and kill you." Obviously you have a choice, but are you exercising a free choice? You'd be coerced into saying "You're my boss" because you fear for your life-- just as you fear for your 'eternal soul' with your god.
The fact that fear plays a major element in both of these instances eliminates all traces of freedom. So how are either of these instances free or...more importantly...fair? Why can't one just run an honest business without fear of a mob boss?
I've run across the depiction of this particular religious belief as the 'protection racket' analogy you've outlined. Like all analogies, this one fails because "god" presumably has no verified enforcement thugs and there's no substantive evidence that anyone ever got "beat up/sent to hell" for rejecting a specious belief.
-
I've run across the depiction of this particular religious belief as the 'protection racket' analogy you've outlined. Like all analogies, this one fails because "god" presumably has no verified enforcement thugs and there's no substantive evidence that anyone ever got "beat up/sent to hell" for rejecting a specious belief.
Well obviously it's realistically unverifiable. I'm just trying to show a problem within the claimants own grounds. Within the example though, the thugs represent Satan as he is god's own fallen angel. Admittedly not the best fit, it should still show one of the major problems within the belief of free will in xtianity.
-
I'm just trying to show a problem within the claimants own grounds. Within the example though, the thugs represent Satan as he is god's own fallen angel. Admittedly not the best fit, it should still show one of the major problems within the belief of free will in xtianity.
I'm not sure that "satan" fits as "god's thug" because 'he' supposedly bailed and isn't doing "god's" dirty work, (although more than one xtian has expressed the belief that it's part of "god's plan for satan to have 'fallen'"). The point, though, is as you say; it isn't exactly a freely-willed choice when there's a supernatural threat hanging over the chooser's head. A true choice would omit the threat.
-
"I was an atheist until I realized I was god" :P :thumbsup:
That's GREAT I have always wanted to meet you just not on your terms (I'm not ready for that long trip to heaven yet)do you think we could get together at my house for a few drinks? :wave:
-
About one second after you die you will realize the folly of your statement that God is a fake. Sadly, once you cross the line of death, you can't go back and change your mine. God gives you many opportunities to accept His free gift of eternal life with Him. But you gotta do it while your still alive. Another fact HELL is for eternity, with no escape clause included. I pray that you will come to know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and believe in Him before its to late.
You've been infected by the virus well. I feel bad for you.
-
The only bad consequence is when you reject Jesus Christ and you then choose to spend eternity in Hell.
Oh, is that all?
So the only bad consequence is the decision you make when you reject Christ and His free gift.
But I thought I had "free will", goddammit!
Stop dolling up your empty ultimatum with the term "free will". Say it like it is, for your god's sake: pledge allegiance to the Christian god and the Christian god only, or be tortured forever. And feel like a stupid scumbag afterwards if you have any ounce of humanity or common sense in you.
-
Hey there,
AS A CHRISTIAN MYSELF ,YOU HAVE TO WALK BY FAITH AND NOT BY SIGHT. IF GOD WAS FAKE HOW DO YOU THINK THE WORLD AND YOU WAS CREATED????? YOU WILL SEE HOW FAKE HE IS COME JUDEGMENT DAY. BUT I GUESS EVERYBODY HAS THERE ON OPINION ABOUT RELIGION BUT SOMETHINGS SHOULD JUST BE LEFT ALONE..
As a Christian, I'm a little confused at the the 'realization that God is fake'. Can you elaborate on your opinion? It's truly interesting!
A lot of the times, people go through troubling experiences and completely denote the existence of God based off of hardship (e.g. lost of loved one, death/incidents, wish not coming true, etc). While there are many answers to just about every problem we human beings are capable of having, what we feel and go through is just as important!
Pertaining to your question, though, that's another topic. I guess anyone can pick up a rock and call it god, but are we talking about looking for truth, or just what makes us feel better? That can be two different topics (and come on, usually it is!)
I think truth doesn't come easy to our ears, or definitely not to mine, because I'm usually 'set' in my ways. There are things I like to do and don't like to be told it's 'wrong' and feelings I like to feel that I don't care to change, etc. But then again, I think everyone may be like that at some point in their lives. Love the logic we alone build and call it truth - is it possible there's someone who knows more than us? Knows the best way to live? Knows truth? Yeah, looking for truth is a lot harder (again, I think it's because we make it hard!) then looking for something that makes us feel better. That's the easy part. Just look around in this world - media, idolizing celebs, etc. So many ways to just make us feel better, or as you said, 'pick your own god'.
I think if someone's going to pick something to idolize, hopefully that person understands..they just made it up! It's like believing a story that was clearly false. I believe Lord of the Rings was a true story! But if it makes me feel better, does it make it true?
Sorry to rant, I just think this branches off into another interesting topic - truth vs. self-gratification.
-
Hey there
Hey Z ... is there a reason that you reposted blast from the past?
-
God is not a being but a race. Ancient Astronauts are the term for this idea. They came down to earth for some reason and left us here to evolve. Our DNA is not different from Primates but we are. It comes down to what we actually know about ourselves and what we can expand on that.
-
In my opinion, all roads lead to the same God or eternal damnation.....
Before giving a strong opinion about God, you should research the different religions. Personally speaking, I am more spiritual than religious.
-
In my opinion, all roads lead to the same God or eternal damnation.....
Such an opinion completely ignores the tenets of other religions which neither "lead to the same god", nor to "eternal damnation." The sheer gall inherent in such a concept of lumping "all roads" together takes some hubris.
Before giving a strong opinion about God, you should research the different religions. Personally speaking, I am more spiritual than religious.
Since I have indeed researched many different religions, (not only the 'mainstream' ones and not only online but, 9 different 'pagan' ones in great depth - over a period of 40 years), perhaps one could say such an opinion is somewhat of an 'educated opinion'.
-
Cleverness is not wisdom.
Euripides
-
Cleverness is not wisdom.
Euripides
Quoting others does not confer wisdom, neither does it imply comprehension.
-
I don't believe in God. I believe God is a tool used by humans in power to manipulate and control people for thousands of years. I don't think religion is inherently bad just that it can be used to do lots of harm or lots of good in the world. Some people need religion to deal with what life has brought them and others chose other ways to deal with life. No way is better or worse than the other it is just a matter of preference.
-
You know that was very very well said. Congrats!
-
I don't believe in God. I believe God is a tool used by humans in power to manipulate and control people for thousands of years.
That would be religion, rather than a "god" not believed in however, I would agree that religions have been used as such tools throughout history.
I don't think religion is inherently bad just that it can be used to do lots of harm or lots of good in the world. Some people need religion to deal with what life has brought them and others chose other ways to deal with life. No way is better or worse than the other it is just a matter of preference.
Some ways are "worse" than others, as far as relying upon superstition and irrationality go, (as opposed to not doing so).
-
Rarely do I encounter someone so "intelligent" they feel the need to correct those who disagree with them AND those who do not.
-
Rarely do I encounter someone so "intelligent" they feel the need to correct those who disagree with them AND those who do not.
i also agree on that.. its just sad that they are still going at it.. its really pitiful LMFAO...
-
Rarely do I encounter someone so "intelligent" they feel the need to correct those who disagree with them AND those who do not.
If you had my posts on "ignore", you wouldn't encounter them at all. Unfortunately, such passive-aggressiveness as yours in not rare; were that it was.
-
its just sad that they are still going at it.. its really pitiful LMFAO...
Such false condecension and an inability to debate a contended point aren't just "pitiful"; they're disappointing tactics.
-
Rarely do I encounter someone so "intelligent" they feel the need to correct those who disagree with them AND those who do not.
C'mon falcon. You have to admit that is a decent dig. I Col'd. (chuckled out loud)
-
Rarely do I encounter someone so "intelligent" they feel the need to correct those who disagree with them AND those who do not.
C'mon falcon. You have to admit that is a decent dig. I Col'd. (chuckled out loud)
No doubt the fundie complimented me - in a backhanded sort of way.
-
Happy Easter to our Christian friends
Happy Passover to our Jewish friends
To Atheist friends, Good Luck!
-
To Atheist friends, Good Luck!
Are you sure you have atheist friends or, do you just believe that you do?
-
Ok here is my 2 cents even though I really believe that religion and politics should not be discussed because no 2 will ever agree on samething..lol
How does anyone know whether there is a GOD OR NOT. Last time I checked no one has died and cameback to tell us. So why not just drop it and move on unless you have a story of how you you have met or not met god in person.
-
How does anyone know whether there is a GOD OR NOT.(?)
Those who claim there is can either support their claim with evidence or, resort to blind faith. Those who claim there isn't would have a more difficult time providing evidence that something _doesn't_ exist. Therefore, the default is, (sans evidence to substantiate a positive assertion/claim), something doesn't exist if there is no evidence of its existence.
Last time I checked no one has died and cameback to tell us.
So far, no one has, (although Houdini promised he would, he copped-out ... which means that eitehr he couldn't manage that last trick or, that there wasn't anything to 'come back' from).
So why not just drop it and move on unless you have a story of how you you have met or not met god in person.
It would be dropped were it not for religionists making false claims, (unsupported ones), about "talking to god" a attributions claiming "god" as a cause for various effects.
-
How does anyone know whether there is a GOD OR NOT. Last time I checked no one has died and cameback to tell us. So why not just drop it and move on unless you have a story of how you you have met or not met god in person.
You don't have to see things in person to know if they exist or not. You will never go to Jupiter and yet, you know it exists. This is because there is solid evidence that it exists. On the flipside, it's safe to conclude that none of the Greek gods exist. This is because there is no solid evidence that they exist. Anything you "believe" in can seem very real in your head, though.
-
Anything you "believe" in can seem very real in your head, though.
There is a vast difference between a belief 'seeming' be be real in someone's head and the reality of something which exists outside of heads, (and apart from whether they are 'believed' to exist). A belief that 'invisible trains' exist without evidence is unsupported supposition and does not confer the same reality as being run over by a physically-existent train.
-
I'm an atheist :thumbsup: We have no god! :icon_rr:
-
I'm an atheist :thumbsup: We have no god! :icon_rr:
Wait'll the 'thumpers' try telling you that atheism is a "belief"; it's a hilarious false assumption.
-
I'm an atheist :thumbsup: We have no god! :icon_rr:
Wait'll the 'thumpers' try telling you that atheism is a "belief"; it's a hilarious false assumption.
Atheism is a "choice" to believe that there is no God; if there is a God...their false assumption won't be that hilarious.
-
One day you'll either believe or not
-
One day you'll either believe or not
Huh? ???
TODAY people either believe or not...
-
If god created all things that would mean he created evil but if he created evil therefore he cannot be good.If Satan created evil that means he could create other things like possibility the universe.
How might we prove that God is imaginary? One way would be to find a contradiction between the definition of God and the God we experience in the real world.
What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.
This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.
If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:
For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref]
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...
In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says:
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
In Mark 9:23:
All things are possible to him who believes.
In Luke 1:37:
For with God nothing will be impossible.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.
And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect. Now if you were to say that god answers prays in no form too not only would this be going against the bible and this would make praying to god no more effective than praying to a milk jug because the milk jug answers prays in no form too. :notworthy: at least we know the milk jug exists :notworthy:
If you look in the Bible, there are an amazing number of people that God wants his followers to murder. For example, in Exodus 35:2 God lays down this commandment:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Think about that how many people work on the Sabbath -- all the employees of Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Linnens & things, grocery stores, convenience stores, power plants, airlines, hospitals, emergency services and on and on and on. Don't rabbis, priests and preachers work on the Sabbath? God wants all of them dead.
Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
That is a whole lot of teenagers that we need to kill.
Then there is Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
All homosexuals need to be killed. What about this:
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
That's a lot of people who need to be killed.
In other words, if we actually listened to what God says, we would need to kill at least half of the people in America tomorrow. After all, Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." The word of the Lord tells us to kill half of the U.S. population.
There are two things in this that show you that God is imaginary. First there is the utter stupidity of these verses. Second, there is this fact: If God is an all-powerful being, he would kill them himself. There would be no need for people to do the murdering. These people would already be dead, and Wal-Mart would be closed on the Sabbath through lack of employees.
Notice that believers completely ignore these parts of the Bible. That is because they know that the verses are insane. By acknowledging that their God is insane, they prove that their God is imaginary.Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."If you say we do not have to obey these laws then you are saying god changed.You may say god changed in a different way but look at this
we obeyed these laws because god said so
we don't anymore because god said so
Let's say that you were to create a far-flung news network, and you somehow had the capacity to observe all of the inexplicable tragedy that occurs on Earth each day:
all of the murders,
all of the car wrecks
all of the rapes
all of the mutilations
all of the torture
all the miscarriages and stillbirths
all of the disease
all of the starvation
all of the destruction
all of the terrorism
Let's say you had a news feed that delivered this all to you in real time.
Just ten minutes with this news feed would be unbearable. Thousands of tragic, heartwrenching events would impinge themselves upon you every minute. It would make you vomit over and over and over again until you passed out in exhaustion and despair.
In other words, the amount of gut-wrenching, anguished tragedy in our world is unspeakable.
Meanwhile, there is a housewife in Pasadena who firmly believes that God answered her prayer this morning to remove the mustard stain from her favorite blouse. She prayed to God to help with the stain, and after she washed it the stain was gone. Praise Jesus! There are tens of millions of people in the United States who firmly believe that God is personally helping them each day with their trivial prayers like this. They believe that they have a personal relationship with God, that God hears their prayers each day, and that God has time to reach down and remove the mustard molecules one by one. They believe it with all of their hearts.
It makes you wonder: If God has the time and the will to answer these trivial prayers, then why does he have no time for the millions of other massively serious problems that arise on earth every day?
Simply look at the world we live in. All around us we have murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters, terrorists, etc... How do they do their deeds? If God is all-knowing and God answers prayers, then we have to believe that:
God watches them as they murder, rape, molest and terrorize other people millions of times a day, but he does nothing to stop them.
God watches the victims as they are being murdered, raped, molested and terrorized, but he does nothing to help them.
God completely ignores the prayers of the planet to eliminate murder, rape, child molestation and terrorism and allows these atrocities to continue unabated.
According to the Standard Model of God, God is an omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving being who answers prayers. Imagine God sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven looking down upon Earth, seeing every detail. God speaks:
"Look at all of those praying people getting tortured in that death camp. Excellent! I won't do anything to stop that. And look at that little girl down there being raped and murdered. Perfect! She is praying like mad, and so is her mother, but I won't do anything to stop that. And there are three terrorists preparing to blow up a church and kill 1,500 people who are saying the Lord's Prayer to me right now. Outstanding! I won't do anything to stop that. How wonderful it is that 1,000 prayerful people will die of starvation today in Ethiopia. I love it! I won't do anything to stop that. Oh… and there's little Suzy Jankins praying that I remove that pimple from her nose for her big date with Chad tomorrow. Let me go help Suzy right now…"
Do you believe in a God who acts like this? Of course not. If you believe that God is specifically reaching down from heaven to answer your trivial prayer to remove a zit or to wash out a mustard stain or to help you find your lost keys, while at the same time God is allowing 27,000 children to die of starvation each day by specifically ignoring their prayers, then your God is insane. Look at Proof #6 and Proof #22 to see just how insane your god is.
If you are a typical Christian, however, you are just like our Pasadena housewife. You say dozens of little prayers every day. You may pray for 20 trivial things today:
Pray for your car to start in the morning.
Pray for traffic to be light so you get to work on time.
Pray that you don't get fired for the mistake you made yesterday.
Pray that the coffee stain on your purse comes out.
Pray that it doesn't rain.
Pray that the price of a stock has gone up.
Pray that your computer doesn't crash.
Pray that your son got a decent grade on his math test.
Pray that there's enough money in your checking account.
Pray that the guy you went out with on Saturday calls you.
Pray that your mother in law cancels her trip for the weekend.
Pray for there to be an available washing machine at the Laundromat when you get there.
Pray that your car passes inspection.
Pray that they have your size in the shoes you are thinking about buying at the mall.
Pray that the envelope you are opening contains a check rather than a bill.
Pray that your cat didn't pee on the new sofa.
Pray for your baby not to wake you up tonight screaming so you can get some sleep.
Pray that you have the winning bid for that camera on EBay.
Pray that they have the video you want at the video store tonight.
Pray that your team wins the game on Sunday.
What happens? Some of your prayers would get "answered," some would not. If you are a believer, you handle each little prayer in the following way:
If something nice happens, you attribute that to God -- he answered your prayer and is "looking out" for you.
If you pray for something and it does not happen, or if something bad happens, you rationalize that it is part of "God's plan" . It is "his will" that this bad event happens.
In Proof #6 we demonstrated that God's Plan is ridiculous. So what is actually happening? An unbiased observer looks at the same good and bad events and sees them for what they are -- random events. God has nothing to do with them. To an unbiased observer, it is obvious that religion is nothing but superstition.
If you are a believer, you can prove to yourself that they are random events. Tomorrow, instead of praying about everything, simply watch 20 trivial things happen without praying. Some will work out, some will not. There will be no difference. The act of praying about them does not change the outcome in any way. If you were to statisically analyse your prayers, it would become obvious to you that every "answered prayer" is a coincidence.
The belief in prayer is just like any superstition. Walking under a ladder is not "bad luck". Neither is breaking a mirror. Neither is seeing a black cat. Statistics prove that a broken mirror has zero effect on your life. In the same way, statistics prove that God never answers prayers.
The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way:
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. [ref]
Prayer is rank superstition, nothing more. People who believe in the power of prayer are no different than people who believe in the power of crystal *bleep*, horoscopes or lucky rabbits feet. Prayer is scientifically proven to be meaningless.
The reason why there is so much suffering in this world, and the reason why a statistical analysis of your trivial prayers always shows them to be complete coincidences, is because God is imaginary. The belief in God is pure superstition.
those are just some reasons why i do not believe in god here are some more
http://godisimaginary.com
-
Atheism is a "choice" to believe that there is no God; if there is a God...their false assumption won't be that hilarious.
There is some truth in this claim- atheism is a choice to believe that there are no gods. But you must remember it's the same as saying "Being rational is a choice to not believe that leprechauns and fairies exist".
-
Atheism is a "choice" to believe that there is no God; if there is a God...their false assumption won't be that hilarious.
There is some truth in this claim- atheism is a choice to believe that there are no gods. But you must remember it's the same as saying "Being rational is a choice to not believe that leprechauns and fairies exist".
Sort of...but, one's eternal destination doesn't depend on the existance of leprechauns and fairies.
-
Sort of...but, one's eternal destination doesn't depend on the existance of leprechauns and fairies.
Obviously the example has gone over your head since you seem to unknowingly be a supporter of the existence of fairies and leprechauns.
-
Sort of...but, one's eternal destination doesn't depend on the existance of leprechauns and fairies.
Obviously the example has gone right over your head.
No, I understood that you were saying choosing atheism and believing there is no God is the same as being rational and not believing the leprechauns and fairies exist but it isn't. Why?
Because I don't believe that leprechauns and fairies exist either so there's nothing wrong with my "rationality".
(And don't say I have "selective rationality" either because the moment someone starts selecting what they are going or not going to be "rational" about, they have "selective rationality". Which puts us on equal ground until we find our bodies six-feet under it and/or our souls on their way to meet their Maker.)
-
I understood that you were saying choosing atheism and believing there is no God ...
Atheism is not a 'belief', it is a disbelief in the unsupported claim that there is a "god". The "choice" made is a rational one, rather than irrational.
... is the same as being rational and not believing the leprechauns and fairies exist but it isn't. Why?
Same reason; there is no evidence that leprechauns or fairies exist.
Because I don't believe that leprechauns and fairies exist either so there's nothing wrong with my "rationality". (And don't say I have "selective rationality" either ...
Whether you like it or not, such "rationality" is selective since you are choosing to believe in one concept which lacks evidence and not another which also lacks evidence to support it. Dividing superstitions up into those in which one believes, (again, without evidence), can help them after death and those which cannot constitutes 'selective irrationality'.
... because the moment someone starts selecting what they are going or not going to be "rational" about, they have "selective rationality". Which puts us on equal ground until we find our bodies six-feet under it and/or our souls on their way to meet their Maker.)
It is a selectively-irrational choice to believe that "our souls on their way to meet their maker" since that lacks any evidence to support it.
-
one's eternal destination doesn't depend on the existance of leprechauns and fairies.
Neither is it dependent upon an alternate superstitious belief which lacks substantiating evidence. Whatever is going to happen when people die is going to happen - independent of what they 'believed' while still alive.
-
No, I understood that you were saying choosing atheism and believing there is no God is the same as being rational and not believing the leprechauns and fairies exist but it isn't. Why?
Because I don't believe that leprechauns and fairies exist either so there's nothing wrong with my "rationality".
(And don't say I have "selective rationality" either because the moment someone starts selecting what they are going or not going to be "rational" about, they have "selective rationality". Which puts us on equal ground until we find our bodies six-feet under it and/or our souls on their way to meet their Maker.)
We wouldn't be on equal ground because what you have is selective irrationality for your beliefs.
Edit: Darn. Falcon beat me to a reply!
-
[Sheryls quote]No, I understood that you were saying choosing atheism and believing there is no God is the same as being rational and not believing the leprechauns and fairies exist but it isn't. Why?
Because I don't believe that leprechauns and fairies exist either so there's nothing wrong with my "rationality".
(And don't say I have "selective rationality" either because the moment someone starts selecting what they are going or not going to be "rational" about, they have "selective rationality". Which puts us on equal ground until we find our bodies six-feet under it and/or our souls on their way to meet their Maker.)
[/quote]
We wouldn't be on equal ground because what you have is selective irrationality for your beliefs.
Edit: Darn. Falcon beat me to a reply!
I've often had the same thought when you post before I've read the responses. Apparently, the notion that "selective rationality" inherently includes "selective irrationality" needed emphasis.
-
Funny thing guys (falcon/Falconer)... I was reading the first response to my last post and was just about to ask Falconer02 why HE was twisting my words around to "fit his purpose" and then...I seen the response was from falcon09. My reaction to that, of course, was one of "non-surprise".
So, falcon09...I would say to you that if you have to "butcher" someone else's post that badly to "prove" your point, you are trying way too hard and there's something wrong with that picture.
-
So, falcon09...I would say to you that if you have to "butcher" someone else's post that badly to "prove" your point, you are trying way too hard and there's something wrong with that picture.
Your own words were quoted in context. How is that 'butchering' your post? From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise. It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so.
Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?
-
Your own words were quoted in context. How is that 'butchering' your post? From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise. It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so.
Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?
Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again. I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".)
For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be". That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon". So NOT cool.
-
I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic" ...
And yet, you did. That's okay though, I still remember the original context presented and wasn't actually diverted from it. You know, the one about selective rationality/irrationality?
... unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".)
The assumption that my word usage is an attempt to "intimidate" would be a perceptual error; it is merely how I normally write, (as numerous other posts show).
For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions ...
In what way are interjected replies "assumptions"?
... in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning ...
On the contrary, I will often seek clarification if a sentence is vague or otherwise unclear. If it doesn't appear to be so, a response is made based upon the meanings of the words responded to, (without the alleged "attempt to change their meaning"). If you have evidence which supports your allegation, surely you can quote it in context.
... if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be". That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon". So NOT cool.
Dissenting points of view are precisely encompassed by D+D, ("Debate + Discussion"), and thereby much 'cooler' than making allegations supporting by nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, (whereas substantiated opinion differs in that regard and insofar as dissenting with assertions which constitute 'the world according to irrationality').
-
Your own words were quoted in context. How is that 'butchering' your post? From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise. It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so.
Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?
Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again. I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".)
For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be". That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon". So NOT cool.
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over. Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.
-
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.
"I can't make any sense of my blind faith-based beliefs to others, so I'll just complain about Falcon9 for using big words too much! It's soooooo annoying!"
Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again
Welcome...to DEBATE AND DISCUSS!!!
*cue Jurassic Park theme*
At this point I'm just willing to keep this thread going as some sort of immortal shrine to that ol' crazy individual who started it.
-
I heard that people that dont believe in God will go to hell when they die. If this is true how can someone go to hell when they dont even know there is a god to believe in?
-
I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.
Where was the "open" portion of reptitious bible-thumping of blind faith in lieu of reasoning? Since at least two, (sometimes more people joined in at various points), participated in discussions. Therefore, two-sided, (and three-cornered and more), discussions were had until it apparently 'dawned' on several 'thumpers that blind faith cannot overcome pragmatic reasoning.
The results are always "the world according to him."
This is as opposed to 'the world according to various vague religious beliefs', eh?
That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith ...
If such people are 'free' to "share their faith", opposing viewpoints have an equal freedom of dissent.
Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.
This is a public forum hosted by FC which is entitled "Debate + Discussion". As such, the 'disclaimer' heading the subforum urges caution as "divisive" subjects may be contained within it. Unsubstantiated and mis-attributed claims concerning religious beliefs are open to debate & discussion, (especially in this subforum).
Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.
An expectation of unquestioned religious promotions on D+D is an unreasonable one, (nor is particularly required that dissenting views be implicitly 'silenced' by religious fundamentalism). As Admin suggested previously, it's easier on the faint of heart and weak of conviction to simply use the "ignore" function and cover their eyes before they accidentally realize that they were blinded by the 'light'.
-
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown
-
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.
"I can't make any sense of my blind faith-based beliefs to others, so I'll just complain about Falcon9 for using big words too much! It's soooooo annoying!"
*chuckle* Did you omit the "it's uncomfortable to question those faith-based beliefs using reasoning and much, much easier to complain that they're being questioned instead?"
Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again
Welcome...to DEBATE AND DISCUSS!!!
*cue Jurassic Park theme*
Are you getting the impression that specious religious beliefs aren't open to debate & discussion if one is a believer?
At this point I'm just willing to keep this thread going as some sort of immortal shrine to that ol' crazy individual who started it.
Everytime I assumed this thread was lapsing into the mists of time, someone, (newbie or not), would resurrect it from near death. It's as if it were some sort of zombie thread that would seem to require the standard solution to 'zombies'.
-
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown
If your behavior stems from specious beliefs, you are likely none the better for them. - unknown
-
I heard that people that dont believe in God will go to hell when they die.
Some religious faith's followers may believe that however, such a belief has no basis in evidence.
If this is true how can someone go to hell when they dont even know there is a god to believe in?
Since there is no evidence whatsoever that this is "true", a belief or disbelief in any deity has no substantive bearing on an equally insubtantive belief in "hell". A 'disbelief' in such things constitutes not believing in that which lacks supporting evidence, (in much the same way as a specious allegation in a court of law which lacks supporting evidence will be dismissed due to such a lack).
-
Your own words were quoted in context. How is that 'butchering' your post? From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise. It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so.
Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?
Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again. I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".)
For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be". That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon". So NOT cool.
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over. Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.
exactly proven point.. it takes a real man to man up and say that there no different then anyone else... im tired of theses so called hypocrites here but it also makes me laugh because they been doing this over a year... why cant we have a normal D&D discussion instead of making pple stupid here... if you see the rest of falcons post its all religion he cant post something thats not off topic just religion...
-
exactly proven point..
Exactly which point was "proven"? That the 'believers' don't like their beliefs being questioned, either by others or themselves?
it takes a real man to man up and say that there no different then anyone else...
People are different; not just superficially but, within. It takes an honest person, (male or female), to discern what those differences mean instead of trying to lump everyone together into some implicit 'oneness'.
im tired of theses so called hypocrites here but it also makes me laugh because they been doing this over a year...
If you're referring to the hypocrisy of religionists, I agree because some of them have demonstrated it. If you're implying otherwise, you've failed to demonstrate examples to support such an assertion.
why cant we have a normal D&D discussion instead of making pple stupid here... if you see the rest of falcons post its all religion he cant post something thats not off topic just religion...
Perhaps you've been 'blinded by the light' if you are unable to see hundreds of other posts made which had nothing to do with religion. Aside from that, all responses to religious topics have been just that - responses, (that is, religious topics begun or religious comments made have been discussed & debated). Now that your specious allegation has been refuted, no doubt your further input should not be awaited, (because you apparently feel that such a discussion would be "making pple stupid here")?
-
guys let falcon dominate the religion he wont be bothering us in other various of different non related religion topics... hes at his own little world...
-
guys let falcon dominate the religion he wont be bothering us in other various of different non related religion topics... hes at his own little world...
Your lack of ability to discern the difference between _replying_ to numerous religious posts made by others and those responses made in non-religious threads is glaring. Perhaps such a lack contributes to your self-delusions or, they may be due to other causes.
-
there he goes again ohhh boy ::)
-
there he goes again ohhh boy ::)
Use the "ignore" function, as Admin has suggested to other whiners.
-
God is just a made up guy who people blame their problems on.. Like really.. He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that? Like i'm supposed to believe theres some magical man in the sky?.. Hell noo! ::)
-
God is just a made up guy who people blame their problems on..
In fairness, they also have another to blame things on; "satan". Although if that belief system were consistent, they'd blame 'good' and 'bad' things on the same imaginary scapegoat.
Like really.. He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that? Like i'm supposed to believe theres some magical man in the sky?.. Hell noo! ::)
It would appear that such a 'deity' is either more of a hands-off kind of let's-see-what-happens-when-they're-turned-loose or, powerless to interfere type of imaginary concept under the xtian belief systems.
-
He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that?
Exactly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLylTz9kz2g
-
You are nuts and if you want to believe that, God understands and even loves you, I, however, think you are nuts, God is FREE and you can't get anything better!!!
-
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over. Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown
:thumbsup:
I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me. Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts, and then keep on & on should that person re-post back. I know someone in my life that acts just like him, they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word", they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid". They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".
-
I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me.
The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.
Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts ...
That's known as posting contextual replies, (unlike numerous out of context responses and contextual-dodging engaged in by mainly by those unable to debate or discuss rationally). Interjected replies nominally prevent such contextual dodging unless the dodger ignores them and responds by bottom-posting, (or not quoting the context of what they are replying to). Objections to interjected replies are nearly always due an inability to debate.
I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...
I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).
they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word" ...
'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).
they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid".
That would constitute an assumption about how someone else feels, (when it is, instead, a projection of the one making the judgement on the basis of biased opinion, rather than objectively).
They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".
Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion. The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis. It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.
-
I agree with you here about this. I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. The results are always "the world according to him." That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over. Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown
:thumbsup:
I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me. Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts, and then keep on & on should that person re-post back. I know someone in my life that acts just like him, they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word", they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid". They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".
:thumbsup: I do agree. The answers are always the same - like a recording. Well said.
-
The answers are always the same - like a recording.
Since the same unsupported claims/assertions are being made, why would the responses be any different? Is this some way of expressing preference for the pre-recorded fundie stances to be refuted in various ways?
-
I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me.
The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.
Please provide some proof of these posts so as to back up your assertion here.
Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts ...
That's known as posting contextual replies, (unlike numerous out of context responses and contextual-dodging engaged in by mainly by those unable to debate or discuss rationally). Interjected replies nominally prevent such contextual dodging unless the dodger ignores them and responds by bottom-posting, (or not quoting the context of what they are replying to). Objections to interjected replies are nearly always due an inability to debate.
Sounds like a lot of time on hand to be able to keep up with all of the posts and dissecting them like that.
I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...
I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).
As you are doing, here.
they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word" ...
'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).
Seems to describe the more militant athiests.
they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid".
That would constitute an assumption about how someone else feels, (when it is, instead, a projection of the one making the judgement on the basis of biased opinion, rather than objectively).
Perhaps a poll would indicate more objective opinions?
They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".
Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion. The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis. It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.
-
The answers are always the same - like a recording.
Since the same unsupported claims/assertions are being made, why would the responses be any different? Is this some way of expressing preference for the pre-recorded fundie stances to be refuted in various ways?
Logic is one thing and commonsense another. ~Elbert Hubbard, The Note Book, 1927
Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge. ~Benjamin Jowett
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit. ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Flight to Arras, 1942, translated from French by Lewis Galantière
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Metaphysics may be, after all, only the art of being sure of something that is not so, and logic only the art of going wrong with confidence. ~Joseph Wood Krutch, The Modern Temper, 1929 (Thanks, Jeff)
-
The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.
Please provide some proof of these posts so as to back up your assertion here.
There's a long string of message IDs available to choose from, (some of which are in this thread alone). A cross-section of these could be listed as representative evidence however, you are just as capable of re-reading the thread as I am. The evidence is so prevalent that it's almost as if it is being requested as a diversion from the OP's failure to provide evidence to support her claim regarding "control issues".
Sounds like a lot of time on hand to be able to keep up with all of the posts and dissecting them like that.
Depending upon the degree of effort it requires to untangle the contortions being 'dissected', (or, interjected with replies), the time involved will vary.
I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...
I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).
As you are doing, here.
You omitted the part where such 'attacks' were _initiated_ by others before any perceived 'return-fire' responses. It's more difficult to play the 'victim' when that 'victim' initiates an attack.
'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).
Seems to describe the more militant athiests.
[/quote]
On the contrary, such dissenting viewpoints as expressed by non-xtians, (who aren't necessarily "militant" nor "atheist"), have _not_ constituted making hit-and-run unfounded opinions or, a tendency to make baseless assertions, (evidence of this consists of numerous refutions and responses which are supported in several different threads).
The bottomline being that none of these 'attack the messenger, not the message' ad hominem posts refute a single point of dissension of the unsubstantiated assertions of the religious believers. This is eitehr because their position is weak or, because they are unable to form reasoned counter-arguments, (and instead, find it simpler to engage in attempts denigrate a challenger to their unquestioned blind faith).
-
Logic is one thing and commonsense another. ~Elbert Hubbard, The Note Book, 1927
Commonsense is, apparently, a less common sense than inherently assumed.
Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge. ~Benjamin Jowett
That would be an unsupported opinion, (and the obvious "dodge" of someone unable to employ logic effectively).
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit. ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Flight to Arras, 1942, translated from French by Lewis Galantière
That quote translates as 'spiritual matters aren't conducive to logical challenge'.
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Glibness. No mind is "all logic" and such a "blade" is tempered by other factors which partly form the 'handle' which which such a blade is wielded.
Metaphysics may be, after all, only the art of being sure of something that is not so, and logic only the art of going wrong with confidence. ~Joseph Wood Krutch, The Modern Temper, 1929 (Thanks, Jeff)
[/b][/color]
The quote is a mis-statement; 'faith' is the art of being "wrong with confidence".
-
You omitted the part where such 'attacks' were _initiated_ by others before any perceived 'return-fire' responses. It's more difficult to play the 'victim' when that 'victim' initiates an attack.
I'll add that you live in a country that's heavily christian. The christian population tends to believe that they're 'under attack' and 'victims' of elementary skepticism.
I'm also one to believe that once a person in an argument starts to attack the argumenter for trivial things and not the topic at hand, they've unwillingly admitted to losing that argument. At this point I think the fact that they're attacking the term "logic", you've shown how abstract and vague the oppositions beliefs really are. It's grasping at straws.
-
I'll add that you live in a country that's heavily christian. The christian population tends to believe that they're 'under attack' and 'victims' of elementary skepticism.
If the country is predominately xtian, (at least superficially so and not fundamentally so), then why would a 'majority' be concerned about the 'minority' being skeptical of superstitious beliefs? Further, how is the false perception of believers that they are "under attack" not a passive-aggressive attempt to silence dissenting views?
I'm also one to believe that once a person in an argument starts to attack the argumenter for trivial things and not the topic at hand, they've unwillingly admitted to losing that argument. At this point I think the fact that they're attacking the term "logic", you've shown how abstract and vague the opposition's beliefs really are. It's grasping at straws.
I tend to agree with your assessment due to the abundance of evidence supporting it. Your description reminds me of the Black Knight, (representing xtian irrationality as a metaphor in this instance), from Python's "Holy Grail"; claiming 'victory' after having both arms and both legs cut off by Arthur.
-
quote by falcon
I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).
FYI, I don't have to defend anything to you or to anyone else. I have my answers and I'm happy with them and I hope you're as happy with yours. I could care less if your opinion thinks may assertions are "empty". I am not 'attacking" the person making the argument rather than the argument itself----I wasn't arguing anything!
If it seems like I'm 'attacking' the person then here's why. I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, time will always tell what a person is made of. It wasn't until you posted in tigerlilly's thread where she requested prayer from any Christians on FC ---that you really showed what kind of person you are. A guy with any shred of decency at all would have apologized to tigerlilly and would have either been supportive or quietly 'exited' that thread. They easily could have checked out her former posts and seen that tigerlilly has been on FC alot longer than you, that she has always been so kind and supportive toward others and has never been mean to anyone on this forum. If she had posted in d&d, then whatever. However, she didn't. NOT every thread needs to be dissected-to-death. She posted in "Off Topic" and she posted to "Christians on FC"--- clearly not to you. You messed up and if you can't admit it and sincerely apologize to her, you're a jerk.
I'm not saying that because I'm upset that you don't "believe" the way I do, you can believe anything you want. You can behave anyway you want...it's your life. For some strange reason I expected you to be better than that, I was wrong.
-
quote by falcon
'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).
FC doesn't have any rules stating that people have to reply back to any post they make. If that disapponts you because you like to argue "until the cows come home" (or perhaps I should say "until they retire out to pasture due to old age") in your case--- sorry. Not everyone feels a need to waste time "debating& discussing" everything to death. FC has no problems with people posting a post in one thread and moving on to another, so get over it.
-
quote by falcon
Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion. The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis. It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.
Ya think so? I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit. Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore". I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have. It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home. (No need to repeat it, like jcribb says, 'it plays like a recording"...)
jcribb---LOVED your last post so much! The quotes were awesome too!
-
:wave: a being that has always been and always will be give me a break. a great merciful god would not let the chidren of this world be molested,go hungry,suffer in handicaps and deseases. thats why i beleive there is no god as tought in the bible. if he exists i sure would like his answer to why he lets innocent babies and children go thru the incidents i mentioned above.
-
FYI, I don't have to defend anything to you or to anyone else.
No, you don't - which is why 'hit-and-run' posting was mentioned concerning those unable to support their empty assertions.
I have my answers and I'm happy with them and I hope you're as happy with yours. I could care less if your opinion thinks may assertions are "empty".
Such assertions are 'empty' not because it's my "opinion" that they are; they're empty when they lack any substantiation at all. Whether you care to make this distinction or not is of limited concern to me. Please feel free to continue to make empty assertions as I do to challenge them.
I am not 'attacking" the person making the argument rather than the argument itself----I wasn't arguing anything!
There are several posted replies, (presumably written by you), which contradict your denial. Examples can be provided as evidence however, I'm somehow dubious that these would be acknowledged by closed minds.
If it seems like I'm 'attacking' the person then here's why. I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, time will always tell what a person is made of. It wasn't until you posted in tigerlilly's thread where she requested prayer from any Christians on FC ---that you really showed what kind of person you are. A guy with any shred of decency at all would have apologized to tigerlilly and would have either been supportive or quietly 'exited' that thread.
So essentially, you admit to 'attacking' the messenger, (rather than the message, which contradicts your immediately prior statement), because you judged my responses in another thread concerning religious superstitions bothered you. There is no need for an apology for expressing dissent with the suggestions provided, (regardless of who can suggest them or not), while suggesting alternate courses of action.
She posted in "Off Topic" and she posted to "Christians on FC"--- clearly not to you.
Anyone can reply in these forums and threads; responses are not restricted to xtians nor, inherently excluding non-xtians.
You messed up and if you can't admit it and sincerely apologize to her, you're a jerk.
This is merely your opinion and resorting to name-calling reveals your true nature.
I'm not saying that because I'm upset that you don't "believe" the way I do, you can believe anything you want. You can behave anyway you want...it's your life. For some strange reason I expected you to be better than that, I was wrong.
I don't beleive you. Oddly enough, for some equally strange reason, I had initially given you the benefit of the doubt concerning nonbias. Clearly, I was severely mistaken.
-
FC doesn't have any rules stating that people have to reply back to any post they make.
No they don't, you are correct. FC staff doesn't mind if members post unsubstantiated/empty opinions and then run off without supporting them, (unless those violate the TOS or posting guidelines in some way).
If that disapponts you because you like to argue "until the cows come home" (or perhaps I should say "until they retire out to pasture due to old age") in your case--- sorry. Not everyone feels a need to waste time "debating& discussing" everything to death.
If you seem disappointed at being unable to debate or, discuss any empty assertions which get challenged, that's your choice. The inherent preference involved for making empty claims and then not backing them up.
FC has no problems with people posting a post in one thread and moving on to another, so get over it.
Quite true, just as they don't mind a prevalence of some members for making empty claims and then not backing them up.
-
quote from falcon
So essentially, you admit to 'attacking' the messenger, (rather than the message, which contradicts your immediately prior statement), because you judged my responses in another thread concerning religious superstitions bothered you. There is no need for an apology for expressing dissent with the suggestions provided, (regardless of who can suggest them or not), while suggesting alternate courses of action.
falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically? You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need? No manners at all? What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else. You think you're so smart...what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are. (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.)
-
quote by falcon Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion. The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis. It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.
Ya think so?
Yep, which goes far in accounting for the explanation given as to why that is so.
I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit.
The empty opinions of layman posters who aren't qualified assess such things is meaningless. An appeal to 'popular opinion' is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore". I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have.
"Quite a few" would be about three or four? Regardless, this does not constitute evidence of the validity of the empty opinions of religious adherents; it constitutes evidence that such adherents are unwilling/unable to reason and instead, prefer 'attacking' those who challenge their blind faith.
It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home.
On the contrary, you're the one trying to make the evidence fit your invalid conclusion, (e.g., that fundies putting my posts "ignore" somehow supports the completely subjective 'opinion' of a "toxic personality" when it doesn't follow from the premise nor, is supported by it). Although I will concede that the evidence you've presented for clinging to irrationality in lieu of the more difficult capacity to reason is compelling but, not conclusive.
-
falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically?
My personal ethics are not under discussion, (those which I possess being of no concern to you).
You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need? No manners at all?
What makes you think that my responses, (those suggesting more effective means of problem resolution), were not 'compassionate'? Because I don't believe as superstitiously as you and some others do? Where are the manners in disrespecting alternative suggestions? Are you actually so rude that it never occurs to you that those alternate suggestions, (to seek more viable solutions than 'wishful-thinking'), were not impolite?
What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else.
I don't believe the excuse, (not reason, because there isn't any in the excuse). Your previous posts contradict that assertion.
You think you're so smart...
Where was that either explicitly or, implicitly claimed? No evidence would mean another empty assertion.
what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are. (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.)
If so, you could post quotes, (or at least message IDs), which would support your shallow attempt to insult. Can you provide such evidence or, is this yet another example of your making empty assertions?
-
Are you tired yet of saying the same things over and over again, Falcon? I think we need to stop responding to your endless tirades to shut you up. However, I look in every once in a while just to see if you have said anything different. My guilty pleasure.
-
Are you tired yet of saying the same things over and over again, Falcon?
Sometimes I do grow weary of the same unsupported claims made by religious adherents and don't always have the patience to come up with new ways of challenging them to support their claims. Since such claims are largely repetitious, a different response would be an unreasonable expectation.
I think we need to stop responding to your endless tirades to shut you up.
Several of the more fundamentalist religious adherents claimed to have already done so, (sans the occassional hit-and-run jabs they engage in; like this one from you?). This is amusing especially amusing when they not only claim to have certain members on "ignore" but, actually _announce_ that they are "ignoring" another by posting that they're "ignoring" them. By the way, your suggested attempt to censor dissent, ("to shut you up"), is very revealing of the weakness of your position.
However, I look in every once in a while just to see if you have said anything different. My guilty pleasure.
I too await some new speculative claim from the religious adherents. You never know, one of 'em might come up with some variation I haven't encountered before, (hasn't happened thusfar, disappointingly enough).
-
falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically? You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need? No manners at all? What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else. You think you're so smart...what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are. (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.)
Correct me if I'm wrong (Sheryl), but I may see the alternate trail that Sheryl is talking of. Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
-
Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted. That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum. As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents). Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions. In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
-
Falcon,
Enough is enough. People have had more than enough of your "big words" and "know-it-all" attitude. Who cares if you look at "empty" assertions and opinions? Who cares if people post and go post something somewhere else? They aren't required to come back in unless they so choose. Who cares if you call it not backing some up? Who cares, who cares, who cares? You seem to be the only one who cannot handle letting things go and letting people voice things without being challenged in the same ole recorded ways and words.
Many are concerned at the way you treated tigerlily's thread when she wanted prayer for something. Yes, you can post where ever you want. However, kindness and decency to another human being struggling with something and asking fellow Christians for prayer is courtesy and respect - you should not have to be told, like a little kid, to mind your manners. You could have eased back out of that thread since you yourself say you are not a Christian, or you could have at least said something kind, such as hope all is okay, etc. Just because we post in this forum, doesn't give anyone the right to be discourteous to others like tigerlily, and to others who wish not to go so far in debate with you because you dissect to the point of confusion for some and ridiculousness for others.
Just be the adult you are and include some courtesy with some posters - prove you are actually human at times, instead of a broken recording. Enough is enough.
-
Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted. That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum. As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents). Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions. In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are, so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."
-
quote by falcon Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion. The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis. It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.
Ya think so? I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit. Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore". I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have. It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home. (No need to repeat it, like jcribb says, 'it plays like a recording"...)
jcribb---LOVED your last post so much! The quotes were awesome too!
Thank you, Sheryl. Did you happen to notice, too, that he even disagreed with a couple of them - which is challenging the creators of their own quotes?
-
The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are ...
So, the assessment that the request was vague and general was accurate. Further, generalized 'prayers' were requested for vague assistance.
so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."
Your acceptance is immaterial to what my intent was, (unless you're presuming to know that my intent was contrary to what I intended ... being the one who expressed that intent and all). Again, my suggestion to seek more viable alternatives can be shown to be more pragmatically "helpful" than vaguely general wishful-thinking.
-
The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are ...
So, the assessment that the request was vague and general was accurate. Further, generalized 'prayers' were requested for vague assistance.
so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."
Your acceptance is immaterial to what my intent was, (unless you're presuming to know that my intent was contrary to what I intended ... being the one who expressed that intent and all). Again, my suggestion to seek more viable alternatives can be shown to be more pragmatically "helpful" than vaguely general wishful-thinking.
You do not profess to be a Christian. Therefore, when one asks for prayer for something, God knows what it is, even if we don't. When we pray for the person and the need they are asking prayer for, that's all we have to do - is pray for the person and that God will answer or take care of the need is His way, will, and timing. So there is no need for any of us, including you, who does not pray, to be seeking more "viable" assistance of specifics. Period.
-
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
I guess I see all the pieces to the puzzle now. I'll try not to dive into the drama, but I will say that even though you were realistically trying to find the problem and help by offering authentic tried-and-true advice for someone, you're arguing with people who do not value such things. An example would be telling someone with a bad cold/flu to not take homeopathic medicine and instead go see a doctor, even though they adamantly believe that 'meds' work and (irrationally) value it greatly. Ultimately they're in charge of wasting their own money. There's a point where one should just roll their eyes and walk away from such silliness.
http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/1526/8208_4bfe.gif
(btw if I sound antagonistic towards any of the parties here, I apologize)
-
Falcon,
Julie, it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants).
Enough is enough. People have had more than enough of your "big words" and "know-it-all" attitude.
Conversely, while there's been enough attempts to suppress/censor dissent, I have not proclaimed any similar intention to silence the evangelising religious opinions which are being challenged.
Who cares if you look at "empty" assertions and opinions?
'Care' is irrelavent; if an opinion or assertion is empty, (lacks veracity), I'm as free to challenge it as the OP is to delare it publically.
Who cares if people post and go post something somewhere else? They aren't required to come back in unless they so choose. Who cares if you call it not backing some up?
For someone who is using that word repetitiously, one might conclude that _you_ "care" enough to try a 'so what?' "rebuttal". Such does not actually constitute a rebuttal; it's a non sequitur. To reiterate; it is not mandatory/forced/required/polite for anyone to back up an empty assertion/opinion. It is also not mandatory/forced/polite/required to "accept" such at face value nor, to let such go unquestioned/unchallenged.
Who cares, who cares, who cares? You seem to be the only one who cannot handle letting things go and letting people voice things without being challenged in the same ole recorded ways and words.
If you don't "care", one solution is to actually "ignore" such challenges and dissenting opinions as cause sufficient discomfort to "ignore" them by not ignoring them. This is your choice. If the choice is made to keep posting the same old religious beliefs over and over and over again, the ones doing so seem to have the oddly unreasonable expectation of different forms of dissent/challenge. Maybe it isn't all that odd, given other inherent/pre-existing unreasonable expectations possessed by so many religious adherents.
Many are concerned at the way you treated tigerlily's thread when she wanted prayer for something. Yes, you can post where ever you want.
Gee thanks; good to know I have your unneeded permission to do so. Until the religious adherents came after me in that thread, my sole contribution was to suggest more viable alternative practical solutions. Apparently, such a suggestion was considered by some to be less helpful to a generalized problem than some really vague wishful-thinking, ('prayers').
However, kindness and decency to another human being struggling with something and asking fellow Christians for prayer is courtesy and respect -
Why is it that a more pragmatic suggestion to seek viable solutions is considered by xtians to exclude "kindness and decency"? After all, xtians don't have the market cornered on such attributes and it is extremely presumptuous to implicitly assume that non-xtian suggestions were 'unkind'/'indecent'/'rude', etc.. In fact, I could consider such presumption to be rude and unkind of the xtians stating implying it.
you should not have to be told, like a little kid, to mind your manners.
Whereas you "should" not have to be told that attempting to impose your personal notion of "manners", (a misnomer for an attempt to suppress a dissenting viewpoint), on others.
You could have eased back out of that thread since you yourself say you are not a Christian ...
That could have been done; if the thread was an exclusive xtian country-club. Alas, it isn't; it was publically posted in an open forum, (not a private list, whether or not a declaration excluded non-xtians was made).
or you could have at least said something kind, such as hope all is okay, etc.
Again, a suggestion to seek more viable solutions than well-wishing wishful-thinking was made to be helpful and "kind". After all, no one forced me to reply at all; that was my choice. Your attempts to censor my choice notwithstanding.
Just because we post in this forum, doesn't give anyone the right to be discourteous to others like tigerlily, and to others who wish not to go so far in debate with you because you dissect to the point of confusion for some and ridiculousness for others.
The characterization of being "discourteous" is largely subjective, (especially in this instance of religious bias, as opposed to non-religious dissent).
One solution to avoid debating empty opinions/assertions is to not engage in them, (rather than trying to suppress/censor what you find confusing or, challenging point of view).
-
You do not profess to be a Christian.
Correct; I've neither stated nor, implied otherwise. The part we disagree about concerns the same freedom to post on a subject as xtians have, (and repeated attempts to suppress opposing viewpoints, which are becoming tediously repetitious).
Therefore, when one asks for prayer for something, God knows what it is, even if we don't. So there is no need for any of us, including you, who does not pray, to be seeking more "viable" assistance of specifics.
Following that "line of reasoning", (which admittedly does not involve anything approaching reasoning in regards to religious beliefs - it's more a figure of speech in this instance); such a deity is presumed by xtians to 'already know' what's being prayed for therefore, there is no need to ask. If the asking part is required, then it can be maintained that suggesting viable solutions instead is just as required. Favoring the religious options over the secular ones is less likely to produce a solution to the problem and is ultimately more 'unkind' and 'unhelpful' than the proposed alternatives.
-
I guess I see all the pieces to the puzzle now. I'll try not to dive into the drama, but I will say that even though you were realistically trying to find the problem and help by offering authentic tried-and-true advice for someone, you're arguing with people who do not value such things.
While I realised from the context of the thread that more unrealistic well-wishing was being sought, (presumably for a sense of emotional comfort, rather than alleviating the underlying problems), my intent actually was to be more pragmatically helpful than that. Whether or not such advice is valued or taken isn't really my responsibility; that rests upon others.
An example would be telling someone with a bad cold/flu to not take homeopathic medicine and go see a doctor, even though they adamantly believe that 'meds' work and (irrationally) value it greatly. Ultimately they're in charge of wasting their own money. There's a point where one should just roll their eyes and walk away from such silliness.
http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/1526/8208_4bfe.gif
Despite such ingratitude as may be expressed by some, I remain cautiously-optimistic that not everyone is a complete idiot. :)
(btw if I sound antagonistic towards any of the parties here, I apologize)
I found nothing whatsoever "antagonistic" in what you've posted. Any apparent abounding misperceptions from others notwithstanding.
-
Despite such ingratitude as may be expressed by some, I remain cautiously-optimistic that not everyone is a complete idiot.
I do too, though I generally try to focus my energies on people that are my age or younger. The older generations tend to be more susceptible to superstitious thinking just because they've grown so accustomed to it throughout their lives and fear any changes to these ancient ideas (ironically enough).
-
though I generally try to focus my energies on people that are my age or younger. The older generations tend to be more susceptible to superstitious thinking just because they've grown so accustomed to it throughout their lives and fear any changes to these ancient ideas (ironically enough).
While I can certainly see the efficacy of your approach, I still maintain that the possibility of open-mindedness remains, (even within older, indoctrinated generations), no matter how improbable that may be.
-
Thank you, Sheryl. Did you happen to notice, too, that he even disagreed with a couple of them - which is challenging the creators of their own quotes?
Yes, I noticed...and I could care less what he disagrees with because he's so full of hot air that it's ridiculous. He also seems to have a ridiculous amount of time to waste on FC...
;D "He is a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Benjamin Disraeli
-
Why is everybody arguing about this [***]? Can somebody not believe in what they want nowdays? This is some bull..
[admin edit: profanity]
-
I could care less what he disagrees with because he's so full of hot air that it's ridiculous.
The evidence of your previous multiple replies contradicts your claim about not caring while conversely providing no evidence to support your "hot air" opinion. On the other hand, several examples of your making empty assertions, ("hot air"), exist to validate a counter-claim.
He also seems to have a ridiculous amount of time to waste on FC...
While it doesn't take as much time as apparently assumed, what does that have to do with your abymal inability to meet challenges to your "hot air" claims?
;D "He is a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Benjamin Disraeli
Your Disreali quote does not apply to my questioning of unsupported claims; the arguments made are not "inconsistent" and neither do they seek to "malign an opponent", (they do however, seem to bring out a tendency for opponents to malign me - as this misapplied maligning post shows).
-
Can somebody not believe in what they want nowdays? This is some bull..
That's not being disputed; anyone can choose to believe in any manner of unsubstantiated nonsense they wish. As soon as such nonsense escapes the confines of their internal self-delusions and makes empty assertions in public, dissent may ensue.
-
Thank you, Sheryl. Did you happen to notice, too, that he even disagreed with a couple of them - which is challenging the creators of their own quotes?
Yes, I noticed...and I could care less what he disagrees with because he's so full of hot air that it's ridiculous. He also seems to have a ridiculous amount of time to waste on FC...
;D "He is a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Benjamin Disraeli
Good quote. You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned.
-
You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned. [/color]
No twisting or turning was necessary on my part however, such contortions were on par for the fundies. Imagine that. Btw, "ignoring" someone by posting about them is approximately the level of junior high-school girl immaturity. What's next, giggling?
Now, back to the point about fundies running away from having their unsupported opinions challenged; why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?
-
You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned. [/color]
No twisting or turning was necessary on my part however, such contortions were on par for the fundies. Imagine that. Btw, "ignoring" someone by posting about them is approximately the level of junior high-school girl immaturity. What's next, giggling?
Now, back to the point about fundies running away from having their unsupported opinions challenged; why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?
You have no room to speak. Some people are just tired of some of the "same-o" stuff and are finally speaking out about it. *giggle* (since that's what you apparently wanted, lol.)
-
You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned. [/color]
No twisting or turning was necessary on my part however, such contortions were on par for the fundies. Imagine that. Btw, "ignoring" someone by posting about them is approximately the level of junior high-school girl immaturity. What's next, giggling?
Now, back to the point about fundies running away from having their unsupported opinions challenged; why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?
You have no room to speak. Some people are just tired of some of the "same-o" stuff and are finally speaking out about it. *giggle* (since that's what you apparently wanted, lol.)
I have plenty of room to "speak", (post as wished), here. I see that you and a few others are still dodging the cognizant questions, (e.g., 'why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?'), by responding with non sequitors. Apparently, the 'blind-faithers' aren't tired of that same old thing.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/I8270.jpg)
-
Good quote. You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned.
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby: I think he's going for the Guinness World Record for posting the most b.s. posts in a month on FC.
-
Good quote. You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned.
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby:
The quote under your posting 'nym is a misnomer; you're the one trolling and I'm the one feeding you that which you cannot digest.
-
Good quote. You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned.
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby:
The quote under your posting 'nym is a misnomer; you're the one trolling and I'm the one feeding you that which you cannot digest.
yah...you'd like to "think" so, wouldn't ya? ;)
-
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby:
The quote under your posting 'nym is a misnomer; you're the one trolling and I'm the one feeding you that which you cannot digest.
yah...you'd like to "think" so, wouldn't ya? ;)
Since the evidence that you're trolling me is right here, in this thread, (and another), it would be difficult to refute. Of course, such trolling, (the 'talking about another' and creating inuendo may not be considered to be "trolling" by the troll doing so - that's you and Julie). Responding to such trolling, (my "feeding the trolls"), deliberately disregards your admonishment in order to emphasize your further hypocrisy.
-
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby:
Since the evidence that you're trolling me is right here, in this thread, (and another), it would be difficult to refute. Of course, such trolling, (the 'talking about another' and creating inuendo may not be considered to be "trolling" by the troll doing so - that's you and Julie). Responding to such trolling, (my "feeding the trolls"), deliberately disregards your admonishment in order to emphasize your further hypocrisy.
Yep Julie, there it is...the "persecution-oh-poor-me" post that we KNEW was coming!! *giggles
-
Yep Julie, there it is...the "persecution-oh-poor-me" post that we KNEW was coming!! *giggles
'Of course, such trolling, (the 'talking about another' and creating inuendo may not be considered to be "trolling" by the troll doing so - that's you and Julie). Responding to such trolling, (my "feeding the trolls"), deliberately disregards your admonishment in order to emphasize your further hypocrisy.' The only previous mention of "persecution" came from your trolling, (and subsequently referred to in this reply).
-
Nice to see the Personal Attack Monster is rearing it's ugly head (again) in more than one thread.
Two FC posters receive a :star: in Personal Attacks here (no names mentioned; no need to - it's obvious)
MUCH to be proud of there, folks :thumbsup:
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby: I think he's going for the Guinness World Record for posting the most b.s. posts in a month on FC.
And maybe YOU'RE going for the record for posting the most (:bs:) posts that include a Personal Attack on someone.....??
-
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby: I think he's going for the Guinness World Record for posting the most b.s. posts in a month on FC.
And maybe YOU'RE going for the record for posting the most (:bs:) posts that include a Personal Attack on someone.....??
That seems to be what happens most often when they run out of steam, (being unable to produce a cognizant refutation). It may be junior highschool girlish however, it doesn't qualitively add to their monthly post counts.
-
You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned. [/color]
No twisting or turning was necessary on my part however, such contortions were on par for the fundies. Imagine that. Btw, "ignoring" someone by posting about them is approximately the level of junior high-school girl immaturity. What's next, giggling?
Now, back to the point about fundies running away from having their unsupported opinions challenged; why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?
You have no room to speak. Some people are just tired of some of the "same-o" stuff and are finally speaking out about it. *giggle* (since that's what you apparently wanted, lol.)
I have plenty of room to "speak", (post as wished), here. I see that you and a few others are still dodging the cognizant questions, (e.g., 'why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?'), by responding with non sequitors. Apparently, the 'blind-faithers' aren't tired of that same old thing.
I have gone in so many circles with you over this, falcon9 that it is obvious you accept no other answers but your own. I have better things to do than to keep answering this same question again and again and again. You always come back with the same answers then and you always demean me or others when we say this, by saying we aren't up to the challenge or can't provide proof. Think whatever you want - whatever you think will make you feel that you are the one in control and know everything about this subject. You've made yourself clear about what you think and I've made myself clear what I believe. We will never agree on this subject unless either or both sides change their decision. And for me, it's not happening. For you, I'm assuming as well. So, with that, I am not answering in circles again.
Also, you reminded me to call you falcon9, and I am asking you to call me jcribb16. Thanks for the courtesy of fair respect. I wouldn't make a deal of mine if you hadn't of yours.
-
You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned. [/color]
No twisting or turning was necessary on my part however, such contortions were on par for the fundies. Imagine that. Btw, "ignoring" someone by posting about them is approximately the level of junior high-school girl immaturity. What's next, giggling?
Now, back to the point about fundies running away from having their unsupported opinions challenged; why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?
You have no room to speak. Some people are just tired of some of the "same-o" stuff and are finally speaking out about it. *giggle* (since that's what you apparently wanted, lol.)
I have plenty of room to "speak", (post as wished), here. I see that you and a few others are still dodging the cognizant questions, (e.g., 'why is it that blind faith is a _requirement_ of religious beliefs?'), by responding with non sequitors. Apparently, the 'blind-faithers' aren't tired of that same old thing.
Well, pardon me. I will change it to "You have no room to judge..."
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
-
Good quote. You know it will be turned and twisted and made into a new quote to make it "appear" that he's the actual one being maligned.
maligned & persecuted, wah-wah... :binkybaby:
The quote under your posting 'nym is a misnomer; you're the one trolling and I'm the one feeding you that which you cannot digest.
yah...you'd like to "think" so, wouldn't ya? ;)
Wow! He thinks you are trolling? I should check with a couple of other posters who would think that is what he has done with them, going into several groups behind them, continuing his (what they would call) trolling. It seems to me the digestion with him is giving him reflux of words.
-
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
I don't really mind doing so since you haven't managed to drag me anyway and your experience isn't benefiting you significantly. Some would maintain that there's a certain degree of futitlity involved in arguing with irrational persons however, such can be a learning experience for those whose minds haven't entirely been 'blinded by the light'.
-
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
I don't really mind doing so since you haven't managed to drag me anyway and your experience isn't benefiting you significantly. Some would maintain that there's a certain degree of futitlity involved in arguing with irrational persons however, such can be a learning experience for those whose minds haven't entirely been 'blinded by the light'.
*playing little violin*
-
Wow! He thinks you are trolling?
The trolling consists of several posts made specifically to 'talk around' anotehr member. These exist in more than one thread as evidence of trolling.
I should check with a couple of other posters who would think that is what he has done with them, going into several groups behind them, continuing his (what they would call) trolling.
They aren't other "groups"; they're other forums within FC, (specifically the off topic and D+D ones). In those forums, responses are posted to several empty assertions made in order to challenge them. This is not considered to be "trolling" under the definition of that term, (no matter how some quasi-martyred ones misperceive it).
It seems to me the digestion with him is giving him reflux of words.
My refutations differ from the ones who cannot digest them in that they are refutations.
-
*playing little violin*
"You can lead a horse to water but, you can't make them drink." My condolences that your 'horse' has become so dehydrated.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
The only thing is, with this, is there is no experience of understanding true faith as a believer in God. So this one would be beating us with an empty round of nothing except for a recording of the same big words. I'll strictly adhere to my faith - I agree arguing will do nothing more than drag down and annoy others. :)
-
Also, you reminded me to call you falcon9, and I am asking you to call me jcribb16. Thanks for the courtesy of fair respect. I wouldn't make a deal of mine if you hadn't of yours.[/color]
Uhhhhh.....???......the request (below) from falcon9 was to use the CORRECT "NAME"......because you addressed him as just "falcon"it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants)
Just pointing out that your point that you were "making a deal of yours" because falcon9 did.......well.......
it MAKES NO SENSE!
-
The only thing is, with this, is there is no experience of understanding true faith as a believer in God.
On the contrary, such blind "faith" isn't difficult to comprehend as it consists merely of the circularity of believing because one has faith.
So this one would be beating us with an empty round of nothing except for a recording of the same big words.
Which words were "too big" to understand; 'circularity' or 'comprehend'?
I'll strictly adhere to my faith - I agree arguing will do nothing more than drag down and annoy others. :)
Conversely, such strict adherence to blind faith while declining to admit the inherent irrationality involved can emphasize the very thing 'believers' wish to avoid.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
-
On the contrary, such blind "faith" isn't difficult to comprehend as it consists merely of the circularity of believing because one has faith.
Which words were "too big" to understand; 'circularity' or 'comprehend'?
Conversely, such strict adherence to blind faith while declining to admit the inherent irrationality involved can emphasize the very thing 'believers' wish to avoid.
Such a criticism of others is ironic; moreso when an inaccurate intent is assumed, ("... to try and make the other person feel bad just because you don't happen to feel the same way").
-
Well, pardon me. I will change it to "You have no room to judge..."[/color]
Everyone judges, that includes us. Although your judgement that I "have no room to judge" is a baseless assertion.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
-
Wow! He thinks you are trolling?
The trolling consists of several posts made specifically to 'talk around' anotehr member. These exist in more than one thread as evidence of trolling.
I should check with a couple of other posters who would think that is what he has done with them, going into several groups behind them, continuing his (what they would call) trolling.
They aren't other "groups"; they're other forums within FC, (specifically the off topic and D+D ones). In those forums, responses are posted to several empty assertions made in order to challenge them. This is not considered to be "trolling" under the definition of that term, (no matter how some quasi-martyred ones misperceive it).
It seems to me the digestion with him is giving him reflux of words.
My refutations differ from the ones who cannot digest them in that they are refutations.
"Talking around?" Oh yeah, like you and Falconer do; you and duroz do; etc. Forgot to check the mote in your own eye first, did you.
Following others in other groups (or threads as I would normally say since you wish to be so technical) isn't trolling to you? Okay, then we'll go back to the term "following" (where some thought "stalking" was the better word.)
Your refutations are not clear refutations of what refutations you say others can't digest when you are making such refutations yourself....
-
*playing little violin*
"You can lead a horse to water but, you can't make them drink." My condolences that your 'horse' has become so dehydrated.
You are repeating yourself. You carry that wherever you go in here. I thought you would come up with a much more "wordy" comment than that. Alas... *sigh*
-
On the contrary, such blind "faith" isn't difficult to comprehend as it consists merely of the circularity of believing because one has faith.
Which words were "too big" to understand; 'circularity' or 'comprehend'?
Conversely, such strict adherence to blind faith while declining to admit the inherent irrationality involved can emphasize the very thing 'believers' wish to avoid.
Such a criticism of others is ironic; moreso when an inaccurate intent is assumed, ("... to try and make the other person feel bad just because you don't happen to feel the same way").
Your attempt to quote me out of context backfires for two reasons. The first being that the comments made were emphasizing the meta-concept of criticizing others for criticizing others, (not opposing criticisms). The second reason it backfired is because you merely quoted me aithout attribution while failing to refute what was quoted, (presumably in a weak attempt to 'use my own words against me'). As my youngest daughter would say, "epic fail" on your part.
-
*playing little violin*
"You can lead a horse to water but, you can't make them drink." My condolences that your 'horse' has become so dehydrated.
You are repeating yourself. You carry that wherever you go in here.
You are mistaken; I haven't posted that before now. My own quote is a variation of the original, (if it was too subtle to grasp, I can understand why you'd perceive it as "repeating").
I thought you would come up with a much more "wordy" comment than that. Alas... *sigh*
So much for your asumptions then.
-
Also, you reminded me to call you falcon9, and I am asking you to call me jcribb16. Thanks for the courtesy of fair respect. I wouldn't make a deal of mine if you hadn't of yours.[/color]
Uhhhhh.....???......the request (below) from falcon9 was to use the CORRECT "NAME"......because you addressed him as just "falcon"it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants)
Just pointing out that your point that you were "making a deal of yours" because falcon9 did.......well.......
it MAKES NO SENSE!
It makes perfect sense. He called me Julie. I don't go by that in here, except for a couple of friends who know me outside of here or we have known each other for quite awhile. Courtesy goes both ways.
-
"Talking around?" Oh yeah, like you and Falconer do; you and duroz do; etc. Forgot to check the mote in your own eye first, did you.
The difference there is that we've more often quoted and replied directly to your nonsense, as opposed to exclusively replying to one another. Subtle, is it not? <-- sarcasm
Following others in other groups (or threads as I would normally say since you wish to be so technical) isn't trolling to you? Okay, then we'll go back to the term "following" (where some thought "stalking" was the better word.)
Motes are motes; both of you have 'followed' my posts to various threads and yet, that's not "stalking" either, huh? <-- more sarcasm
Your refutations are not clear refutations of what refutations you say others can't digest when you are making such refutations yourself....
Well, they may not be "clear" to you however, your inability to comprehend a refutation is more your responsibility than mine. Reason can refute irrationality while irrationality has not refuted reason thusfar.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
And I didn't say it was, Ms GIANT fricking troll.
IF you were able to read and comprehend, you would see that the "jcribb" is included within the quotation, and is not noted as the author......
So ERROR!!
:thumbsup: Good job!! But at least you took another opportunity to name-call (even if you were COMPLETELY wrong about whatever else you said)
-
The only thing is, with this, is there is no experience of understanding true faith as a believer in God.
On the contrary, such blind "faith" isn't difficult to comprehend as it consists merely of the circularity of believing because one has faith.
So this one would be beating us with an empty round of nothing except for a recording of the same big words.
Which words were "too big" to understand; 'circularity' or 'comprehend'?
I'll strictly adhere to my faith - I agree arguing will do nothing more than drag down and annoy others. :)
Conversely, such strict adherence to blind faith while declining to admit the inherent irrationality involved can emphasize the very thing 'believers' wish to avoid.
No one said anything about not understanding big words. Sorry to burst your confidence bubble. Your last sentence is very judgmental, and is demeaning to others who believe opposite of you. People are tired of being accused of untruths that you continually push on them. It's called respect of other peoples' beliefs, whether you like it or not, and whether you agree or not. Period.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
Wrong poster. Are you trying to cause trouble in here?
-
Also, you reminded me to call you falcon9, and I am asking you to call me jcribb16. Thanks for the courtesy of fair respect. I wouldn't make a deal of mine if you hadn't of yours.[/color]
Uhhhhh.....???......the request (below) from falcon9 was to use the CORRECT "NAME"......because you addressed him as just "falcon"it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants)
Just pointing out that your point that you were "making a deal of yours" because falcon9 did.......well.......
it MAKES NO SENSE!
It makes perfect sense.
No, it doesn't - "duroz" is perfectly accurate regarding the 'nym correction. There are two members with similar 'nyms on FC and a distinction was being made between them.
He called me Julie. I don't go by that in here, except for a couple of friends who know me outside of here or we have known each other for quite awhile.
You are mistaken in that you do sign some posts with your name in other forums/threads. Therefore, you do go by that in FC, (where those threads are not private blogs, forums, journals or emails but, are public posts - otherwise, how would I know that name?).
Courtesy goes both ways.
So does discourtesy however, that was not my intent. I can resume calling you "jbribb16" without a hitch.
-
Well, pardon me. I will change it to "You have no room to judge..."[/color]
Everyone judges, that includes us. Although your judgement that I "have no room to judge" is a baseless assertion.
Perhaps in your mind. However, you are judging and and are not so perfect that you think you have room to judge. You need to come back down to reality.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
Wrong poster. Are you trying to cause trouble in here?
Reread the threads involved; "duroz" has one of the two posters doing so. Pointing that out isn't "trying to cause trouble" since that stemmed from those posters doing so before "duroz" pointed it out.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
Thank you Sheryl.
-
*playing little violin*
"You can lead a horse to water but, you can't make them drink." My condolences that your 'horse' has become so dehydrated.
You are repeating yourself. You carry that wherever you go in here.
You are mistaken; I haven't posted that before now. My own quote is a variation of the original, (if it was too subtle to grasp, I can understand why you'd perceive it as "repeating").
I thought you would come up with a much more "wordy" comment than that. Alas... *sigh*
So much for your asumptions then.
My error - sorry. Someone likes to post it, I know that much. Just please don't try to drown my horse nor dehydrate my horse, and definitely don't keep beating my horse. Thank you.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
Thank you Sheryl.
You're welcome...and it still hasn't been corrected that you weren't the OP of that quote...what a ::)
-
Well, pardon me. I will change it to "You have no room to judge..."[/color]
Everyone judges, that includes us. Although your judgement that I "have no room to judge" is a baseless assertion.
Perhaps in your mind.
It's not only in my mind; it's right here on our computer screens in this very post.
However, you are judging and and are not so perfect that you think you have room to judge.
'Perfection' has nothing to do with judging, (despite some religious beliefs). As anyone can read, I replied that 'Everyone judges, that includes us'.
You need to come back down to reality.
Conversely, I started looking for that postcard for you which reads, "Greeting from earth - wish you were here" but, the sentiment would likely be to subtle for you.
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
Wrong poster. Are you trying to cause trouble in here?
For crap's sake.....you too? READ the reply I posted to Ms. GIANT troll's post.....
These are the people calling others IDIOTS??
(**NOTE** Ms GIANT troll only acquired such name AFTER she felt the need to call ME a troll)
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
And I didn't say it was, Ms GIANT fricking troll.
IF you were able to read and comprehend, you would see that the "jcribb" is included within the quotation, and is not noted as the author......
So ERROR!!
:thumbsup: Good job!! But at least you took another opportunity to name-call (even if you were COMPLETELY wrong about whatever else you said)
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
-
Also, you reminded me to call you falcon9, and I am asking you to call me jcribb16. Thanks for the courtesy of fair respect. I wouldn't make a deal of mine if you hadn't of yours.[/color]
Uhhhhh.....???......the request (below) from falcon9 was to use the CORRECT "NAME"......because you addressed him as just "falcon"it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants)
Just pointing out that your point that you were "making a deal of yours" because falcon9 did.......well.......
it MAKES NO SENSE!
It makes perfect sense.
No, it doesn't - "duroz" is perfectly accurate regarding the 'nym correction. There are two members with similar 'nyms on FC and a distinction was being made between them.
He called me Julie. I don't go by that in here, except for a couple of friends who know me outside of here or we have known each other for quite awhile.
You are mistaken in that you do sign some posts with your name in other forums/threads. Therefore, you do go by that in FC, (where those threads are not private blogs, forums, journals or emails but, are public posts - otherwise, how would I know that name?).
Courtesy goes both ways.
So does discourtesy however, that was not my intent. I can resume calling you "jbribb16" without a hitch.
jcribb16
-
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Poster receives a :star: in NAME CALLING
ERROR---that quote wasn't from jcribb, troll.
That wasn't 'trolling'; that was "duroz" quoting "Sheryls" who addressed "jcribb" and proceded to troll "falcon9".
You're welcome...and it still hasn't been corrected that you weren't the OP of that quote...what a ::)
No one imlied she was - except you, in a roundabout way of using " jcribb:" to address "jcribb" without quoting her. Brillantly done! <--sarcasm
-
You're welcome...and it still hasn't been corrected that you weren't the OP of that quote...what a ::)
jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
There....now YOUR name is connected with the post, YOU get credit for it.....
The posted quote that was NEVER wrong to begin with.....
has ??? BEEN CORRECTED?
-
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
False. What "filthy words" are you referring to? Be specific with the message IDs to, unless you want to be proven as a liar.
As to 'trolling a troll', you two trolls initiated the trolling and now whine that you're being 'trolled' in return? Classic.
-
jcribb16
Too subtle? Would 'hey you' be better?
-
fricking
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
Is this what you refer to as FILTHY WORDS? Umm...I know sweet little old ladies who say this fairly regularly
-
My error - sorry. Someone likes to post it, I know that much. Just please don't try to drown my horse nor dehydrate my horse, and definitely don't keep beating my horse. Thank you.
There's no need on my part; you're doing just fine drowning, dehydrating and beating your 'horse' on your own.
-
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
False. What "filthy words" are you referring to? Be specific with the message IDs to, unless you want to be proven as a liar.
As to 'trolling a troll', you two trolls initiated the trolling and now whine that you're being 'trolled' in return? Classic.
Knock it off with the baiting. I didn't come in here tonight talking about trolling, until after the duroz person decided to award some prizes and somebody had brought it up.
-
wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school. One can post Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 02:38:44 pm above the quote if it pleases however, when one posts "jcribb" and then the quote, proper posting says this is to indicate that jcribb said the quote. If one was trying to address her, then one should have posted the quote and then addressed her before or after the quote---NOT with it. DUH!
-
jcribb16
Too subtle? Would 'hey you' be better?
You misspelled it, duh...
-
fricking
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
Is this what you refer to as FILTHY WORDS? Umm...I know sweet little old ladies who say this fairly regularly
That's only thing it could be, (given no other examples extant). My grandma used to say "puppy biscuits", "sun on the beach" and "go auto-fornicate", (my pesonal favorite non-cussing 'curse' from her), "and "icehole", (running a close second favorite). Despite such misperceptions and judgements, a euphemism for an generally unacceptable word is not a "filthy word".
-
Too subtle? Would 'hey you' be better?
You misspelled it, duh...
Of course I did ... and that was too subtle. Oh well, they say that sarcasm loses something if it must be explained.
-
fricking
And you are not only trolling, but beginning to add your filthy words with it. That will catch up with you.
Is this what you refer to as FILTHY WORDS? Umm...I know sweet little old ladies who say this fairly regularly
That's only thing it could be, (given no other examples extant). My grandma used to say "puppy biscuits", "sun on the beach" and "go auto-fornicate", (my pesonal favorite non-cussing 'curse' from her), "and "icehole", (running a close second favorite). Despite such misperceptions and judgements, a euphemism for an generally unacceptable word is not a "filthy word".
I don't know how she ever understood a word you said then if this was all the better she could do...or maybe she dumbed it down alot.
-
Knock it off with the baiting. I didn't come in here tonight talking about trolling, until after the duroz person decided to award some prizes and somebody had brought it up.
I read the sequence of events, even while participating in the exhanges. First, the two of you, ("jcribb16" & "Sheryls"), decided to _initate_ a series of trolling posts and then, when that was 'awarded prizes', decided you didn't want to talk about your own trolling, (preferring to call others "trolls" using baseless opinion to define non-trolling posts instead).
This isn't "baiting"; it's responding to your side-swipes.
-
I don't know how she ever understood a word you said then if this was all the better she could do...or maybe she dumbed it down alot.
Neither my grandmother nor I engaged in 'dumbing-down' and understood one another perfectly nevertheless.
-
wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school.
Are you still stuck on that 'junior highschool girlish' immaturity thing of yours? If so, you omitted the obligatory *giggle* this time.
One can post Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 02:38:44 pm above the quote if it pleases however, when one posts "jcribb" and then the quote, proper posting says this is to indicate that jcribb said the quote. If one was trying to address her, then one should have posted the quote and then addressed her before or after the quote---NOT with it. DUH!
Since you're the "one" who posted the address to "jcribb" by preceding it with the "quote" brackets, I assume you'll be listening to your own advice.
-
Knock it off with the baiting. I didn't come in here tonight talking about trolling, until after the duroz person decided to award some prizes and somebody had brought it up.
I read the sequence of events, even while participating in the exhanges. First, the two of you, ("jcribb16" & "Sheryls"), decided to _initate_ a series of trolling posts and then, when that was 'awarded prizes', decided you didn't want to talk about your own trolling, (preferring to call others "trolls" using baseless opinion to define non-trolling posts instead).
This isn't "baiting"; it's responding to your side-swipes.
hmmm...I haven't been "trolling", I've been debating and discussing. Can't help it if you don't agree with me, I'm entitled to believe what I want--just like you.
-
Since you're the "one" who posted the address to "jcribb" by preceding it with the "quote" brackets, I assume you'll be listening to your own advice.
My original post was only for jcribb, that's why it is what it is. If someone is going to use it, they need to use it in the right context. (Just like if someone is going to dissect someone's every sentence, they might want to make sure they keep it in proper context UNLESS they have to manipulate it to mean what they want it to.) I have to explain that....reeaally? *More giggling, sorry...it's funny.
-
Too subtle? Would 'hey you' be better?
You misspelled it, duh...
Of course I did ... and that was too subtle. Oh well, they say that sarcasm loses something if it must be explained.
I think your sarcasm was in poor taste. You asked me not to call you falcon and I changed it. You needn't get so sarcastic. It's jcribb16 to you.
-
I think your sarcasm was in poor taste.
How was mispelling your 'nym in poor taste? If that was my intent, I could have mispelled it much differently.
You asked me not to call you falcon and I changed it.
Nope, you just did it again. That's alright, I was trying to make a point and that whooshing sound was it flying overhead.
You needn't get so sarcastic. It's jcribb16 to you.
Conversely, you needed tell me how to "get". Since "jcribb16" is merely a screen name, "hey you" would probably suffice.
-
My original post was only for jcribb, that's why it is what it is.
Right and what it is was your talking about me to her, (e.g., 'gossiping'). Since you gossiped in a public forum, anyone who wishes to reply may do so.
If someone is going to use it, they need to use it in the right context. (Just like if someone is going to dissect someone's every sentence, they might want to make sure they keep it in proper context UNLESS they have to manipulate it to mean what they want it to.)
It was used in context, even though your method of address may have partly muddled the contextual attributions momentarily. As for "dissecting" replies, these are quoted in context without any 'manipulation', (which is a false accusation lacking evidence).
-
Knock it off with the baiting. I didn't come in here tonight talking about trolling, until after the duroz person decided to award some prizes and somebody had brought it up.
I read the sequence of events, even while participating in the exhanges. First, the two of you, ("jcribb16" & "Sheryls"), decided to _initate_ a series of trolling posts and then, when that was 'awarded prizes', decided you didn't want to talk about your own trolling, (preferring to call others "trolls" using baseless opinion to define non-trolling posts instead).
This isn't "baiting"; it's responding to your side-swipes.
hmmm...I haven't been "trolling", I've been debating and discussing. Can't help it if you don't agree with me, I'm entitled to believe what I want--just like you.
It seems to be okay for them to say things and be sarcastic, but no one else had better do that.
-
My original post was only for jcribb, that's why it is what it is.
Right and what it is was your talking about me to her, (e.g., 'gossiping'). Since you gossiped in a public forum, anyone who wishes to reply may do so.
If someone is going to use it, they need to use it in the right context. (Just like if someone is going to dissect someone's every sentence, they might want to make sure they keep it in proper context UNLESS they have to manipulate it to mean what they want it to.)
It was used in context, even though your method of address may have partly muddled the contextual attributions momentarily. As for "dissecting" replies, these are quoted in context without any 'manipulation', (which is a false accusation lacking evidence).
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
-
hmmm...I haven't been "trolling", I've been debating and discussing.
Your bland denial is belied by your previous trolling posts, (message IDs available however, one merely needs to scroll down this thread and the thread about criticisms).
Can't help it if you don't agree with me, I'm entitled to believe what I want--just like you.
While you latest posts barely fall under the "discuss" part of D+D, they fail to qualify as legitimate "debate". Yes, you are "entitled" to believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, just as I am "entitled" to challenge unsupported opinions/assertions/beliefs. I can't help it if rationality disturbs the pseudo-comfort of your irrationality. This should not prevent you from burying your head in the sand, putting your hands over your ears or, clinging desparately to blind faith.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
Show the message IDs, in context, (that is, include the posts replied to), as evidence. Or, continue making unsupported assertions. Your choice.
-
It seems to be okay for them to say things and be sarcastic, but no one else had better do that.
The difference is that those replies were replies in response to things _initiated_ by you and "Sheryls" in this instance. Obviously, it is in your interest to pretend otherwise however, the posts are still available in the applicable threads and they don't support your contention. Shocking, no?
-
My original post was only for jcribb, that's why it is what it is.
Right and what it is was your talking about me to her, (e.g., 'gossiping'). Since you gossiped in a public forum, anyone who wishes to reply may do so.
??? huh?? I posted a quote for her and her only. I wasn't the author of the quote hence, wasn't gossiping at all. You have a strange interpretation of things in this forum, makes me wonder about your interpretation of bigger things...
-
While you latest posts barely fall under the "discuss" part of D+D, they fail to qualify as legitimate "debate". Yes, you are "entitled" to believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, just as I am "entitled" to challenge unsupported opinions/assertions/beliefs. I can't help it if rationality disturbs the pseudo-comfort of your irrationality. This should not prevent you from burying your head in the sand, putting your hands over your ears or, clinging desparately to blind faith.
ok there sweetie...calm down before you have a stroke and can't remember your BIG words, gosh I'd feel so bad. :crybaby2:
-
While your latest posts barely fall under the "discuss" part of D+D, they fail to qualify as legitimate "debate". Yes, you are "entitled" to believe whatever nonsense floats your boat, just as I am "entitled" to challenge unsupported opinions/assertions/beliefs. I can't help it if rationality disturbs the pseudo-comfort of your irrationality. This should not prevent you from burying your head in the sand, putting your hands over your ears or, clinging desparately to blind faith.
ok there sweetie...calm down before you have a stroke and can't remember your BIG words, gosh I'd feel so bad. :crybaby2:
Nominally, attempted condescension doesn't work while you're 'looking up' however, there is still a small amount of curiousity about what words you consider are too "BIG". For all know about the constrictions upon your comprehension, "the" is too big a word for you so, I'm requesting clarification. Surely you aren't implying that I dumb things down for you, are you?
-
??? huh?? I posted a quote for her and her only.
In a public forum? It wasn't an email or IM; others read it and replied. Tough.
I wasn't the author of the quote hence, wasn't gossiping at all. You have a strange interpretation of things in this forum, makes me wonder about your interpretation of bigger things...
The "intrepretation" was that you were using the quote, (which no one said was yours), as a side-swipe gossipy post, (gossipy since you just admitted that the quote was "for her and her only", yet was publically posted). Take a long look at your own misinterpretations and poor interpretations before poking at motes or underwear.
-
??? huh?? I posted a quote for her and her only.
In a public forum? It wasn't an email or IM; others read it and replied. Tough.
And they used improper forum quoting techniques, again...tough. I was so over it along time ago---why aren't you? Why is it that when you ask a question and then I give you an explanation...you come up with this "all-need-to-be-right" attitude? Don't ask questions, don't re-quote me if you just want to live in your own little fantasy world because I might give you an explanation that you of course don't want to hear---but you did post in a public forum and all, so tough.
-
The "intrepretation" was that you were using the quote, (which no one said was yours), as a side-swipe gossipy post, (gossipy since you just admitted that the quote was "for her and her only", yet was publically posted). Take a long look at your own misinterpretations and poor interpretations before poking at motes or underwear.
ok, here's another "duh" moment. You're STILL on the "gossip" thing? That entire post that contained that quote never mentioned your name so what's the problem? There's no FC rule stating people can't post awesome quotes. You're being outrageously paranoid... ::)
-
wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school. One can post Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 02:38:44 pm above the quote if it pleases however, when one posts "jcribb" and then the quote, proper posting says this is to indicate that jcribb said the quote. If one was trying to address her, then one should have posted the quote and then addressed her before or after the quote---NOT with it. DUH!
Uh NO if I was indicating that jcribb "said the quote", I would have posted it thusly:
Thanks for your input, though! Appreciate it!
-
Nominally, attempted condescension doesn't work while you're 'looking up' however, there is still a small amount of curiousity about what words you consider are too "BIG". For all know about the constrictions upon your comprehension, "the" is too big a word for you so, I'm requesting clarification. Surely you aren't implying that I dumb things down for you, are you?
Seriously? I mean "seriously"?? I have to explain that simple post to you? (ok, now I KNOW you're trolling but I'll explain it to you anyway)...
1.) duh and duh... I don't look up to you.
2.) I don't consider ANY words "too big"...I just like to joke with you about your fondness of big words. Haven't you ever had anyone joke around with you before?
3.) I never implied (that I'm aware of) that you dumb things down for me, you certainly don't need to...unless you're exhausted.
-
And they used improper forum quoting techniques, again...tough. I was so over it along time ago---why aren't you?
I was, until you and 'hey you' kept bringing it up.
Why is it that when you ask a question and then I give you an explanation...you come up with this "all-need-to-be-right" attitude?
I don't. Questions are asked and whether or not someone answers or dodges them is up to others. If answered, (not just replied to), it is reasonable to examine them for accuracy - nothing personal, I do this with everyone, (including me).
Don't ask questions, don't re-quote me if you just want to live in your own little fantasy world ...
How does my quoting your words become me living in a fantasy world? They're your words, hence, your fantasies.
... because I might give you an explanation that you of course don't want to hear---
That's not accurate; if you offer an irrational explanation, I may question it, (it isn't that I "don't want to hear" irrational explanations, even though that's all that's been presented thusfar and a change would be nice).
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
-
Seriously? I mean "seriously"??
duh and duh
You REALLY posted these words...(but I guess it would really be THIS word, twice)?
-
The "intrepretation" was that you were using the quote, (which no one said was yours), as a side-swipe gossipy post, (gossipy since you just admitted that the quote was "for her and her only", yet was publically posted). Take a long look at your own misinterpretations and poor interpretations before poking at motes or underwear.
ok, here's another "duh" moment. You're STILL on the "gossip" thing?
Not as long as you're admitting it was, I'm done making that point.
That entire post that contained that quote never mentioned your name so what's the problem?
Here's where context comes into play.
You're being outrageously paranoid... ::)
Okay, you meant the quote to apply to "jcribb16" then?
-
And they used improper forum quoting techniques, again...tough. I was so over it along time ago---why aren't you?
I was, until you and 'hey you' kept bringing it up.
Why is it that when you ask a question and then I give you an explanation...you come up with this "all-need-to-be-right" attitude?
I don't. Questions are asked and whether or not someone answers or dodges them is up to others. If answered, (not just replied to), it is reasonable to examine them for accuracy - nothing personal, I do this with everyone, (including me).
Don't ask questions, don't re-quote me if you just want to live in your own little fantasy world ...
How does my quoting your words become me living in a fantasy world? They're your words, hence, your fantasies.
... because I might give you an explanation that you of course don't want to hear---
That's not accurate; if you offer an irrational explanation, I may question it, (it isn't that I "don't want to hear" irrational explanations, even though that's all that's been presented thusfar and a change would be nice).
Falcon9, my sn is jcribb16. Please call me that or jcribb - I have respected your wishes about your sn. You have ignored mine and have called me jbribb and "hey you." I am asking the same respect, sir.
-
@falcon9
Not as long as you're admitting it was, I'm done making that point.
I didn't admit to anything... ???
Okay, you meant the quote to apply to "jcribb16" then?
No, I said what I meant---the quote was FOR "jcribb".
Are you sure you belong in a discussion forum when you can't comprehend the basics of simple discussion? You're looking pitiful tonite (seriously, honestly...nothing else intended). Perhaps you need to get some good rest and try again tomorrow...
-
(ok, now I KNOW you're trolling but I'll explain it to you anyway)...
Asking you which words you considered to be "BIG words" isn't trolling.
1.) duh and duh... I don't look up to you.
I didn't say you did. What I directly implied was that under the definition of 'condescending', your attempt failed.
2.) I don't consider ANY words "too big"...I just like to joke with you about your fondness of big words. Haven't you ever had anyone joke around with you before?
A "joke" which is of hostile intent, (and you can't accurately claim that they were politely intended now), is probably 'funnier' to the one showing prejudice against "big" words. These are not "big" words in my vocabulary since I use them all the time, (as you've seen). Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious would be a big word I rarely use, (btw, that's "signifying roughly "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty").
3.) I never implied (that I'm aware of) that you dumb things down for me, you certainly don't need to...unless you're exhausted.
By previously mentioning the use of "big words" several times, that was the tacit implication, (such implication being to use smaller words).
-
Not as long as you're admitting it was, I'm done making that point.
I didn't admit to anything... ???
I didn't think you would however, your "the quote was for her and her only", (yet was publically posted), is niminally 'gossip', regardless of whether you admit or not.
No, I said what I meant---the quote was FOR "jcribb".
So, a post made in a public forum where any member reading that forum can, (but it wasn't intended for anyone else), is _not_ gossip now? Next, you'll be redfining 'rock' as 'an edible substance'?
Are you sure you belong in a discussion forum when you can't comprehend the basics of simple discussion?
While unravelling such simple convolutions can be a little tedious, I've never demonstrated overt incomprehensibility, (with the possible exception of being unable to comprehend the circularity of having 'faith' because one believes).
You're looking pitiful tonite (seriously, honestly...nothing else intended).
As mentioned, it may be tedious to respond to multiple trollings by the two of you, I've replied in context to most of them, (even some of the repetitious ones).
-
Falcon9, my sn is jcribb16. Please call me that or jcribb - I have respected your wishes about your sn. You have ignored mine and have called me jbribb and "hey you." I am asking the same respect, sir.
I'll take it under advisement.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
-
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 05:47:12 pm
No, I said what I meant---the quote was FOR "jcribb".
Quote from: Falcon9:
So, a post made in a public forum where any member reading that forum can, (but it wasn't intended for anyone else), is _not_ gossip now? Next, you'll be redfining 'rock' as 'an edible substance'?
Actually, pop rocks are edible!!
-
@falcon9
no, jokes are not always of hostile intent...if that's how it's been for you then that's rough.
I don't know why you take every word I say the opposite way...unless you're doing it on purpose. I've seen you do it with others as well. I'm not sure if you re-post everyone's posts sentence-by-sentence to get some clarification or if you're doing it on purpose to get a rise.
Which is it?
@jcribb: Pop rocks are so awesome... :heart:
-
Actually, pop rocks are edible!!
They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they? Brand name misnomers hardly count.
-
Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted. That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum. As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents). Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions. In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
Gossip/name-calling untruthfully
-
no, jokes are not always of hostile intent...if that's how it's been for you then that's rough.
That's a two-way street.
I don't know why you take every word I say the opposite way...unless you're doing it on purpose.
There have been a few instances of your intent being unclear, (except to you?). Regardless, there's no evidence of my taking "every word" you "say the opposite way"{intended?}, beyond your claim.
I've seen you do it with others as well.
Where? Post examples in context, (message IDs would also go far in substantiating your claim).
I'm not sure if you re-post everyone's posts sentence-by-sentence to get some clarification or if you're doing it on purpose to get a rise.
Which is it?
Neither. I quote what I'm replying to to retain the context, (which retains the meaning of the words posted, rather than some vague alternate intention which isn't apparent in the words posted). That way, when somebody chooses to make faulty allegations which lack the basis of evidence, such quoted posts they've made are available to keep the subject in context.
-
Quote from falcon9---
I didn't think you would however, your "the quote was for her and her only", (yet was publically posted), is niminally 'gossip', regardless of whether you admit or not.
@falcon9
I've posted several posts to individuals on FC before including many to you...those weren't 'gossip' either unless men have a different definition of 'gossip' than women. (Which could very well be because I used to think women "owned" the word and then I've heard some guys gossip and ...I think they're better at it!)
-
Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted. That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum. As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents). Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions. In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
Gossip/name-calling untruthfully
Where, in any of the posted quoted above as an 'example', was there Any "Gossip/name-calling untruthfully"? Was it "Falconer02's" speculation about "major emotional problems"? If so, my response to that portion is also quoted above. Something else?
-
Quote from falcon9---...your "the quote was for her and her only", (yet was publically posted), is niminally 'gossip', regardless of whether you admit or not.
I've posted several posts to individuals on FC before including many to you...those weren't 'gossip' either unless men have a different definition of 'gossip' than women. (Which could very well be because I used to think women "owned" the word and then I've heard some guys gossip and ...I think they're better at it!)
No, it is the content and context which make it "gossip", (the fact that you stated the post was intended "for her and her alone" while it was implicitly directed via context to another is what constitutes "gossip" - 'talking about others, rather than to them'). While both men and women, (and boys and girls), do so, the definition doesn't change:
"gos·sip
[gos-uhp] noun, verb, -siped or -sipped, -sip·ing or -sip·ping.
noun
2. light, familiar talk or writing.
3. Also, gos·sip·er, gos·sip·per. a person given to tattling or idle talk.
5. Archaic - a friend, especially a woman.
verb (used without object)
6. to talk idly, especially about the affairs of others; go about tattling." --dictionary.com
-
Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.
I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted. That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum. As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents). Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions. In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.
Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.
In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted. Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer'). That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.
Gossip/name-calling untruthfully
Where, in any of the posted quoted above as an 'example', was there Any "Gossip/name-calling untruthfully"? Was it "Falconer02's" speculation about "major emotional problems"? If so, my response to that portion is also quoted above. Something else?
-
Actually, pop rocks are edible!!
They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they? Brand name misnomers hardly count.
I didn't say they were.
-
@falcon9
I posted a quote FOR jcribb. If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever. The fact that you have is a joke.
-
@falcon9
I posted a quote FOR jcribb. If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever. The fact that you have is a joke.
Thank you for the quote for me! I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally.
-
I posted a quote FOR jcribb. If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever. The fact that you have is a joke.
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:02:23-
"jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Thank you for the quote for me! I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally.
So, in the context of that portion of this thread, that "quote" wasn't about anyone in particular and was entirely random, (yet _for_ one particular person?) Here's another from you, (not aimed at you two 'girls' in particular):
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:44:28-
"wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school."
-
I posted a quote FOR jcribb. If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever. The fact that you have is a joke.
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:02:23-
"jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon
Thank you for the quote for me! I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally.
So, in the context of that portion of this thread, that "quote" wasn't for anyone in particular and was entirely random? Here's another from you, (not aimed at you two 'girls' in particular):
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:44:28-
"wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school."
Quotes from: Falcon9:
Are you still stuck on that 'junior highschool girlish' immaturity thing of yours? If so, you omitted the obligatory *giggle* this time.
So does discourtesy however, that was not my intent. I can resume calling you "jbribb16" without a hitch.
That seems to be what happens most often when they run out of steam, (being unable to produce a cognizant refutation). It may be junior highschool girlish however, it doesn't qualitively add to their monthly post counts.
-
[...out of context quotes]
I could do that too, (repost out of context quotes) however, I decline to do so.
-
Actually, pop rocks are edible!!
They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they? Brand name misnomers hardly count.
I didn't say they were.
[/quote]
Within the context of redefining "rocks", (as opposed to "poprocks"), as 'edible substances' the implication was direct. That's why context is important to understanding and why those who eschew reason tend to take things out of context.
-
"The 'gentleman' doth protest too much."
-
"The 'gentleman' doth protest too much."
The out of context quote is an inapplicable opinion, (hiding behind an unattributed quote). The 'lady' doth maketh too many unsupported assertions and doesn't enjoy having them challenged, ('protsted').
-
Actually, pop rocks are edible!!
They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they? Brand name misnomers hardly count.
I didn't say they were.
Within the context of redefining "rocks", (as opposed to "poprocks"), as 'edible substances' the implication was direct. That's why context is important to understanding and why those who eschew reason tend to take things out of context.
[/quote]
Oh good grief. Give your brain a rest. I made a comment in jest. You do the same occasionally. No need to make a big deal out of a simple thing.
-
"The 'gentleman' doth protest too much."
The out of context quote is an inapplicable opinion, (hiding behind an unattributed quote). The 'lady' doth maketh too many unsupported assertions and doesn't enjoy having them challenged, ('protsted').
If it makes you feel better to think that, go right ahead. You are making such a deal over something so simple. That's petty.
-
Oh good grief. Give your brain a rest. I made a comment in jest. You do the same occasionally. No need to make a big deal out of a simple thing.
The point was to emphasize the example of taking things out of context which you provided. Thank you for that, btw. I will agree that taking things out of context occasionally can be humorous and yes, I've done that specifically for the humor value too.
-
"The 'gentleman' doth protest too much."
:thumbsup:
-
"The 'gentleman' doth protest too much."
The out of context quote is an inapplicable opinion, (hiding behind an unattributed quote). The 'lady' doth maketh too many unsupported assertions and doesn't enjoy having them challenged, ('protested').
If it makes you feel better to think that, go right ahead.
I never mentioned that it makes me "feel" any particular way so, go ahead and continue making unsupported speculations.
You are making such a deal over something so simple. That's petty.
This would be as opposed to your making something so simple out of something within a larger context? I'm not sure if that's "petty" or not since such a determination is too often a (faulty) judgement call. Although it was amusing to see you 'spring forth' so quickly in defense of a fellow fundie. Circle the wagons and all that, aye?
-
Too much highschool drama goin' on in here. Let's get this thread back on track! Let's all follow a god that lets this be in his holy book-
Psalm 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
-
Too much highschool drama goin' on in here. Let's get this thread back on track! Let's all follow a god that lets this be in his holy book-
Psalm 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
Can't have those Samarians rejecting the xtian "god", can the isrealites? That'll teach 'em!
-
Too much highschool drama goin' on in here. Let's get this thread back on track! Let's all follow a god that lets this be in his holy book-
Psalm 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
-
Psalm 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
-
Psalm 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
-
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
@ jcribb & newbies:
You know why, right?
The whole agenda behind "d&d" is for trolls to lure in believers on the premise that they are "searching for the truth", while they do what they can to try and provoke believers to insult them, lose their temper, get them to do anything that is not "Christ-like" so they can get their "kicks".
They freely indulge in reusing the same words of their opponents and in turning those words against them. They always will sound as if it is the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that what the forum is all about is legitimate because they have no evidence of their own.
D&D is where trolls LOVE to post conflicting information, question believers in an insincere manner, start flaming discussions, try to turn people against each other, "innocently" harass forum members that don't agree with them, and not have to worry much about warnings from Admin.
If you've noticed, they even freely take the negative emotions they've tried to stir up on some threads and carry them into other threads trying to "keep the drama going" in any possible way that they can.
Their true aganda is to find the believers that are "new", the ones that aren't grounded in the "Word" like you & I. If they can get them to question their beliefs...and with them not being grounded in the "Word", they will begin to have doubts. If they don't get the answers in time, they may have reason to abandon their faith, abandon God.
Many have wondered why people that don't believe in God would spend so much time in "religious" discussions conversing with believers, when they consider them to be 'lunatics'. It's because they are "preying".
Consider their agenda before wasting much more of life's valuable time in d&d.
Dissect away "falcon9-troll", I've got better things to do with my time today!! :thumbsup:
-
Yes, I have noticed these ideas being seeped into other threads. And, btw, falcon9, how do you know I am a fundie (fundamentalist)? The fact is, I am not.
-
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
@ jcribb & newbies:
You know why, right?
The whole agenda behind "d&d" is for trolls to lure in believers on the premise that they are "searching for the truth", while they do what they can to try and provoke believers to insult them, lose their temper, get them to do anything that is not "Christ-like" so they can get their "kicks".
They freely indulge in reusing the same words of their opponents and in turning those words against them. They always will sound as if it is the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that what the forum is all about is legitimate because they have no evidence of their own.
D&D is where trolls LOVE to post conflicting information, question believers in an insincere manner, start flaming discussions, try to turn people against each other, "innocently" harass forum members that don't agree with them, and not have to worry much about warnings from Admin.
If you've noticed, they even freely take the negative emotions they've tried to stir up on some threads and carry them into other threads trying to "keep the drama going" in any possible way that they can.
Their true aganda is to find the believers that are "new", the ones that aren't grounded in the "Word" like you & I. If they can get them to question their beliefs...and with them not being grounded in the "Word", they will begin to have doubts. If they don't get the answers in time, they may have reason to abandon their faith, abandon God.
Many have wondered why people that don't believe in God would spend so much time in "religious" discussions conversing with believers, when they consider them to be 'lunatics'. It's because they are "preying".
Consider their agenda before wasting much more of life's valuable time in d&d.
Dissect away "falcon9-troll", I've got better things to do with my time today!! :thumbsup:
Well spoken, Sheryl. What concerns me, is that even though many on here are strangers, some of them post, particularly in the religious threads, joyfully or innocently about God, their views or beliefs, prayer requests, thanks for prayers, what God has done for them, etc., only to be "preyed" (like you said) by certain ones who have no care whatsoever for what the others are asking. This is an open forum, true, but there are many threads that can be ignored, instead of going in and causing trouble for ones asking for prayer. That is exactly what Satan desires to try and get the ones asking or giving prayer riled up.
I can see coming in threads that are specifically aimed for debates, arguments, disagreeable opinions, etc., but not in ones to stir up anger and get people really upset or feelings hurt that have never had "preyers" of this type pick at them like that. It's a simple matter of respect and courtesy for their beliefs and of them asking prayers from anyone in the forum who does pray.
I love a good debate when it's done as a debate should be done. The constant unaccepting of one side over the other, with the same "baseless" and "empty" words is not giving even the least bit of courtesy to the other side. It doesn't matter, to only a certain few and not all, what the other side provides, including what professors, teachers, scientists have to say or show, it's unaccepted, based on their views only, even when some of their views are not totally verified by evidence, because they say so and that's that. Unfortunately, that is not that, at all.
They (only a certain few) need to start providing more proof for theories that aren't totally or at all verified, and have the burden on them to prove there is no God, instead of the other way around. But, sadly, those certain ones will refuse to do this and lay the burden back on the other side. However, it's obvious those certain ones can't provide proof, because they refuse to see what's in front of them and around them, and take the step of faith (some don't like this word), so they don't or can't understand the proof.
Then there are some who say they experienced salvation through Christ. Yet do not accept Him now. I will say that in my opinion (so I don't get called on for saying that this is fact) that if someone were really saved and has met Christ and has seen God's creation and prayers answered (in one way or another), then how in the world could that someone turn their back on God. Or was it just a feeling and not true salvation. I can't answer that honestly because no one knows what's in someone's thoughts and in their hearts. I just know for myself, now that I've accepted Christ, I could never turn on Him.
And this is when the respect of other people's choices comes in - to accept their choice and not bash the person for their choice and then continue to demand such "proof," to the point of badgering posters. That part is wrong and disrespectful. Adults should be able to be mature enough about things in here, to know when something should be said or when it shouldn't, with regards to the topic and what the person is asking or stating.
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
-
The whole agenda behind "d&d" is for trolls to lure in believers on the premise that they are "searching for the truth", while they do what they can to try and provoke believers to insult them, lose their temper, get them to do anything that is not "Christ-like" so they can get their "kicks".
Conversely, the "agenda" on my part is and has been to challenge the unsupported declarations of religious "trolls" whose "agenda" appears to consist of trolling the forums with empty assertions, (essentially, opinions sans evidence). It isn't productive to speculate about possible motivations for them doing so, other than the apparently common one of expressing such "beliefs" as (empty) opinions which somehow are 'immune' to questioning.
They freely indulge in reusing the same words of their opponents and in turning those words against them.
They always will sound as if it is the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that what the forum is all about is legitimate because they have no evidence of their own.
It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence to support their claims, (not to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge the veracity of such claims). Requesting 'proof' that something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy and such requests most often originate from those who have no understanding of reasoning, (and are actively eschewing it). Religious adherents who make initial claims concerning their religious beliefs are engaging in such attempts to shift the burden of proof because they have never been able to provide accurately-attributible evidence to support their claims. That's what makes their claims empty, nothing else.
D&D is where trolls LOVE to post conflicting information ...
First, designating those who question empty religious claims as "trolls" is extremely disengenuous, (e.g., an out and out lie). Secondly, to what "conflicting information" do you refer? While there is no expectation of an answer which would substantiate such an accusation, the question is asked to emphasize the tendency religious adherents demonstrate for making baseless assertions and then failing to support those with substantiating evidence, (e.g., making false claims). This is, in fact, a characteristic of actual "trolls"; posting such 'hit-and-run' inflamatory accusations sans evidence.
question believers in an insincere manner ...
How is sincerity being determined, (other than by unsupported opinion)? A counter-assertion is that the questioning is 'sincere' until proven otherwise so, if there is evidence of insincerity, post it. If not, the accusation cannot be justified by evidence and the default conclusion is that it is false.
start flaming discussions, try to turn people against each other...
This is simply not true; the vast majority of such discussions have been begun by the religious adherents complaining when their baseless declarations are questioned. Questioning baseless declarations is not "flaming", "flaming" consists of the name-calling which a number of religious adherents have engaged in when questioned. Evidence, (including message IDs), is available to support this contention however, when faced with such evidence as contradicts their declarations of "faith", these same religious adherents start posting more irrational nonsense instead, (such as this particular post by "Sheryls", which consists almost entirely of a 'trolling' post under the actual definition of "trolling").
"innocently" harass forum members that don't agree with them, and not have to worry much about warnings from Admin.
No doubt falsely characterizing the challenging and questioning of 'blind faith' is inaccurately considered as 'harassing' by those religious adherents who unreasonably feel that their empty beliefs are someone immune from questioning. They are not; especially when evangelized in a public forum, (and most especially when publically-posted in the D+D subforum).
If you've noticed, they even freely take the negative emotions they've tried to stir up on some threads and carry them into other threads trying to "keep the drama going" in any possible way that they can.
Any "negative emotions" extant belong solely to those claiming to have them. Such constitutes a 'false martyr' position where merely questioning is considered to be 'persecution'. As far as carrying discussions into other threads, there is evidence of some religious adherents doing so and of replies to such "drama" subsequently following. That means such instances of "drama" can be shown to be propagated by all participating parties.
Their true aganda is to find the believers that are "new", the ones that aren't grounded in the "Word" ...
Conversely, there is no such "agenda", (despite such unsupported accusations), and the objective, (at least stemming from my own intentions), is one of questioning empty assertions - religious or otherwise.
If they can get them to question their beliefs...and with them not being grounded in the "Word", they will begin to have doubts. If they don't get the answers in time, they may have reason to abandon their faith, abandon God.
By not questioning one's "beliefs", one avoids considering whether such really are merely 'convictions' and 'opinions' which lack substantiation, (and this is, in fact, what "faith" is - simply a conviction regarding what is 'belived in', sans evidence). Conversely, by questioning such empty convictions, one takes the first steps in moving away from self-delusions, (no matter how comforting an illusion such appears to provide, without the actual substance). Given the overwhelming evidence of the harm such religious self-delusions can cause, (millennia of deaths and suppresion of reason, etc.), which is laid directly at the feet of specious religious 'beliefs', questioning them is more prudent than simply accepting them on blind faith.
Many have wondered why people that don't believe in God would spend so much time in "religious" discussions conversing with believers, when they consider them to be 'lunatics'. It's because they are "preying".
No, it is because questioning irrational blind faith can sometimes prevent others from falling into the same self-delusional trap as the religious adherents are clinging desparately to. These same religious adherents are "preying" on the insecurities, desparations, gullibility and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility of others to blindly accept irrational religious beliefs.
Consider their agenda before wasting much more of life's valuable time in d&d.
Dissect away "falcon9-troll", I've got better things to do with my time today!! :thumbsup:
Indeed, no doubt you "feel better" having posted a pack of 'trolling' lies in a hit-and-run manner, (there being little expectation of a significant response to the refutations of your rant).
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it. If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
-
What concerns me, is that even though many on here are strangers, some of them post, particularly in the religious threads, joyfully or innocently about God, their views or beliefs, prayer requests, thanks for prayers, what God has done for them, etc.
Such is essentially 'evangelicizing' and what gives religious adherents the impression of an unreasonable expectation that opposing 'opinions' cannot be posted in return? These are discussion forums, not unopposed declaration forums. If religious adherents are freely able to evangelicize, then dissenting points of view have just as much freedom to dissent.
This is an open forum, true, but there are many threads that can be ignored, instead of going in and causing trouble for ones asking for prayer.
Some threads are ignored, some get responded to. The suggestion of ignoring certain subject matter so as to not upset the delicate constitutions of those having blind faith is a suggestion to impose censorship on dissent by characterizing dissent, (in the form of challenging empty convictions/declaraction of such convictions), as "causing trouble". Such an implicit suggestion is hypocritical in that the empty declarations which religious adherents make are somehow seen, (by them), as not "causing trouble". The fact of the matter is that initiating a contentious post, (and there is little doubt that religious convictions are contentious by nature), religious adherents are "causing trouble" and then blaming any ensuing contentions on those who question their 'faith'. And that, my friends, is a load of passive-aggressive crap.
That is exactly what Satan desires to try and get the ones asking or giving prayer riled up.
There are three inherent assumptions being made in that speculation. The first being an unsupported opinion of what some hypothetical being "desires". The second being an implicit assumption that such an hypothetical being actually exists, (sans accurately-attributed evidence). The third consists of speculations regarding a hypothetical being's motivations/intentions.
I can see coming in threads that are specifically aimed for debates, arguments, disagreeable opinions, etc., but not in ones ...
Again, the suggestion to limit or restrict dissent to specific forums while 'permitting' religious adherents to evangelicize in any forum or thread is entirely a one-sided and censoring one.
It's a simple matter of respect and courtesy for their beliefs and of them asking prayers from anyone in the forum who does pray.
If religious adherents are 'free' to post their empty convictions, so too are those who propose alternatives to empty faith as 'free' to post such alternatives. It's a two-way street, not a one-way 'my way or the highway' situation.
I love a good debate when it's done as a debate should be done.
Numerous posts contradicting your assertion have been made. What you are convertly declaring is that you prefer a debate which adheres to your personal restrictive preferences, (which appear to include not having your unsupported declarations questioned, being under no particular obligation to back up empty opinions and attempting to shift the burden of providing evidence of a negative proposition onto opponents). Evidence supporting such contentions is provided by your own posted words, (an example immediately follows).
The constant unaccepting of one side over the other, with the same "baseless" and "empty" words is not giving even the least bit of courtesy to the other side.
Thank you for providing this current example of your restrictively unreasonable concept of "debate". To wit; there is no inherent requirement to simply accept, (on "faith"?), some randomly-declared religious conviction without evidence. Further, there is no requirement to avoid questioning such unsupported 'opinions' on the basis of "courtesy" since attempting to suppress dissent in that manner can be deemed as discourteous at miniumum, (and as objectionable as religious adherents deem dissenting views to be).
It doesn't matter, to only a certain few and not all, what the other side provides, including what professors, teachers, scientists have to say or show, it's unaccepted, based on their views only, even when some of their views are not totally verified by evidence, because they say so and that's that. Unfortunately, that is not that, at all.
Dissenting views are made by people; just as empty religious declarations are made by other people. The difference between an 'opinion' which lacks supporting evidence and one which has supporting evidence is nominally revealed by reasoning. Unfortunately, religious convictions tend to avoid employing reasoning at all costs and instead, simply insist that "faith" be accepted as a 'matter of faith', (which would be irrational non-reasoning).
...have the burden on them to prove there is no God, instead of the other way around. But, sadly, those certain ones will refuse to do this and lay the burden back on the other side.
"Sadly", that's not how the burden of proof works. It is up to those who claim that "there is a god" to provide evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent upon those requesting such evidence to provide evidence that something doesn't exist. Such an insistance would be a logical fallacy, (since going around proving an infinite number of things _don't_ exist is making the burden unreasonably onerous and an irrational demand). Conversely, such attempts to shift the burden of proof away from those making claims is disengenuous.
However, it's obvious those certain ones can't provide proof, because they refuse to see what's in front of them and around them, and take the step of faith (some don't like this word), so they don't or can't understand the proof.
There is no reason to attribute "what's in front ... and around" to hypothetical supernatural beings and such random attributions do not constitute evidence, (since one could equally attribute 'the extant universe' to invisible pink unicorns with the same lack of connecting evidence).
And this is when the respect of other people's choices comes in - to accept their choice and not bash the person for their choice and then continue to demand such "proof," to the point of badgering posters. That part is wrong and disrespectful.
If so, it is equally as "wrong and disrepectful" of dissenting arguments to not only deem them as being 'bashing', "wrong and disrespectful" or "badgering" but, to somehow expect empty declarations of 'faith' posted on a public forum to be unopposed by those who do not hold such blind faith. It should cease to amaze how such one-sided implicit suggestions of censorship under the guise of "respect" or 'politeness' are not seen as hypocritical. Summarily, if religious adherents can interject such empty declarations of 'faith' without backing such opinions up, so too can dissenting points of view and questioning such premises be expressed without being considered to be "wrong and disrespectful" or "badgering"
by religious adherents. As much as you would like to, you cannot suppress dissent by characterizing it as being 'rude'.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. I don't really have anything more to say to you anyway since you don't care to speak about the topic at hand. I don't have time for snide remarks, and made-up rewards, just to come off of the topic. Have a nice day.
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it. If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
You're replying to "Falconer02" above, as indicated by your quoting his response here, ("quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=26632.msg502719#msg502719 date=1331317763"). See, this is why a point was made concerning attributions and 'nyms.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here.
No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to. Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".
-
Yes, I have noticed these ideas being seeped into other threads.
Any 'seepage' is the direct result of various religious adherents' insistance upon interjecting these religious "ideas" into various other trheads.
And, btw, falcon9, how do you know I am a fundie (fundamentalist)? The fact is, I am not.
Your simple denial in the face of evidence you posted which contradicts your denial. That evidence consists of posts you made which adhere to unsubstantiated religious doctrines, beliefs and faith. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs.
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it. If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
You're replying to "Falconer02" above, as indicated by your quoting his response here, ("quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=26632.msg502719#msg502719 date=1331317763"). See, this is why a point was made concerning attributions and 'nyms.
WHAT are you talking about?????
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here.
No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to. Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".
That's your opinion.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. I don't really have anything more to say to you anyway since you don't care to speak about the topic at hand. I don't have time for snide remarks, and made-up rewards, just to come off of the topic. Have a nice day.
I did NOT quote quotes from a different thread, if that's what you're saying. The entire quoted section of my post was from this thread, so don't even imply that I did this.
So now you've posted that:
- I am gossiping in threads
- I am quoting quotes from other threads.
:thumbsup: That's REALLY nice!
Especially as NEITHER is true.
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here.
No, you reposted, (quoted), out of context comments while omitting the intervening remarks which those comments were in reply to. Further, the quoted comments did not take the form of "gossip" under the definition of that term nor did they provide evidence to support the claim that "duroz" was "gossiping".
That's your opinion.
Except that it's based upon factual evidence, unlike your "opinion".
-
You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."
You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... :bs:....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.
I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.
Hmmm.....I'm still not seeing any posts by anyone that back up the statement claiming I was gossiping... :dontknow:
I posted the one in this thread between Falcon9 and Falconer. I'm not going to quote quotes from a different thread and bring it in here. I don't really have anything more to say to you anyway since you don't care to speak about the topic at hand. I don't have time for snide remarks, and made-up rewards, just to come off of the topic. Have a nice day.
I did NOT quote quotes from a different thread, if that's what you're saying. The entire quoted section of my post was from this thread, so don't even imply that I did this.
So now you've posted that:
- I am gossiping in threads
- I am quoting quotes from other threads.
:thumbsup: That's REALLY nice!
Especially as NEITHER is true.
I said nothing of you quoting quotes from other threads. I said I did not wish to quote the quotes from other threads and bring them in here. They have nothing to do with this thread anyway. Thank you.
-
God can be many things to many people, but, he is just as real as the air we breathe. Only the pure in heart shall see God and live with him forever.
-
God can be many things to many people, but, he is just as real as the air we breathe.
The cognizant difference being that air has the advantage of evidence of existance, where is the evidence to support your claim?
Only the pure in heart shall see God and live with him forever.
The phrase "pure in heart" is either inherently biased toward religious faith or, implicitly means that blind faith is a prerequisite for such wishful-thinking.
-
Dissect away, I've got better things to do with my time today!!
Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon. If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?
-
Dissect away, I've got better things to do with my time today!!
Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon. If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?
Probably because if she didn't go ahead and acknowledge dissection, you would have done it anyway.
-
Dissect away, I've got better things to do with my time today!!
Although you've indicated the 'hit-and-run' nature of your rant, the aspect of metaphorical 'dissection' was worth commenting upon. If you didn't expect your arbitrary comments to be 'dissected', why would you leave them lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death?
Probably because if she didn't go ahead and acknowledge dissection, you would have done it anyway.
Whether or not it was acknowledged had no impact on arbitrary comments left lying naked on the autopsy table, awaiting a determination of the cause of death.
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who believe in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances. Inverting the premise; how would they feel if the practice were reversed and it was xtian-produced babies?
-
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.
No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.
If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.
While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who belief in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.
Precisely!
-
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.
No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.
If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.
While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who belief in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.
Precisely!
You are the one who quoted it without the facts behind that verse. You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context. I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone. I challenged you to go back and read the history behind that verse. If you aren't a believer, then why would you want to quote from a book that you say isn't true in the first place? That's apparently one reason you don't know the history behind the verse, and apparently don't want to, but instead just use the Bible as a mockery.
-
Until you go back and read the background of what was happening, and what the verse meant, in regards to the battle, then there's no need to talk about it.
No need to talk about a book that you adhere to having such a horrendously abominable verse in it? Because there's many others that could easily be cited if you'd like to skip the sick and immature revenge/getting-even fantasy here.
The interpretation may be mistaken however, haven't a number of religious adherents given the direct impression that such 'matters of faith' aren't up for debate, discussion, dissent or requiring any justification which has veracity?
If you don't want to do it, that's your decision. However, you quoted it. You are an adult and can research the events around that verse. So don't be telling me to try and be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward. Look it up yourself. Then I'll be willing to discuss it.
So here we have freethinkers willing to discuss, listen, educate, and be skeptical of supernatural claims, and then we have the religious who simply fold their arms and say "Learn it yourself!" while focusing more on typing like angry 13 year olds.
Additionally, several of those religious adherents appear to feel, (based upon the content of several of their posts), that discussing such 'matters of faith' should somehow preclude the ability to reason. In lieu of actual rebuttal & debate, they throw tantrums.
While the context appears to be some rambling religious attempt to justify smashing babies against rocks, I'd be curious to see how such religious adherents who believe in these strictures can 'justify' that practice under Any circumstances.
Precisely!
Although I'm not particularly lacking in imagination, I remain unable to envision any scenario or circumstances in which it's okay to smash babies against rocks just because someone else imagined a vengeful 'deity' allegedly told them to.
-
You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.
In this particular instance, I challenge anyone to come up with any justification for smashing babies against rocks - no matter what the context.
I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone.
If you're "not folding your arms", (that is, claiming to know what some biblical parable means in the context of smashing babies against rocks), perhaps you'll give your interpretation. If not, you won't.
-
You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.
In this particular instance, I challenge anyone to come up with any justification for smashing babies against rocks - no matter what the context.
I already know what it means and I'm not folding my arms for you or anyone.
If you're "not folding your arms", (that is, claiming to know what some biblical parable means in the context of smashing babies against rocks), perhaps you'll give your interpretation. If not, you won't.
Falconer put it out there for spite against God. I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant. The burden is on him at this point. Nice try.
-
Falconer put it out there for spite against God.
Somehow, I doubt the reason was as simple as that. I read his post, (which can only be loosely 'interpreted' as 'spiteful' from a biased xtian point of view), and replied, inquiring as to whether there _any_ reasonable justification for smashing babies against rocks, no matter what the context was.
I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant. The burden is on him at this point. Nice try.
Such a burden, (as in trying to have a rational discussion with religious adherents), is quite different than the 'burden of proof'. That is, "Falconer02" posted an excerpted biblical reference and quoted it. Although different variations of different bibles for that 'verse' exist in print, the same message was conveyed - baby-smashing. Unless you can come up with some context where such a practice is remotely acceptable, going back and reading that dubious source isn't going to provide an acceptable context to those who aren't of that irrational 'faith'.
-
Falconer put it out there for spite against God.
Somehow, I doubt the reason was as simple as that. I read his post, (which can only be loosely 'interpreted' as 'spiteful' from a biased xtian point of view), and replied, inquiring as to whether there _any_ reasonable justification for smashing babies against rocks, no matter what the context was.
I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant. The burden is on him at this point. Nice try.
Such a burden, (as in trying to have a rational discussion with religious adherents), is quite different than the 'burden of proof'. That is, "Falconer02" posted an excerpted biblical reference and quoted it. Although different variations of different bibles for that 'verse' exist in print, the same message was conveyed - baby-smashing. Unless you can come up with some context where such a practice is remotely acceptable, going back and reading that dubious source isn't going to provide an acceptable context to those who aren't of that irrational 'faith'.
Can't handle then, can you (or him.) He puts a verse out there without including all the verses regarding the whole situation. He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means. I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse. Nice try, again.
-
Can't handle then, can you (or him.)
Can't handle what, your irrationality? It isn't that difficult, being of a fairly simplistic nature.
He puts a verse out there without including all the verses regarding the whole situation.
Can't expect someone to quote a whole bunch of 'verses' surrounding the one which mentions the contextual point, (baby-smashing), unless you're implying that doing so will provide a reasonably acceptable context for the baby-smashing.
He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means.
Sure, he can do that and since this isn't an attempt to speak for him, (unlike imputing 'spiteful' intentions), I agree.
I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse. Nice try, again.
Okay, so you are indirectly implying that there is some background situation which makes baby-smashing acceptable. Like I stated before, I'd be curious to learn how such a situation can reasonably justify smashing babies against rocks.
-
Can't handle then, can you (or him.)
Can't handle what, your irrationality? It isn't that difficult, being of a fairly simplistic nature.
He puts a verse out there without including all the verses regarding the whole situation.
Can't expect someone to quote a whole bunch of 'verses' surrounding the one which mentions the contextual point, (baby-smashing), unless you're implying that doing so will provide a reasonably acceptable context for the baby-smashing.
He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means.
Sure, he can do that and since this isn't an attempt to speak for him, (unlike imputing 'spiteful' intentions), I agree.
I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse. Nice try, again.
Okay, so you are indirectly implying that there is some background situation which makes baby-smashing acceptable. Like I stated before, I'd be curious to learn how such a situation can reasonably justify smashing babies against rocks.
Falcon9, stop the name calling please. I am not irrational with my discussion with you. If you want to speak as an adult to an adult, I will do that. If you wish to keep the name calling going such as what you are doing here, then it is not worth the effort, time, or desire to continue this discussion with you. And if you are so interested in the meaning of the verse, then please go look it up, read it, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you, as adult to adult. You have name called one time too many tonight. Good night. It's time for me to go for tonight.
-
You are the one who quoted it without the facts behind that verse. You are the one who should go back and learn the background of what it's about instead of putting forth quotes that sound ugly and don't follow through with the correct context.
I challenged you to go back and read the history behind that verse. If you aren't a believer, then why would you want to quote from a book that you say isn't true in the first place?
Because any work (ancient or present) that has a major following but also has "Smash babies on rocks!" in it (in ANY context) should be questioned heavily. The fact that you're trying to hide behind biblical history instead of looking at the basic morality of the words used is rather...unsettling. I'd expect this kind of behavior from a Jehovah's Witness, but you? Noooo!
That's apparently one reason you don't know the history behind the verse, and apparently don't want to, but instead just use the Bible as a mockery.
Considering this is one of many terrifying and disgusting verses of the bible, to say that many of the books holding these passages aren't worthy of ridicule is unusual.
I challenged him to go back and read the history behind what the quote meant. The burden is on him at this point. Nice try.
That wasn't really my point, and I feel that you're trying to walk around it with 'biblical scholarly' roadblocks. However, to save myself some time and lift this burden you slid my way, I'll present the primary wiki article I found this afternoon for all to read. Looks like it's just a sad and psychotic revenge fantasy aimed at babylonian pricks. However, there seems to be 100 different interpretations from different people all over the net, so....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137
He's the one who needs to go back and clarify just exactly what it means. I said I will be glad to discuss it when he goes back and learns of the situation behind the verse. Nice try, again.
Again, the context does not matter. Writing about smashing babies (fantasy or real) is beyond sick and left for the minds of miserable primitives.
Falcon9, stop the name calling please.
...he's not.
-
Falcon9, stop the name calling please.
The word "irrational" means simply, 'not rational'; it's not "name-calling" if the description acccurately applies. Just as it's not 'slander' in civil court if the evidence substantiates the claim.
I am not irrational with my discussion with you.
Not only does your claim lack evidence but, posts of yours in this thread contradict your claim. Since you provided the evidence, I'm not quite sure why you'd oppose it.
And if you are so interested in the meaning of the verse, then please go look it up, read it, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you, as adult to adult.
It may surprise you to learn that I had refreshed my memory of it after "Falconer02" posted the reference. Not only was I aware of the preceding and following 'verses' prior to your mention, I was aware of the context prior to my previous posts in this regard. I am willing to discuss which scenario or situation can reasonably 'justify' smashing babies against rocks, (even as a parable metaphor). If you want to discuss that as adults, proceed. If you want to put some irrational spin on it, proceed. If you want to duck and run instead, proceed.
-
Typical to post a Bible verse out of context without the full story of what the verse means.
That is not according to my Bible but rather according to your total lack of understanding of the Bible.
Exactly. Many enjoy taking verses out of context, without the full event or story, and twist them to meet their agenda of making God look horrible (even though they don't believe there is God.)
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
@falconer01
Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)? Those notes are there to offer insight. You've stated before that you've been to church...certainly your pastor never preached a sermon about "smashing babies" or you'd recall it. Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"? :dontknow:
-
Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)? Those notes are there to offer insight.
Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"? :dontknow:
Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."
-
Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)? Those notes are there to offer insight.
Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"? :dontknow:
Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."
I meant ALL of it, not just the "bits & pieces" that you wish to construe together because you think it makes you look so "smug & smart" (which is having the opposite effect). No one is capable of debating with someone that can't even read a grade-school paragraph and have no better comprehension skills of it than what you keep exhibiting. Perhaps instead of trying so hard to keep posting what you hope will be 'flaming' posts, you should try spending that free time studying a history book as well.
Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that??? :dontknow:
-
Did you read the "Parallel Commentaries" at the bottom of the page (of the link you posted)? Those notes are there to offer insight.
Are you referring to this bit? "This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it."
a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"? :dontknow:
Or, maybe you meant this tidbit: "It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idex of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now."
I meant ALL of it, not just the "bits & pieces" that you wish to construe together because you think it makes you look so "smug & smart" (which is having the opposite effect). No one is capable of debating with someone that can't even read a grade-school paragraph and have no better comprehension skills of it than what you keep exhibiting. Perhaps instead of trying so hard to keep posting what you hope will be 'flaming' posts ...
"Flaming posts", like the response you posted above? Listen, you hypocritical closed-minded fundie, (not much of a "flame" since it's accurate),
I read the whole thing and excerpted what was relavent to the context, (which was the baby-smashing reference from your jumbled 'bible'). You still haven't managed to come up with any 'justifications' for that and instead, prefer attempting to denigrate an opponent in lieu of "debate". Debate does not consist of ad hominem 'attacks' however, should you wish to continue to engage in them, I assure you that my reading, comprehension and writing skills have exhibited an ability to "flame" you to the same toasted degree as your brain.
... you should try spending that free time studying a history book as well.
Since you're making assumptions, perhaps you should strive for your G.E.D. instead of referring to the 4th grade as your 'senior year'.
Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...
I'm aware of that. Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that??? :dontknow:
It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it. To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP). Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which has no attributible evidence of being "real"?
-
http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm
According to the large majority of the versions, it seems to be worded fairly accurately. If it's taken out of context, certainly you'd be interested in discussing why a verse talking about smashing babies against rocks and it being "divine justice" is in a holy book that you preach with? Because you may think it's quite typical of freethinkers to take things out of context, but yet here's this verse talking about killing babies. Try to be intellectually honest without putting a blind faith argument forward.
@falconer01
Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01). No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.
-
"Flaming posts", like the response you posted above? Listen, you hypocritical closed-minded fundie, (not much of a "flame" since it's accurate)
And name calling again doesn't make you look hypocritical, you hypocritical closed-minded troll?
Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...
I'm aware of that. Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?
Yes I am, hopefully she (OP) isn't the g-friend you met on-line. ;D
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that??? :dontknow:
It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it. To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP). Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which isn't "real"?
I never said that you "claimed" God is fake, but apparently you believe so. You've been posting in a "God is fake" thread. If you believe God is fake then...yes, the burden of proof rest on you. (If the topic was "God is real" then it would rest on those that thought so. You don't get to "have your cake" and eat it too here. You don't get to say "christians have to prove God is real even if the topic is "God is fake" AND they have to prove God is real if the topic is "God is real".) How ubsurd! ::)
Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01). No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.
Sorry, my bad falconer02! 1...9--- I don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.
-
And name calling again doesn't make you look hypocritical, you hypocritical closed-minded troll?
Given the sequence of the replies, that was return fire, you hypocritical fundie troll who initiated this particular 'flaming' exchange.
Btw, this topic is entitiled "God is fake" NOT "God is real"...
I'm aware of that. Are you aware that I wasn't the one who started this thread nor, entitled it?
Yes I am, hopefully she isn't the g-friend you met on-line. ;D
More gossipy nonsense from "Sheryls"; one would 'hope' that "jcribbs16" isn't the lesbian lover you met online.
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that??? :dontknow:
It's unclear whether or not idiocy comes naturally to you or, that you had to work at it. To reiterate the point for emphasis; I didn't claim that "god is fake" therefore, the burden of proof isn't on me, (that would be upon the OP). Now, are you claiming that "god is real" or, do you merely choose to believe/have faith in that which isn't "real"?
I never said that you "claimed" God is fake, but apparently you believe so. You've been posting in a "God is fake" thread. If you believe God is fake then...yes, the burden of proof rest on you.
You are mistakenly conflating an assumed 'disbelief', (not a "belief"), with a claim. The two are not equivalent therefore, the burden of proof doesn't apply since I never made the initial claim/contention.
(If the topic was "God is real" then it would rest on those that thought so. You don't get to "have your cake" and eat it too here.
Using the illogical line of non-reasoning you've used, the burden of proof is upon those who "believe in god" to provide evidence that what they believe in is "real". The alternative is that what they profess to believe in has no substantiating evidence to support such 'faith' and therefore, that such 'faith' is irrational. You aren't permitted to "have your cake and eat it too", fundie.
Since you mentioned comprehension skills; his 'nym is "Falconer02", (not '01). No doubt you'll be able to fabricate some weaseling excuse to explain this.
Sorry, my bad falconer02! I don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.
So, according to your 'response', your diminished reading and comprehension abilities stem from an over-riding preference to denigrate, (rather than from the inability to distinguish a "falconer" from a "falcon" 'nym).
-
@falcon9
Just what I expected...the troll gets hopping mad because he knows he's no longer fooling many and he's been called out for what he is.
Since all you have is empty arguments, claims and assertions... unless any of your attribution's are supported by actual evidence, you're free to go back under your bridge. I won't be wasting any more of my time reading your drooly-written drivel.
:wave:
-
Just what I expected...the troll gets hopping mad because he knows he's no longer fooling many and he's been called out for what he is.
Your specious expectations remain unmet since I am neither "hopping mad" nor, attempting to 'fool' anyone. As for being "called out", all you've managed to accomplish is an avoidence of the context contended in this thread and some simplistic 'flaming'/trolling in order to 'call me out'.
Since all you have is empty arguments, claims and assertions...
Since you snipped the context replied to in order to simply fabricate a contention of "empty arguments, claims and assertions", no doubt you'll be able to produce some evidence to support these specious contentions of yours. If not, they are not only specious but, serve to put additional emphasis upon your abysmal 'debating skills'.
...unless any of your attribution's are supported by actual evidence, you're free to go back under your bridge.
I wouldn't want to evict you from your place of residence therefore, either indicate precisely _which_ "attributions" you are vaguely referring to or, resuming trolling me, (while hypocritically claiming that others are "trolls").
I won't be wasting any more of my time reading your drooly-written drivel.
:wave:
Yeah, yeah - anyone reading such "drivel" has seen that false claim from you before. Apparently, you are confusing your own "drooly-written drivel" with comprehending actual rebuttal, (much like you confused 'nyms recently), and are now directly implying that your post is merely a 'hit-and-run' "flame".
-
Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?
Again, though context is important the majority of the time, the point isn't the context in this case at all. The point is there's a verse talking of smashing babies against rocks and being happy about it. Like the other dispicable verses throughout the book, that's horrible to say in a holy book that people preach no matter the context. An example of what's going on here is we see a man savagely beating a child. You tell me "We need to know why he's beating the child first!" and I'm saying "Sheryl...there's a grown man beating a child." As Falcon has already pointed out, the commentaries on the bottom do support and show the moral problem. And, like I had stated earlier, I have already seen multiple interpretations of this verse so yours may conflict with the others I have read.
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???
Well admittedly freethinkers cannot disprove the existence of any god as this would technically be contradictory of our label-- not allowing for the thought of deities existing would shackle that freedom for others. But you must understand that believing in any well-defined deity is on par with believing that...say...there's a dragon god living in my peanut butter jar and he's the reason the sun comes up and why we feel happiness. It's completely ridiculous and irrational, most likely not true, and that's our point. If you wanted to step out of your comfort zone, keep the emotional flak at bay, and wanted to have a rational argument, Falcon9 and I could easily point out that the creation of gods came from things we just didn't understand in the primitive days. It's just bonkers that these ancient beliefs in these angry and nonsensical gods still exist, and that's why we believe your god is a fake (along with the millions of others).
Sorry, my bad falconer02! 1...9--- I don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.
I'm really trying not to get involved in the emotional quarrel here-- I'm just trying to rekindle this thread whenever possible and in random ways. Falcon9 and I tend to agree on the majority of issues brought up in debate and discus.. I really don't mind if he answers for me as he sometimes answers quicker and better than I could. Nobody seems to be trolling here (atleast from what I'm used to), but there does seem to be a needless hissy fight that should probably stop.
-
Didn't that give you a "heads up" that something about your "interpretation" of that verse was "off"?
Again, though context is important the majority of the time, the point isn't the context in this case at all. The point is there's a verse talking of smashing babies against rocks and being happy about it. Like the other dispicable verses throughout the book, that's horrible to say in a holy book that people preach no matter the context. An example of what's going on here is we see a man savagely beating a child. You tell me "We need to know why he's beating the child first!" and I'm saying "Sheryl...there's a grown man beating a child." As Falcon has already pointed out, the commentaries on the bottom do support and show the moral problem. And, like I had stated earlier, I have already seen multiple interpretations of this verse so yours may conflict with the others I have read.
So, since at least a few of us have read the context of the situation, I remain as curious about any justifications for smashing babies against rocks as you seem to be, (as well as being mildly curious why this point has not been answered by the proponents of such baby-smashing).
So since "God is fake"---shouldn't you be working harder showing some evidence of that???
Well admittedly freethinkers cannot disprove the existence of any god as this would technically be contradictory of our label-- not allowing for the thought of deities existing would shackle that freedom for others. But you must understand that believing in any well-defined deity is on par with believing that...say...there's a dragon god living in my peanut butter jar and he's the reason the sun comes up and why we feel happiness. It's completely ridiculous and irrational, most likely not true, and that's our point. If you wanted to step out of your comfort zone, keep the emotional flak at bay, and wanted to have a rational argument, Falcon9 and I could easily point out that the creation of gods came from things we just didn't understand in the primitive days. It's just bonkers that these ancient beliefs in these angry and nonsensicle gods still exist, and that's why we believe your god is a fake (along with the millions of others).
Not to put too fine a point on your point; you could no doubt examine your peanut butter jar to try and determine whether or not such a dragon god exists in there. If you cannot find one, it would be irrational to assume that it must be invisible rather than to just report that the Skippy is dragonless.
Sorry, my bad falconer02! 1...9--- I don't know why I keep confusing the ORIGINAL with such a bad-imitation.
I'm really trying not to get involved in the emotional quarrel here-- I'm just trying to rekindle this thread whenever possible and in random ways. Falcon9 and I tend to agree on the majority of issues brought up in debate and discuss.. I really don't mind if he answers for me as he sometimes answers quicker and better than I could. Nobody seems to be trolling here (atleast from what I'm used to), but there does seem to be a needless hissy fight that should probably stop.
While I endeavor to speak from my own point of view and not that of others, I agree that different people can hold similar views and appreciate your remarks. As for any "hissy fits", I see those as emanating initially from a few religious adherents, (and subsequent responses to those are likely not superficially-productive). Such provocations as randomly designating others as "trolls" may be a time-honored cheap trick more often employed by trolls themselves however, in over a decade of dealing with actual trolls, I find that feeding them that which they cannot digest, (invalidating their premises), tends to starve them.
-
:bs:
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
there is only one god and im pretty sure is real
-
@Falconer02--
The point is there's a verse talking of smashing babies against rocks and being happy about it. Like the other dispicable verses throughout the book, that's horrible to say in a holy book that people preach no matter the context.
If you were Jewish and had your children's brains smashed on the rocks by the Babylonians "back in the day"...would you still think so? It's so easy to sit in our little modern day "high tech" world with all the comforts & conveniences and think we'll never be in bondage and our children will always be safe. The end-of-page notes at the bottom of the site you previously posted states that the "baby smashing" had been "foretold"/predicted. The Babylonians probably laughed, scoffed and mocked thinking it could never happen. What the Bible predicts/what God has said will happen...always happens. War is two- sided and only one side gets to be victorious. I would be willing to bet the victorious ALWAYS, in spite of having killed people of all ages and both sexes, had their songs of victory/victory dances/happy chants and the like. People have always celebrated their victories and war has usually meant the grisly death & barbaric torture of many innocent people.
The prediction back then can be compared to our prediction for the future: The Bible has predicted the return of Jesus. Believers look forward to it. Even though it means that we have family, friends, etc. that will be left behind because they refuse Christ in spite of our many prayers---when Jesus returns, it will be a happy day. I imagine there will be alot of happy singing, not with the focus being on those that were left behind but rather on our final triumphing over satan. Believers won't have to deal with him or his followers anymore. Happy Day! (Even though the Bible states that those left behind will be living in the worst of times and the only way to get to Jesus after that will more than likely be through martyrdom.) Happy Day!!
Those that are always so quick to say something to the effect that Christians are always willing to pray for others rather than actually having to help, perhaps instead of spending so much time grieving the loss of the Babylonian babies smashed-to-bits way back then...perhaps could look into what can be done to help the children of TODAY that are starving, in need of medical attention, those precious souls being aborted (most methods have same outcome of being "smashed to pieces"), those that have childhood diseases, the abused, those sold into prostitution, are targeted by drug cartel and intentionally murdered, those that are used by insurgents as "suicide bombers", those forced to be child soldiers...the list goes on & on how the "innocents" desperately need help today in 2012. There are far too many that thought contributing a $1 to buy a "We are the World" single was all that needed to be done.
the creation of gods came from things we just didn't understand in the primitive days
And that would be why topics in d&d always go in circles. Your thought is that modern day advances can explain away God's existance while believers can see God's existance more than ever through modern day advances. It's the modern day advances that allow believers to see current world events and how it is all lining up with what has been predicted in the Bible. It is modern technology that is allowing the Word to be spread all around the globe faster than the Word has ever spread before. It's modern day advances (possibly the computer) that will allow everyone to see Jesus' 2nd coming. (Matthew 24:30-31 ...' And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.) My guess is that there will probably be multiple "You-Tube" videos for those left behind to watch.
Anyway, originally my point was: If a FC member started the thread "Suzy is a fake" and then I came along and agreed that she is a fake... Is it the OP and those in agreement with her that need to provide proof she's a fake or is it Suzy that needs to prove she's not a fake? Because I would think that Suzy is "innocent"/not a fake until "proven guilty" by the OP/those in agreement. In which case God is NOT a fake until proven beyond a doubt that He is...which this entire thread has failed to do. Just someone stating that He is a fake...doesn't make it so.
I'm really trying not to get involved in the emotional quarrel here.
Just for clarification purposes, I wasn't trying to get you involved in any kind of quarrel. I was just apologizing for the insult I implied with my typo. I have the hissy on "ignore" like numerous others--- problem solved. :thumbsup:
-
This is typical of Falconer's method of debate.He asks a question to which he has already researched every possible reply and then sits back waiting to shoot down whoever bites.
Believer "Well,it says here--"
Falconer "That source doesn't count."
Believer "...And here it says--"
Falconer "That one doesn't either"
Believer "But,If you--"
Falconer "You don't really believe that,do you?"
And then he'll throw up a sarcastic graphic to demean the person's belief. ::)
It doesn't really make sense to bother debating when the other person holds so little regard for the opposing person.
Of course,it's only slightly better than Falcon 9's method of throwing around $10 words and running a circler argument into the ground until the opposing person is completly disgusted and then proclaim "victory" for outlasting the other person's argument. ::)
-
If you were Jewish and had your children's brains smashed on the rocks by the Babylonians "back in the day"...would you still think so? It's so easy to sit in our little modern day "high tech" world with all the comforts & conveniences and think we'll never be in bondage and our children will always be safe.
Yes! It's a good thing we can get away from such barbaric treatment and focus on progressing and educating humanity-- shed ourselves of bronze-age mythology preaching about the barbaric treatment of others.
What the Bible predicts/what God has said will happen...always happens.
Your bible says differently quite a bit.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
People have always celebrated their victories and war has usually meant the grisly death & barbaric torture of many innocent people
So your general message is that we should all follow a genocidal god that usually implores this behavior?
The prediction back then can be compared to our prediction for the future: The Bible has predicted the return of Jesus. Believers look forward to it. Even though it means that we have family, friends, etc. that will be left behind because they refuse Christ in spite of our many prayers---when Jesus returns, it will be a happy day. I imagine there will be alot of happy singing, not with the focus being on those that were left behind but rather on our final triumphing over satan. Believers won't have to deal with him or his followers anymore. Happy Day! (Even thought the Bible states that those left behind will be living in the worst of times and the only way to get to Jesus after that will more than likely be through martyrdom.)
And that would be why topics in d&d always go in circles. Your thought is that modern day advances can explain away God's existance while believers can see God's existance more than ever through modern day advances. It's the modern day advances that allow believers to see current world events and how it is all lining up with what has been predicted in the Bible. It is modern technology that is allowing the Word to be spread all around the globe faster than the Word has ever spread before. It's modern day advances (possibly the computer) that will allow everyone to see Jesus' 2nd coming. (Matthew 24:30-31 ...' And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.) My guess is that there will probably be multiple "You-Tube" videos for those left behind to watch.
I'm sorry to say this, but these statements are simple delusions of grandeur and uneducated dribble. Modern day advances always do away with gods because they provide factual explanations of natural/sociological phenomena where silly mythological ideas once were. What you're doing here is just pinning your god on the hard tiring scientific work done and saying it's proof of your god. It's heavily delusional, insulting to people who are constantly trying to get a better understanding of the universe, and simply not true. Though this will most likely not make a difference in your process of thought, I speak the truth because reality heavily opposes your views. You solely rely on an ancient book of false prophecies that can be interpreted any way you wish it to be-- a primitive cop-out.
perhaps could look into what can be done to help the children of TODAY that are starving, in need of medical attention, those precious souls being aborted (most methods have same outcome of being "smashed to pieces"), those that have childhood diseases, the abused, those sold into prostitution, are targeted by drug cartel and intentionally murdered, those that are used by insurgents as "suicide bombers", those forced to be child soldiers...the list goes on & on how the "innocents" desperately need help today in 2012.
That is a very good and interesting point, though I find this an attempt to stray away from the original subject by introducing a dozen others.
-
JediJohnnie is an uneducated imbecile who simply cannot debate or discuss anything, and therefore I'd ask that nobody respond to his immature tactics and attempts to derail the thread. Back to responding to Sheryl--
-
Anyway, originally my point was: If a FC member started the thread "Suzy is a fake" and then I came along and agreed that she is a fake... Is it the OP and those in agreement with her that need to provide proof she's a fake or is it Suzy that needs to prove she's not a fake? Because I would think that Suzy is "innocent"/not a fake until "proven guilty" by the OP/those in agreement. In which case God is NOT a fake until proven beyond a doubt that He is...which this entire thread has failed to do. Just someone stating that He is a fake...doesn't make it so.
As my previous example went- Just because someone stating that the dragon living in my peanut butter jar is fake...does not make it so. The problem is irrationality and absurdity. Does the dragon even exist? If so, then where is the proof it exists? The burden of proof is on the believers who believe in the almighty Suzy/dragon-- not the people questioning the believers. Considering the amount of evidences found that contradict the ideas of gods, the answer is most likely that they do not exist. Saying that they do w/o anything to back it up (outside of the botched holy books) is just irrational and outdated thinking that can be quite scary to people who implore reason and education (thus my overly-critical argument above having to do with the delusions of granduer).
Just for clarification purposes, I wasn't trying to get you involved in any kind of quarrel. I was just apologizing for the insult I implied with my typo. I have the hissy on "ignore" like numerous others--- problem solved.
Jcribb!? lol jk! I think you need to understand that he did not start any fight nor did he name call at any time (before he was attacked by you and jc). He uses the same terms I do since they do fit the aspects presented. However I did just skim the posts since I try to avoid the drama, so I may have misinterpreted the whole fiasco. I personally don't have anyone on ignore anymore since everyone should have a say. Plus, I enjoy Jedijohnnie's posts. He's obviously envious of everyone who can argue, so I'm under the impression he has some sort of "Forum-Napoleon complex" whenever he attacks.
-
Falcon 9's method of throwing around $10 words
The words you cannot seem to comprehend don't cost a cent to learn.
and running a circler argument into the ground until the opposing person ...
That would be the opposing person(s) who are arguing in a circular manner, (i.e., 'believing because they have faith and having faith because they believe' type of circular premise).
...completly disgusted and then proclaim "victory" for outlasting the other person's argument. ::)
There is no doubt that a few religious adherents have been unable to put forth a rational argument/line of reasoning to support their empty claims while simultaneously repeating those claims, (and then irrationally suggesting that challenges to such empty claims are "circular").
-
Yes! It's a good thing we can get away from such barbaric treatment and focus on progressing and educating humanity-- shed ourselves of bronze-age mythology preaching about the barbaric treatment of others.
Barbaric treatment still happens, it always will...and I expect it to get ALOT worse in the time to come.
Your bible says differently quite a bit.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
When you are looking for "answers", do you only rely on sites like these or do you compare what you find with Bible-based sites as well? I ask because the answers to what is listed on the site you referenced can easily be found, they are explained on several well-known Christians websites, saving alot of time here. (Credible sources EQUALS credible information.) A smart person doesn't go to a obese person looking for diet tips, a smart person doesn't expect solid financial advice from a financial planner that has previously filed bankruptcy a few times and anyone that wants to know what the Bible really says--shouldn't be looking to secular websites for answers about what the Bible REALLY "says".
So your general message is that we should all follow a genocidal god that usually implores this behavior?
Where did I say that? What about what I wrote or where is the Bible verse that says God is a "genocidal god" that implores this behavior? God is a loving God. God is a God of His Word. God is fair and He is just. Everyone gets their choice to choose what side they want to be on. If they choose to be against Him...well, that's their option. Those that follow Him are His children. Just like any parent, is He not supposed to get ANGRY to know when a child of his is being tormented, abused, harassed, bullied, stolen from, spit on, etc. Like any parent, He isn't going to sit by and let it happen forever. He has promised His children justice.
You do not as you solely rely on an ancient book of false prophecies that can be interpreted any way you wish it to be-- a primitive cop-out.
So, because I don't believe the same as you, I'm the one that is delusional and not living in reality? I'm not so "blind" that I can't see why you would say/think so. There are things that have happened in my Christian life that I would never put on the internet or say to any of my friends (even many of the "Christian" ones) because I can already hear their "judgment". Many of them have said things to me that they've experienced...and I've honestly had my "judgments" as well. Things Christians experience, see...it isn't rational/logical many times. We aren't so "delusional" that we don't know that. We are told to "walk by faith and not by sight". God is not limited to that which can only be seen or He wouldn't be God. I don't think every answer, everything that exists exists entirely in what we perceive as "reality".
It's only my opinion but I believe there's a whole lot going on around us day to day that is "unseen" by most. It isn't just "Christians" that will agree--- there are many "believers" in angels, spirits/"guides", aliens, etc. I'm not saying Christians are into ALL of that, just that there seems to be more going on in our world "than meets the eye".
Sometimes you write things Falconer02 that come across as being "spiteful" and so I know that sometimes when you have read things I have posted, you thought I was being "spiteful" as well. I have never intended to be spiteful, I don't think you have either...I think it's just because we are so into our "beliefs" that it's sometimes difficult to expect what/how the other is feeling. I'm not a pastor or anything. There's no delicate way to tell someone that according to the Bible, they are on the wrong path. If you're going to d&d the Bible, there's no skipping over that part...it's kind of important.
God wants people to use faith, our brain, our hearts and our "eyes". This quote isn't from the Bible, it's just a quote I heard..."God sleeps in the Minerals, Awakens in Plants, Walks in the Animals and Thinks in Man". He has given us the "clues" we need to know He's there. He has put the desire in man's hearts to long for Him...those that know Christ have "no voids", nothing "missing" in their lives. They are "whole", He completes them. One might say their "significant other" does that...but that's only temporary. A person can have a "significant other", even many "others" in their life and still have that "void".
That is a very good and interesting point, though I find this an attempt to stray away from the original subject by introducing a dozen others.
It wasn't an attempt to stray anywhere...just trying to get some to direct their grief towards more productive channels.
I think you need to understand that he did not start any fight nor did he name call at any time (before he was attacked by you and jc). He uses the same terms I do since they do fit the aspects presented. However I did just skim the posts since I try to avoid the drama, so I may have misinterpreted the whole fiasco.
I'm not so close-minded that I can't say perhaps I misinterpreted the whole fiasco. I'm not sure what is wrong with him, but I bet it's something hard to pronounce. He might not be as bad as the "drama-queen" that used to be on FC however, I don't care for his drama and that is why he's on ignore until he can prove he deserves otherwise.
-
JediJohnnie is an uneducated imbecile who simply cannot debate or discuss anything, and therefore I'd ask that nobody respond to his immature tactics and attempts to derail the thread. Back to responding to Sheryl--
I came across your post after replying to the "fundie sith" however, I would alter one aspect of your assessment, (there being sufficient evidence posted by "johnnie" to support it). That is, he may be 'under-educated' rather than enirely uneducated given that he appears to possess the minimal skills necessary to go online ond post babbling inanities.
-
"I read an article on creation in Encyclopedia Britannica that said the genetic structure in one human being was the equivalent of a library of 1000 books, 500 pages per book, with closely printed, single-spaced type--yet the person who wrote that article said chance evolution brought that genetic structure into being! How ludicrous! If he walked into any library and saw the thousand volumes of closely printed text placed nearly on the shelves, that same person would never say, "My, I guess this just happened by random chance." No, he or she would have to admit that someone put the order together and keeps it together. The order of the universe is one of the strongest "proofs" for God's existence."---
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/bible-index.aspx#5 (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/bible-index.aspx#5)
-
When you are looking for "answers", do you only rely on sites like these or do you compare what you find with Bible-based sites as well? I ask because the answers to what is listed on the site you referenced can easily be found, they are explained on several well-known Christians websites, saving alot of time here. (Credible sources EQUALS credible information.)
Unfortunately, those xtian sources are inherently biased and therefore, not credible. Before you suggest that non-xtian sources are 'biased' against xtianity, the difference is that skeptical sources are those which skeptically question religious assumptions while the religious sources do not, (for the most part), even consider questioning their 'faith-based' "answers".
Things Christians experience, see...it isn't rational/logical many times. We aren't so "delusional" that we don't know that.
Yet, you are seemingly delusional enough to claim to "see" & "experience" irrational/illogical "things", (since that which isn't rational/logical is the opposite).
[quotefrom Falconer02] I think you need to understand that he did not start any fight nor did he name call at any time (before he was attacked by you and jc). He uses the same terms I do since they do fit the aspects presented. However I did just skim the posts since I try to avoid the drama, so I may have misinterpreted the whole fiasco.
[/quote]
I'm not so close-minded that I can't say perhaps I misinterpreted the whole fiasco.
Your posting attitude does not reflect even a glimmer of truth in your "perhaps" statement.
I'm not sure what is wrong with him, but I bet it's something hard to pronounce.
Now there you go, assuming that there must be something "wrong" with someone who disagrees with your superstitious nonsense. There is a word for your attitude; "self-delusional", (not at all hard to pronounce). Btw, you entirely dodged "Falconer02's" point about "I think you need to understand that he did not start any fight nor did he name call at any time (before he was attacked by you and jc)." This is probably due to such attempts to 'shift blame' failing entirely.
He might not be as bad as the "drama-queen" that used to be on FC however, I don't care for his drama and that is why he's on ignore until he can prove he deserves otherwise.
Bull. Your false characterization of "drama-queen" does not divert away from the fact that you had a 'hissy-fit' concerning my alternate point of view concerning 'prayer' and tried to restrict or silence such opposing viewpoints under the charade of "politeness" & "respect". Given the availabiliy of several examples, (available in the "Thank You" thread, with numerous message IDs available as specific examples), that evidence clearly indicates that _you_ "Sheryls" have been acting like the "drama-queen" here. I may have metaphorically thrown kerosene on your drama-fire but, you're the one who lit it. Please keep my posts on "ignore", that way you'll be able to pretend that you can continue to dodge salient points which your are unable to refute.
-
"I read an article on creation in Encyclopedia Britannica that said the genetic structure in one human being was the equivalent of a library of 1000 books, 500 pages per book, with closely printed, single-spaced type--yet the person who wrote that article said chance evolution brought that genetic structure into being! How ludicrous! If he walked into any library and saw the thousand volumes of closely printed text placed nearly on the shelves, that same person would never say, "My, I guess this just happened by random chance."
The two are not parallels. Books cannot evolve instead, new books are written. The genetic codes of people can evolve, (or devolve), or mutate.
No, he or she would have to admit that someone put the order together and keeps it together.
No such false assumption would have to be admitted since the parallel fails because people write books and the implicit assumption that some hypothetical deity 'wrote' the genetic codes of people is an unsupported 'faith-based' theory.
The order of the universe is one of the strongest "proofs" for God's existence."---
Any apparent order or chaos in the universe cannot be accurately attributed to the existence of any "god". Such unsupported attributions are entirely circular in nature since they consist of using the premise to substantiate itself, ("a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic" - dictionary.com). One could just as easily posit that 'The order of the universe is one of the strongest "proofs" for the invisible pink unicorn's existence'. Unless such an attribution/cause can be conclusively linked to a deity/effect, that attribution is unfounded.
-
"I read an article on creation in Encyclopedia Britannica that said the genetic structure in one human being was the equivalent of a library of 1000 books, 500 pages per book, with closely printed, single-spaced type--yet the person who wrote that article said chance evolution brought that genetic structure into being! How ludicrous! If he walked into any library and saw the thousand volumes of closely printed text placed nearly on the shelves, that same person would never say, "My, I guess this just happened by random chance."
I just wanted to throw my two cents in on this one real quick.
First of all, the complexity of DNA did not happen overnight. Nothing has ever gone from a bacteria to a full-fledged mammal in a single step. It took billions of years for life to evolve to what it is today, so it is really ignorant to throw out taunts about tornados blasting through junkyards and forming Boeing 737s and the like.
Secondly, evolution is far from random. It's all about natural selection and adaptation, baby. Evolution is so good at not being random that it has some of you convinced our functioning parts were crafted by a "designer". Until you study our tailbones or crappy eyes or male vas deferens setup, that is. ;)
-
"I read an article on creation in Encyclopedia Britannica that said the genetic structure in one human being was the equivalent of a library of 1000 books, 500 pages per book, with closely printed, single-spaced type--yet the person who wrote that article said chance evolution brought that genetic structure into being! How ludicrous! If he walked into any library and saw the thousand volumes of closely printed text placed nearly on the shelves, that same person would never say, "My, I guess this just happened by random chance."
I just wanted to throw my two cents in on this one real quick.
First of all, the complexity of DNA did not happen overnight. Nothing has ever gone from a bacteria to a full-fledged mammal in a single step. It took billions of years for life to evolve to what it is today, so it is really ignorant to throw out taunts about tornados blasting through junkyards and forming Boeing 737s and the like.
Secondly, evolution is far from random. It's all about natural selection and adaptation, baby. Evolution is so good at not being random that it has some of you convinced our functioning parts were crafted by a "designer". Until you study our tailbones or crappy eyes or male vas deferens setup, that is. ;)
Your first point elaborates why a parallel between books in a library, (which didn't get there randomly nor, via 'evolution'), and human gentic codes is a false analogy. The implicit counter-argument is probably roughly along the lines of postulating that some supernatual entity 'created' the original human genetic codes however, such a postulation has zero credible evidence to support it.
The examples of genetic 'design flaws' in your second point iterate that, not only does there appear to be no initial 'design' per se but, that if genetic codes were 'perfectly designed' no latter flaws would develop in the humun genome. Since there manifeslt are gentic flaws, any initial 'design' was imperfect. Converrsely, if the human genome developed over millennia through mutation/evolution, we'd get the manifestation of the genetic flaws apparent today.
-
"Your simple denial in the face of evidence you posted which contradicts your denial. That evidence consists of posts you made which adhere to unsubstantiated religious doctrines, beliefs and faith. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs." Falcon9
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??). The comment you posted regarding my assertion that I am not a fundamentalist is made with an assumption that you know what goes on in my head. I have gone through this entire thread and other topics to which I have posted to see if I have posted anything that seems to show extremism on my part. There is no "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs." I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist - there is a difference. I have made no "vigorous" attack on outside threats to my religious beliefs. I believe that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe; my words are not going to change them. Most of my posts on this thread were an attempt to show that your "vigorous attacks" seem to indicate some sort of psychological problem. I am not a psychologist, but there seems to be something lacking in your life that causes you to interminably attack anyone who disagrees with you, especially on one particular subject.
-
Barbaric treatment still happens, it always will...and I expect it to get ALOT worse in the time to come.
I do not. Due to technology and more civilized methods in all fields slowly being spreading across the world, I expect it to slowly get better. Though I'm certain barbaric treatment will still happen, it will diminish if we can get the education out there. We're living in a time where we can see or read what's happening on the other side of the world within a few seconds. When people who are being treated poorly see how people are living better in other countries, they will fight oppression and attempt to make there own lives better. We've seen this in the middle east and northern africa already. It's not getting worse (aside from Syria :-( ). It's CHANGING. It's always changing! Always has, always will. Optimism > Pessimism
When you are looking for "answers", do you only rely on sites like these or do you compare what you find with Bible-based sites as well? I ask because the answers to what is listed on the site you referenced can easily be found, they are explained on several well-known Christians websites, saving alot of time here.
I'm sure this comes as a surprise, but I actually do most of the time. The problem with looking at these xtian sources is they usually just leave out the problems, or depend on irrational and vague loopholes to work around them. Answersingenesis is a PRIME example of this as I've seen it atleast 100 times in the past while reading their articles. Here's an example of what I mean-
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#56
Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Let's also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?
First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize.
The amount of assumption here and the attempt to relate the supernatural to the natural is bonkers. And the major problem still exists-- that is not what it says in the bible. Not to mention if we are to 'interpret' the lines, it just shows how utterly poor and vague it is written. This is a perfect example of a cop-out argument and shows that one can interpret the bible however one wants to if the original words contradict others. It is why I take issue with xtian sources-- they're constant irrational arguments that over-exaggerate or flat-out lie about the evidences they bring to the table.
What about what I wrote or where is the Bible verse that says God is a "genocidal god" that implores this behavior? God is a loving God. God is a God of His Word. God is fair and He is just.
The flood.
So, because I don't believe the same as you, I'm the one that is delusional and not living in reality?
Because you believe in and apply mythology as if it really happened. Thus you do not seem to be living in reality due to this quality. Remember-- I'm targeting your arguments for religion. They aren't personal attacks on your well-being as you seem to be interpreting them as (some of the things below this quote that you wrote).
It's only my opinion but I believe there's a whole lot going on around us day to day that is "unseen" by most. It isn't just "Christians" that will agree--- there are many "believers" in angels, spirits/"guides", aliens, etc. I'm not saying Christians are into ALL of that, just that there seems to be more going on in our world "than meets the eye"
Tread lightly. The amount of frauds and fakes out there are staggering though-- me being a member of the JREF allows me to see them every single day. If you take religion out of the picture, the majority of these frauds would suddenly cease. And it ultimately comes down to just not stepping in the BS. I recall Jcribb making a thread where there was a fire in Egypt during the riots, and the camera lens recording the footage reflected what looked like a guy on a horse (a very mentally challenged-looking individual who was riding on it backwards, but that's aside the point). She believed it to be a religious sign of the end, though once I debunked it, she still believed it to be. These types of beliefs are easily comparable to the people who spot the face of Jesus in their burnt toast or tortilla chips, though if you give me an example or any research you've found if you want. I'd be happy to analyze the basics of it. I'll keep the skepticism at a minimal level.
Sometimes you write things Falconer02 that come across as being "spiteful" and so I know that sometimes when you have read things I have posted, you thought I was being "spiteful" as well. I have never intended to be spiteful, I don't think you have either...I think it's just because we are so into our "beliefs" that it's sometimes difficult to expect what/how the other is feeling. I'm not a pastor or anything. There's no delicate way to tell someone that according to the Bible, they are on the wrong path. If you're going to d&d the Bible, there's no skipping over that part...it's kind of important.
Oh no! I'll admit it- I show a major disdain towards organized religion as a whole since it has done a lot more harm than good throughout history (the Dark Ages alone as my first witness). Though today I really have nothing against the well-being of the people who worship such things, I have major problems with their complete lack of reasoning skills since it can easily be dangerous and damage the common good. It comes down to grown adults still taking part in fantasy and trying to pass that along to the next generation. When my nice neighbor told me the world couldn't be older than 10,000 years, I cried a little inside. Fortunately her 10 and 14 year old kids were smarter.
God wants people to use faith, our brain, our hearts and our "eyes".
If your god wanted us to use our brains, he'd disappear and make his way into ancient mythology just like all of the other gods. It's happening already in developed nations- religion turning into simple and faint cultural memories. It's better to have faith in family and friends than to have faith in an epic golden sky castle in the afterlife. It's more reasonable too.
-
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??).
Hazzah! Although you keep saying that, (in order to get the last word?), I remain dubious of your claims.
The comment you posted regarding my assertion that I am not a fundamentalist is made with an assumption that you know what goes on in my head.
No, that is based almost entirely upon your posted remarks, (any assumptions would result from extrapolating that such remarks stem from what goes on in your head).
I have gone through this entire thread and other topics to which I have posted to see if I have posted anything that seems to show extremism on my part. There is no "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs."
So have I and have noted numerous specious quotes from others intended as 'countering attacks' against my questioning of religious beliefs, (along with this gem: Message ID: 499206 - posted by loulizlee in God is Fake thread: "Are you tired yet of saying the same things over and over again, Falcon? I think we need to stop responding to your endless tirades to shut you up. However, I look in every once in a while just to see if you have said anything different. My guilty pleasure."
I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist - there is a difference.
Either such xtian beliefs are open to interpretation and questioning or, they are not. If they are, that's what I've been doing all along; questioning the inherent assumptions of such beliefs. If they are not open to this, such are implicitly fundamentalist beliefs, (cannot be questioned).
I have made no "vigorous" attack on outside threats to my religious beliefs.
The description included the phrase "in combination", (not as a requirement of fundamentalism but, to encompass the full meaning of the term - which, btw, was originally a self-applied xtian label). Be that as it may, the word "vigorous" is somewhat open to subjective interpretation in that what is effortless for some is vigorous for others. For instance, I had interpreted your 'counter-quoting' responses to some of my posts as merely passive-aggressive, (rather than especially vigorous). Whereas you've apparently interpreted my persistent consistency in questioning religious beliefs as "vigorous", (as can be seen below).
I believe that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe; my words are not going to change them.
People can believe whatever they wish to, in their minds. As soon as such beliefs leave those confines and meander out in a public forum, those who do not hold such beliefs have an equal opportunity to question or dissent with them, (whether such opposition and dissent is consider by believers to be "vigorous attacks" on those beliefs or not).
Most of my posts on this thread were an attempt to show that your "vigorous attacks" seem to indicate some sort of psychological problem.
That's extremely ironic, considering that those who do not hold such beliefs have an equal opportunity to question or dissent with them, (whether such opposition and dissent is consider by believers to be "vigorous attacks" or a "psychological problem" on the part of skeptics). Your imputing that questioning the superstitious beliefs of others is indicative of a "psychological problem" is itself, a "vigorous attack" and the irony of such a specious remark lies within the glaring fact that believing in something for which there is No attributible evidence is far more indicative a some "psychological problem" than questioning such.
I am not a psychologist, but there seems to be something lacking in your life that causes you to interminably attack anyone who disagrees with you, especially on one particular subject.
Your mischaracterization of the situation is indicative of your thought processes; my questioning of such religious beliefs as are posted _initially by religious adherents_ in these forums are not attacking, they are 'counter-attacks' upon unsupported assertions made by religious adherents. Some of those adherents have been quite vigorously attacking me, (and occasionally, the actual content of my questioning posts), because they disagree with my questioning their religious beliefs. If you cannot see the inherent hypocrisy there, perhaps you have been 'blinded by the light.'
-
Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Let's also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?
First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize.
The amount of assumption here and the attempt to relate the supernatural to the natural is bonkers. And the major problem still exists-- that is not what it says in the bible. Not to mention if we are to 'interpret' the lines, it just shows how utterly poor and vague it is written. This is a perfect example of a cop-out argument and shows that one can interpret the bible however one wants to if the original words contradict others. It is why I take issue with xtian sources-- they're constant irrational arguments that over-exaggerate or flat-out lie about the evidences they bring to the table.
I don't see this as a matter of interpretation, but instead as a matter of understanding. Where you see it as a work of fiction that would have been meant to immerse the reader into the story, I see it as a revelation of events put in a form meant for me to be able to gain insight and understanding from. When reading the above passages and those following I think about that mystery that is "free will" and even some of the challenges you yourself have put against it. I think about physics involved in considering a fixed duration universe from an infinite existence perspective. We can easily determine that the limit of such a comparative duration would indeed be approaching zero and that also gives me pause for speculation. I think about it viewed sequentially and randomly (and what limits might be derived from uncertainty), about the rules/laws that would have to be adhered to in such a situation. Information loss, causality, and many other cases that make me wonder if there is more information here than is readily apparent.
Even if you adopt your position that it was simply men, scholars of the day, writing a fictitious story, you must give them at least enough consideration in education and reason to be aware of the obvious questions that are often brought up. Critical thinking isn't a new thing and some of the best cons of today are still simple alterations of those that have been around for ages, thus reminding us we are still much the same as what we always were.
Anyways just some thoughts I had on that one bit and didn't intend to interrupt the dialog you had going so please ignore if it is in the way.
-
Gen 3:8 -
The amount of assumption here and the attempt to relate the supernatural to the natural is bonkers. And the major problem still exists-- that is not what it says in the bible. Not to mention if we are to 'interpret' the lines, it just shows how utterly poor and vague it is written. This is a perfect example of a cop-out argument and shows that one can interpret the bible however one wants to if the original words contradict others. It is why I take issue with xtian sources-- they're constant irrational arguments that over-exaggerate or flat-out lie about the evidences they bring to the table.
I don't see this as a matter of interpretation, but instead as a matter of understanding.
Such understandings are matters of interpretation though. Especially regarding biblical parables; religious adherents will often interpret these from a wholy, (pun intended), religious perspective, rather than more objectively.
Where you see it as a work of fiction that would have been meant to immerse the reader into the story, I see it as a revelation of events put in a form meant for me to be able to gain insight and understanding from.
Such insights and understanding as claimed are still interpretations, however.
Even if you adopt your position that it was simply men, scholars of the day, writing a fictitious story, you must give them at least enough consideration in education and reason to be aware of the obvious questions that are often brought up. Critical thinking isn't a new thing and some of the best cons of today are still simple alterations of those that have been around for ages, thus reminding us we are still much the same as what we always were.
Although it isn't possible to accurately determine the education levels or reasoning abilities of the various contributors to biblical 'books', much can be extrapolated from the content of what they've cobbled together, (and a high degree of education or ability to reason isn't apparent in that content).
Anyways just some thoughts I had on that one bit and didn't intend to interrupt the dialog you had going so please ignore if it is in the way.
You made a contributory post, not an interruption and that's well within the discussion part of debate + discuss. No worries.
-
"Your simple denial in the face of evidence you posted which contradicts your denial. That evidence consists of posts you made which adhere to unsubstantiated religious doctrines, beliefs and faith. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs." Falcon9
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??). The comment you posted regarding my assertion that I am not a fundamentalist is made with an assumption that you know what goes on in my head. I have gone through this entire thread and other topics to which I have posted to see if I have posted anything that seems to show extremism on my part. There is no "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs." I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist - there is a difference. I have made no "vigorous" attack on outside threats to my religious beliefs. I believe that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe; my words are not going to change them. Most of my posts on this thread were an attempt to show that your "vigorous attacks" seem to indicate some sort of psychological problem. I am not a psychologist, but there seems to be something lacking in your life that causes you to interminably attack anyone who disagrees with you, especially on one particular subject.
Well said.
-
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??).
Well said.
On the contrary, that attempt to 'get in the last word' was very poorly "reasoned", (in that it lacked anything more than specious 'reasoning'). That another constrictive religious adherent would 'applaud' such irrationality is superficially-unsurprising.
-
Quotes are from Falconer02:
Though I'm certain barbaric treatment will still happen, it will diminish if we can get the education out there.
I am an optimist. I also know what many others have said/are saying and I do live in "reality". The barbaric treatment will occur and will intensify right here in the US, and I think in the very near future. I think things will happen that will be so horrible that no one would have thought it could happen to people living in the U.S.
The flood.
The flood? The righteous were spared. Noah invited people to join him & his family on the Ark, no one wanted to. No one believed God was going to destroy them...no one believed in God. They were having too much fun laughing and making jokes--- until they realized they didn't know how to swim. Some believe the story really happened, some don't. The story was considered important enough, regardless, to be placed in the Bible. There's also a verse that says 'But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.'---and there STILL doesn't seem to be very many people heeding the warning. (I can see maybe 'missing the boat' the first time around...it's just stupid to miss it the 'second time'.)
Tread lightly. The amount of frauds and fakes out there are staggering though
I know there are alot of frauds & fakes. (There are also alot of "unsolved mysteries"... ;D.) I don't really get into the "images of Jesus" on burnt toast, etc. The footage of the "guy on a horse", I can't say for sure whether it was real or not. My opinion (no facts, just my opinion) is that I think that was a "You Tube" video and the majority of them are fake. It didn't seem like the "real deal" to me, but I could be wrong. The Bible warns of many false prophets in the end times and there surely is no shortage of them today. Most of them do claim to "have or belong to a particular religion", and many of them are "screwed up" in the head. I don't think any particular race, religion or group of people should have to lose their right to a freedom just because there are people that have gone off the "deep end" with their "misinterpretations". If they are breaking the law, if they are hurting someone then they need to be dealt with. Otherwise, I think "to each their own".
Though today I really have nothing against the well-being of the people who worship such things, I have major problems with their complete lack of reasoning skills since it can easily be dangerous and damage the common good.
I don't worship anything or anyone but God. There's nothing wrong with my reasoning skills...except in the eyes of "unbelievers". Oh well, no one can please everybody. :) I don't belong to any particular religion (as I've stated before) and I have never said that I was a "christian fundamentalist". These terms & assumptions seem to come from people that don't even know the meaning of the words but feel free to attach them to anyone that says they believe in God and consider themselves "christian". Not every person that considers themselves to be "christian" even knows the true meaning of the word. A person can call themselves a "christian" and still go to hell. It's confusing and I think that's the way satan likes it.
It comes down to grown adults still taking part in fantasy and trying to pass that along to the next generation.
But the fantasy games (Dungeons & Dragons, etc.) adults have passed along to the next generation are totally harmless...?
If your god wanted us to use our brains, he'd disappear
Someday He will...all His followers too.
It's happening already in developed nations- religion turning into simple and faint cultural memories.
In the Bible, whenever people decided to "remove God"-- God removed His blessing and His judgment fell. Many of those people found themselves suffering and heavily burdened in bondage/slavery to their enemy. I think the day is coming when He will remove His blessing from the U.S. and Americans will be "owned" by the enemy, which goes back to the "barbaric treatment" at the top of this post.
-
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??).
Well said.
On the contrary, that attempt to 'get in the last word' was very poorly "reasoned", (in that it lacked anything more than specious 'reasoning'). That another constrictive religious adherent would 'applaud' such irrationality is superficially-unsurprising.
I do not care one iota what you have to say about my comment to her. I spoke to her about her comment and don't need you dictating what my remarks mean or don't mean. If I was debating the issue, fine. I was merely replying with what I thought of her comment TO HER. Please mind your own business. I'm tediously bored of and tired of your constant nagging and cutting down every little thing people may say.
-
I just wanted to throw my two cents in on this one real quick.
Hey you... :) Pop in more often & stay as long as you like ANYTIME, you've been missed...
-
Well said.
On the contrary, that attempt to 'get in the last word' was very poorly "reasoned", (in that it lacked anything more than specious 'reasoning'). That another constrictive religious adherent would 'applaud' such irrationality is superficially-unsurprising.
I do not care one iota what you have to say about my comment to her.
Whether you happen to "care" or not is irrelavent. This is the D+D forum and I 'debated' her comments.
I spoke to her about her comment and don't need you dictating what my remarks mean or don't mean.
I "dictated" nothing; I merely commented an opinion that your supportive remark bore no resemblance to the veracity of her statements and instead, supported irrational assertions, 9which was within nominal expectations, given your previous remarks).
If I was debating the issue, fine. I was merely replying with what I thought of her comment TO HER.
Her comments were extremely debatable and I dissented. That's well within the D+D subforum purpose. Your vacuous "well-said" was superficial 'applause'.
Please mind your own business.
Please cease attempting to "dictate" to me in I public forum. Public comments made to public posts are not 'private business', apparently much to your chagrin.
I'm tediously bored of and tired of your constant nagging and cutting down every little thing people may say.[/b] [/color]
Your boredom and tedium are of very little concern to me. They add nothing to the subject at hand other than to implicit indicate your pettiness. If you're bored, don't read what bores you, (weren't you going to put my posts on "ignore"?). As for "nagging", that's your unsupported opinion, (and empty derrogatory remark). The same applies to characterizing what you don't agree with, (reasoning), as "cutting down". You demonstrate being bereft of rationality on a constant basis.
-
I just wanted to throw my two cents in on this one real quick.
Hey you... :) Pop in more often & stay as long as you like ANYTIME, you've been missed...
And yet, you snipped the major context of her reply so that you could avoid responding to it in a "debate + discussion" manner. How curious.
-
Well said.
On the contrary, that attempt to 'get in the last word' was very poorly "reasoned", (in that it lacked anything more than specious 'reasoning'). That another constrictive religious adherent would 'applaud' such irrationality is superficially-unsurprising.
I do not care one iota what you have to say about my comment to her.
Whether you happen to "care" or not is irrelavent. This is the D+D forum and I 'debated' her comments.
I spoke to her about her comment and don't need you dictating what my remarks mean or don't mean.
I "dictated" nothing; I merely commented an opinion that your supportive remark bore no resemblance to the veracity of her statements and instead, supported irrational assertions, 9which was within nominal expectations, given your previous remarks).
If I was debating the issue, fine. I was merely replying with what I thought of her comment TO HER.
Her comments were extremely debatable and I dissented. That's well within the D+D subforum purpose. Your vacuous "well-said" was superficial 'applause'.
Please mind your own business.
Please cease attempting to "dictate" to me in I public forum. Public comments made to public posts are not 'private business', apparently much to your chagrin.
I'm tediously bored of and tired of your constant nagging and cutting down every little thing people may say.[/b] [/color]
Your boredom and tedium are of very little concern to me. They add nothing to the subject at hand other than to implicit indicate your pettiness. If you're bored, don't read what bores you, (weren't you going to put my posts on "ignore"?). As for "nagging", that's your unsupported opinion, (and empty derrogatory remark). The same applies to characterizing what you don't agree with, (reasoning), as "cutting down". You demonstrate being bereft of rationality on a constant basis.
This is also a forum for people to give their opinions, sir. If you don't like my opinion, fine, just say so. What you do, however, is disagree even with small comments to another poster. Your opinions come from you with an air of superiority that only yours counts. And you know something? Your opinions are simply that - opinions. Just as mine or others. People are entitled to their opinions, as well. You demonstrate what you accuse others of, as well as me, tonight, in that you act "bereft of rationality on a constant basis." You have finally nailed it with describing yourself.
-
The flood? The righteous were spared.
According to which dubious source, a "bible"? Geological records contradict claims of a 'world-wide flood' and instead, partly support a much more localized event. If such a "flood" were not widespread, many would have survived, (not just some arbitrarily-designated "righteous" ones).
The Bible warns of many false prophets in the end times and there surely is no shortage of them today.
It's mildly amusing that a collection of religious documents "warns of many false prophets" while simultaneously being full of them itself.
Most of them do claim to "have or belong to a particular religion", and many of them are "screwed up" in the head.
Apparently, this is near to being a prerequisite of religious adherents.
I don't think any particular race, religion or group of people should have to lose their right to a freedom just because there are people that have gone off the "deep end" with their "misinterpretations".
Presumably, this would include those particular groups or individuals who have "gone off the deep end with their" own specious religious "misinterpretations" as well. If not, the inherent selective hypocrisy would be too obvious.
I don't worship anything or anyone but God. There's nothing wrong with my reasoning skills...except in the eyes of "unbelievers".
On the contrary, a self-professed belief in that for which no supporting evidence has ever been presented avoids basic reasoning altogether. No bland denial contradicts previous evidence which indicates severely selective "reasoning skills" at best and none, at worst.
I don't belong to any particular religion (as I've stated before) and I have never said that I was a "christian fundamentalist". These terms & assumptions seem to come from people that don't even know the meaning of the words but feel free to attach them to anyone that says they believe in God and consider themselves "christian".
If it walks like a fundie and talks like a fundie, odds are that it's a fundie, (whether self-designated as one or not). In broad, colloquial usage, a "fundamentalist" xtian is generally a 'bible-thumper', (one who quotes or refers to a 'bible' in an insubstantial attempt to support their religious beliefs - doctrinal references), and can also stridently object to dissent from those who don't share their religious beliefs in lieu of responding to the context of dissenting arguments, (that would be, attacking dissenters themselves). Under such parameters, "Sheryls" qualifies as a xtian fundie, (notwithstanding any overt self-declarations of being either xtian or, fundamentalist).
It's confusing and I think that's the way satan likes it.
It's not at all confusing to me, (even if you're not implying that I'm "satan" or, a 'satanist' - because I've never overtly claimed to be either).
[quote from Falconer02] It comes down to grown adults still taking part in fantasy and trying to pass that along to the next generation.
But the fantasy games (Dungeons & Dragons, etc.) adults have passed along to the next generation are totally harmless...?
If your god wanted us to use our brains, he'd disappear
Someday He will...all His followers too.
There is no evidence to support such a claim. This is not an example of "reasoning skills", it's an example of blind faith.
-
This is also a forum for people to give their opinions, sir. If you don't like my opinion, fine, just say so.
Whether I 'like' or 'dislike' your "opinions" is not relevant. What is relevant to this point is that not all "opinions" are created equally.
What you do, however, is disagree even with small comments to another poster.
However, I didn't "disagree" with your vacuous 'applause' for anotehr poster; I disagreed with the content of that poster's comments. You didn't bother refuting any of that and merely interjected an empty "well-said" comment.
Your opinions come from you with an air of superiority that only yours counts. And you know something?
That would be a specious opinion, (one that has no basis in evidence other than your skewed perceptions, which are not evidence). Nothing in my remarks inherently contained anything explicitly or, inplicitly inclusive of an "air of superiority" or, that only my viewpoint "counts", (since debating the viewpoints of others is encompassed by the "Debate+Discuss" subforum, dissenting points of view are to be expected). Speciously attaching some unsupported 'perceptions' to dissenting viewpoints is irrational.
Your opinions are simply that - opinions. Just as mine or others. People are entitled to their opinions, as well.
To reiterate and expand on my disagreement with that assertion; all "opinions" are not equal, (as your assertion directly implies). Some are supported by evidence/a line of actual reasoning and some are presented sans any substantiating evidence. Yes, people are free, (not "entitled"), to expressing either substantiated or, unsubstantiated "opinions". So too are those with dissenting views as free to express such views, (even if others petulently insist that "opinions are simply that - opinions"; as if empty ones are the same as supported ones.
You demonstrate what you accuse others of, as well as me, tonight, in that you act "bereft of rationality on a constant basis." You have finally nailed it with describing yourself.[/b][/color]
You have provided no evidence to support your accusatory claim, while there is a preponderance of posted evidence whose content contradicts it. Therefore, your opinion-claim is specious and without merit. It does provide some additional evidence supporting the "opinion" that you post in a manner largely bereft of rationality.
-
I am an optimist. I also know what many others have said/are saying and I do live in "reality". The barbaric treatment will occur and will intensify right here in the US, and I think in the very near future. I think things will happen that will be so horrible that no one would have thought it could happen to people living in the U.S.
These sentences coupled with your beliefs are easy contradictions. "I am an optimist(1) and realist(2), but I believe things are going to get much worse(1) but then my magical deity(2) will intervene and save me from the world that's gone to hell(1+2)."
:dontknow:
The amount of contradictions here heavily outweigh the original message.
The flood? The righteous were spared. Noah invited people to join him & his family on the Ark, no one wanted to. No one believed God was going to destroy them...no one believed in God. They were having too much fun laughing and making jokes--- until they realized they didn't know how to swim.
Yep. Like the little kids and babies. They were definitely not righteous. It's easy to conclude that your god's a genocidal child-killer in this myth. Unless you believe that god already knew they'd grow up to be unrighteous/evil, and therefore you've contradicted these beliefs yet again by showing this god can't allow for freewill. The foundation of this belief system crumbles once more.
There are also alot of "unsolved mysteries"... Grin
*theme song stuck in head*
I don't think any particular race, religion or group of people should have to lose their right to a freedom just because there are people that have gone off the "deep end" with their "misinterpretations".
Until they start needlessly hurting or killing others just as they have countless times in the past. This is why I stress basic education before jumping into a belief system that implores magical thinking.
I don't worship anything or anyone but God. There's nothing wrong with my reasoning skills...except in the eyes of "unbelievers".
Well okay, but given the past posts by you in this thread, I am skeptical of this claim. Perhaps the rest of your post I'm quoting will set the record stra--
But the fantasy games (Dungeons & Dragons, etc.) adults have passed along to the next generation are totally harmless...?
Wai--wait...what?
What?
ugh...YES. DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS IS HARMLESS. THEY'RE NERDS. You seriously think players of a tabletop game that include weird dice and lego-men are harmful!? SERIOUSLY!? :sad1: This alone shows that your reasoning skills have major issues. Major issues. This is a prime example and anyone with an ounce of reason in their heads can see it. But don't let me explain why D+D is harmless-- let this comical nerd-critic explain the obvious fear-exploiting that you've fallen for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMuzt5K4Fwg
3:00-4:50 (especially 4:34)
(probably not safe for work as there's a few swears in there)
And you know what? I've never played D+D in my life (a few of my friends do though-- perfectly fine individuals). But I have played video games based upon such games which are arguably more "evil" from a religious standpoint. The best part is- they're absolutely amazing! Epic pieces of art and storytelling. Skyrim, which came out last November, is one of the most amazing games I've ever played. And here I am, IRL, not doing anything pertaining to midieval/occult fantasy. I'm sorry...I think I gotta end the argument here if you seriously are that far behind on how the world spins.
-
@falconer02
Yep. Like the little kids and babies. They were definitely not righteous.
"Actions & Consequences"...those people could have put their little kids/babies on the Ark, they chose not to. (Funny thought, the Ark was several years in the making. People had children and these children grew up hearing their parents laughing about "Noah and the big boat...and the rain that was supposed to come". These children grew up, had children and laughed with them about the same"...it resembles how generations have been laughing about the "return of Christ".) Even though those little ones died as a consequence of their parents actions, I would think that they still went to Heaven just as the babies/children that still die today as a consequence of someone's actions... go to Heaven. :angel11:
This is why I stress basic education before jumping into a belief system that implores magical thinking.
Many of them have basic education and some of the real "wierdo's" have even been considered by many to be "intelligent". There are some "patterns" though that I think really should have the police keeping tabs on, one would be when a group of people decide to "cut themselves off" from everyone else. People that do that usually have "mental issues" and so, (imo) a group that is encouraged to do that should be investigated. (Ex: places like "Jonestown", compounds, communities...)
...I think I gotta end the argument here if you seriously are that far behind on how the world spins.
Not just "dungeons & dragons" but the majority of "role-playing" games, period. (Dungeons & dragons was just what "broke the ice" compared to what's out these days). I have spent a few minutes here and there on what has been considered to be "role-playing" games for children and it shocked me at the harm that is so openly available to young, impressionable children's minds these days. It's one thing to have a harmless "role-playing" game where children take on the role of say, a certain animal to help them develop their creativity. It's another when they are asked to write their own "chants & spells" to advance to the next level, when pre-teen girls are role-playing using their 'fantasy' characters to "play" out sex-scenes with pre-teen guys (and I know some of these kids are so addicted to this that they continue out the game when they e-mail each other. They don't use each other's names, they don't have any other type of conversation, just all "role-playing"...all the time. It's like they don't know their identities anymore, they always want to be some sort of "fantasy" being. The few minutes worth that I observed was really obnoxious,they can't function to use their brain for anything else and it's clear they don't want to. Their parents don't have a "clue" how these kids are really spending their time. These kids are living in a "fantasy world", and when reality bites...it's going to bite them hard. :(
-
@qon
First of all, the complexity of DNA did not happen overnight. Nothing has ever gone from a bacteria to a full-fledged mammal in a single step. It took billions of years for life to evolve to what it is today, so it is really ignorant to throw out taunts about tornados blasting through junkyards and forming Boeing 737s and the like.
Secondly, evolution is far from random. It's all about natural selection and adaptation, baby. Evolution is so good at not being random that it has some of you convinced our functioning parts were crafted by a "designer". Until you study our tailbones or crappy eyes or male vas deferens setup, that is.
Some people believe that the "Creation story" is the "entire story" and there's no room for "Evolution". Some people believe "Evolution" is the entire story, and it all happened without God. I believe the Creation story. I believe God created what He said He created and on the seventh day...not only did He "rest" but He was DONE creating. I believe then our world "evolved" into the world we have today (as the world we have today isn't as it was when it was originally created).
Much like McDonalds...the company began in 1940 as a barbecue restaurant, it has "evolved" into the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, serving around 68 million customers daily in 119 countries. McDonalds didn't just "evolve" on its own without some human intervention (involving ALOT of hard work along the way). I don't believe the earth just evolved on its own without alot of intervention along the way (both God & human).
"evolution" only, without "intervention" is this...
I have put things from my childhood/teens into a storage unit in another town. This stuff (includes little hand-crocheted toddler purses/crocheted/knit dresses my grandma had made for me before she passed away, toys, books that were old when they were given to me, alot of dolls/doll furniture, a vintage radio, & lots of misc.) I check on this stuff every few years but I am always undecided as to where to put it and not wanting to sell it...so it stays put. As many years as it's been there...nothing is "evolving". It's all "deteriorating". The stuff smells musty, the cloth is getting rotten from age. The book pages are yellowing. The only signs of "life" I see are a few dead moths and some mouse droppings...(they could have evolved into "better beings", but I don't think so). I would leave the stuff there forever if I thought it would "evolve" into something great...it's not going to happen.
Things left unattended don't turn into other things and they don't become "better things"...they deteriorate & decay. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
-
Actions & Consequences"...those people could have put their little kids/babies on the Ark, they chose not to. (Funny thought, the Ark was several years in the making. People had children and these children grew up hearing their parents laughing about "Noah and the big boat...and the rain that was supposed to come". These children grew up, had children and laughed with them about the same"...it resembles how generations have been laughing about the "return of Christ".) Even though those little ones died as a consequence of their parents actions, I would think that they still went to Heaven just as the babies/children that still die today as a consequence of someone's actions... go to Heaven.
I rather enjoy how you keep trying to make this seem like a reasonable story. The problem remains- he killed children and babies. The people who laughed at Noah did not kill their own children- the blood is on your god's hands since he pulled the trigger. You also hopped over the free will of the children- something your god obviously didn't care about in this myth. And this story is all based upon illogical assumptions to boot.
Many of them have basic education and some of the real "wierdo's" have even been considered by many to be "intelligent". There are some "patterns" though that I think really should have the police keeping tabs on, one would be when a group of people decide to "cut themselves off" from everyone else. People that do that usually have "mental issues" and so, (imo) a group that is encouraged to do that should be investigated. (Ex: places like "Jonestown", compounds, communities...)
They're called High-Control-Groups, and people that display the same mindset as yourself are more prone to falling for these groups. Again, it's best to educate before introducing belief systems that implore magical thinking. Proof of why people need education can be seen in your reply to Qo9.
ot just "dungeons & dragons" but the majority of "role-playing" games, period. (Dungeons & dragons was just what "broke the ice" compared to what's out these days). I have spent a few minutes here and there on what has been considered to be "role-playing" games for children and it shocked me at the harm that is so openly available to young, impressionable children's minds these days. It's one thing to have a harmless "role-playing" game where children take on the role of say, a certain animal to help them develop their creativity. It's another when they are asked to write their own "chants & spells" to advance to the next level, when pre-teen girls are role-playing using their 'fantasy' characters to "play" out sex-scenes with pre-teen guys (and I know some of these kids are so addicted to this that they continue out the game when they e-mail each other. They don't use each other's names, they don't have any other type of conversation, just all "role-playing"...all the time. It's like they don't know their identities anymore, they always want to be some sort of "fantasy" being.
Preteens flirting with each other and pretending to have sex in a nerdy game!? Call social services! Call the national guard! Never mind the gigantic issue with alcohol and drugs-- this silly game is endangering the lives of our preteens! News flash- experimental sexual behavior in preteens/early-teens is nothing new. Would you rather have preteens play silly RPG's and flirt with each other or have them be bored and have sex/do drugs/drink? 99.9% of the players are fine. The ones who take it too far obviously have mental issues and are probably the same christian extremists who complain about it- the ones you have been exposed to. Again, RPG's are harmless. They're nerds! Seriously think about what you're saying.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080617054316AA4iT9j
(more links within link for sources)
In the 1980s, a woman named Patricia Pulling embarked upon a journey of her own to destroy D&D after her son committed suicide, and she spent her life calling the game a cause of homosexuality, insanity, perversion, and so on.
D&D actually is an educational game that encourages problem-solving in a group setting. It is a great social activity that allows people to interact at a tabletop rather than sit at a computer, and it takes a great approach to gaming in that there is no "winner/loser" but rather a team effort.
it will no more cause harm than a game of Risk will cause people to go forth and try to conquer the world
And a person chanting random magic words to level up in a game is rarely heard of. And even then, it's still harmless. FUS RO DAH to your outdated fearmongered pov.
The few minutes worth that I observed was really obnoxious,they can't function to use their brain for anything else and it's clear they don't want to. These kids are living in a "fantasy world", and when reality bites...it's going to bite them hard
Now you're enlightened- you know exactly how freethinkers feel about the religious.
Things left unattended don't turn into other things and they don't become "better things"...they deteriorate & decay. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
Quick question- off the top of your head can you explain the FIRST law of thermodynamics? Probably not, right? So you probably not the best person to be discussing the 2nd law with-- especially if you're using completely bias xtian sources (proof? Not one source of quoted info goes passed 1983, well before the 2nd law idea was ruled out about our planet). What your source fails to mention is that earth is an lush open system and that the dead plant example is too basic of a concept to encompass all life as we know it. The 2nd law only works with closed systems-- the example you made is very close to a completely closed system. Since we have a sun, it allows for fusion to occur so all life on this planet can exist in various ways, and therefore life can change through time.
-
Some people believe that the "Creation story" is the "entire story" and there's no room for "Evolution". Some people believe "Evolution" is the entire story, and it all happened without God. I believe the Creation story. I believe God created what He said He created and on the seventh day...not only did He "rest" but He was DONE creating. I believe then our world "evolved" into the world we have today (as the world we have today isn't as it was when it was originally created).
So, you're going with 'some of both', although there's no evidence whatsoever to support a theory of creationism, (instead, such relies upon 'faith', which means a belief without evidence)? At the same time, you've acknowledged at least some aspects of evolutionary theory, (which has at least some supportive evidence, whether conclusive or not). This causes some doubt as to whether you read or comprehended QoN's reply which mentioned "First of all, the complexity of DNA did not happen overnight. Nothing has ever gone from a bacteria to a full-fledged mammal in a single step. It took billions of years for life to evolve to what it is today ..." Billons of years for the evolutionary process does not equate to an instaneous "creation", (neither does it support any 'faith-based' theories of 'creating' the RNA and other components of various genomes).
Things left unattended don't turn into other things and they don't become "better things"...they deteriorate & decay. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
The response to your, (and that xtian site's), misapprehension of thermodynamic laws was given by "Falconer02" however, to expand his answer further, any closed {thermodynamic} system, (such as your junk in storage, for instance), will 'lose energy and decay'. An open {thermodynamic} system is one in which exchanges of heat/matter/energy occur within teh thermodynamic parameters of that system. That means that, in regards to evolution/mutation, such exchanges do occur, (and still are), in such a way as to account for changes in the energy state of the system. There is no evidence that such energy exchanges and changes can to attributed to a hypothetical 'attending creator', (keeping in mind that 'faith' does not constitute valid evidence because it expressly consists of 'belief without evidence').
-
It's one thing to have a harmless "role-playing" game where children take on the role of say, a certain animal to help them develop their creativity. It's another when they are asked to write their own "chants & spells" to advance to the next level ...
What's the real difference between "chants & spells" done in an imaginary setting to achieve imaginary 'magic' and "prayers in or out of church" to an imaginary being to achieve 'magical results'?
These kids are living in a "fantasy world", and when reality bites...it's going to bite them hard. :(
If so, no kids should be dragged to churches or, be 'forced' to pray at home/anywhere because such involves "living in a fantasy world" which will "bite them hard when reality bites", (that is, they come to rely upon mystical religious forces instead of upon their own fortitude, resources and personal responsibility for their actions).
-
What's the real difference between "chants & spells" done in an imaginary setting to achieve imaginary 'magic' and "prayers in or out of church" to an imaginary being to achieve 'magical results'?
That's an interesting point. I'm surprised I didn't think of that myself. I believe the answer from any extreme religious person will be around the lines of "one is fake, other is real" though since even the players will easily admit their games are fantasy/fake, and the religious will not, it only damages the religious's stance further for the obvious inability to reason which serves as the pipe to keep the blind faith flowing.
If so, no kids should be dragged to churches or, be 'forced' to pray at home/anywhere because such involves "living in a fantasy world"
Quite frankly I think the world would be a better place if instead of religious crazies blowing themselves up, we'd have d+d crazies threatening people with their fake +7 ATK magic sword. Ultimately the hypocrisy here is staggering.
-
What's the real difference between "chants & spells" done in an imaginary setting to achieve imaginary 'magic' and "prayers in or out of church" to an imaginary being to achieve 'magical results'?
That's an interesting point. I'm surprised I didn't think of that myself. I believe the answer from any extreme religious person will be around the lines of "one is fake, other is real" though since even the players will easily admit their games are fantasy/fake, and the religious will not, it only damages the religious's stance further for the obvious inability to reason which serves as the pipe to keep the blind faith flowing.
However, such a potential claim, (that their particular 'imaginary game' is "real"), continues to lack evidence supporting that claim. Once again, neither 'blind faith', (belief without evidence), nor insubstantive attributions, (relating an apparent effect to an improbable and unfounded 'cause'), constitutes evidence. Either one insubstantive "fantasy" is as unreal as the other or, the hypocritical biases will shine through the 'doubletalk' of "having faith because something is believed" circularity.
Quite frankly I think the world would be a better place if instead of religious crazies blowing themselves up, we'd have d+d crazies threatening people with their fake +7 ATK magic sword. Ultimately the hypocrisy here is staggering.
This is exactly why some of the religious adherents around feel that such debates "go around and around" without resolution; such is entirely due to a failure to apply reason to the debate on the part of the religious adherents. For some 'reason', (excuse), most of them would much rather 'attack' the holder of a dissenting viewpoint than that viewpoint itself. My own theory for such a situation is that many religious adherents seem to perceive a challenge to their religious beliefs as a personal challenge to themselves, (indirectly, it is however, challenges to positions are explicitly just that - a person is not the position they adhere to).
-
Preteens flirting with each other and pretending to have sex in a nerdy game!? Call social services! Call the national guard! Never mind the gigantic issue with alcohol and drugs-- this silly game is endangering the lives of our preteens! News flash
I'm sorry, I had to omit the rest of the good points from your last post falconer02, I got called in to work and only have a few moments to be on-line today. So, I chose the one that I can most quickly respond to. I have a "newsflash" for you regarding the "role-playing". Perhaps it's because you don't have kids or perhaps it's because you are like most of the kids parents (I would be referring only to the kids' parents that I personally know that are having the problems), the "role playing" is causing the kids to have some serious problems. These kids are under eighteen and shouldn't even be allowed on some of the sites they are participating in but they are there. They've also set up their own "clans", "covens", "packs", etc. and in real life, their friends only call them by their "fantasy name". They continue the "fantasy" for hours through IM, e-mail, texting, etc. They role-play murders (as horrible as they can imagine them) and pretend to be killing family members, enemies, etc. This is causing the children to be filled with anger, hatred and it's carrying over into their "real life" when one 7 year old just last week told his dad that he hated him and was going to kill him...simply because his dad refused to take him to a store to get some candy. (And while kids saying hateful things to their parents isn't anything new, this kid had been telling his "pact" that he could use his "mind" to control his dad. It was when that failed, he got MAD.)
Parents have gotten better at keeping an eye on their kids in our area because of "children-snatching" but they have no idea that their kids are spending so much time on-line "role-playing" with pedophiles and dirty "old men". I know three of them in our area that spend as much time as possible on the role-playing sites. They know how to "spot" a child and they pretend that they too are about the child's age. Are you telling me that you wouldn't mind if you had a seven year old daughter or son involved in sex "role-playing" games with an "older pervert"?
I know one family whose children have been involved in an on-line game where they have been making their own chants and curses. The seven year old boy has had to have his parents come pick him up from school a few days a week because he's so hysterical...the teacher's can't calm him down. The parent said the boy's face was "pale white", there's no way he has been doing this for attention. The parents can't calm him down at home. He's been seeing "people" that no one else sees, he's been talking to "voices" that no one else hears. He's undergone several medical tests, nothing found. He's undergone several "counseling sessions", and the verdict was "he's doing it for attention". The parents are upset because they know he's not, but relieved because they thought they were going to have to have him "committed". Now, his nine year-old sister is currently having the same problems. I know this family and know for a fact, these kids didn't have these issues until they started spending so much time with their "role-playing" on-line. They're obsessed, they can't think of anything else. They don't care about their schoolwork, they don't care about anything...except their "fantasy gaming".
None of those mentioned above are "christian" families. If they hold any "religious" beliefs at all, they've never shared them with me. They are all well-to-do families and the parents both work alot of hours at very well-paying jobs. They are tired when they come home and so as long as the kids are "quiet", they're happy. Perhaps this is the "norm" for kids these days, I don't know. I find it disturbing.
I've gotta get to work, it's going to be a LONG, "grueling" weekend...dread it. :(
Hope yours is great!!
-
the "role playing" is causing the kids to have some serious problems.
Yes, just like 2,500,000 other things in the last 5 years according to extremist fearmongerers.
These kids are under eighteen and shouldn't even be allowed on some of the sites they are participating in but they are there. They've also set up their own "clans", "covens", "packs", etc. and in real life, their friends only call them by their "fantasy name". They continue the "fantasy" for hours through IM, e-mail, texting, etc.
Though the idea is foreign to you, my friends and I had our own Counter-Strike and Team-Fortress clan back in highschool. It was really fun and it brings back some good nostalgic memories of us being up till 3 AM on random weekends playing at LAN parties. That's actually the first time I think I used the name "Falconer" online. We never called each other by our online names though-- that was pretty corny. We'd have clan matches with other clans all around the US. I'm still friends with the majority of the guys who I played with. Obviously people can get addicted and take the games too seriously, but it's easy to break (usually due to just getting bored with the game) unless the person has some random mental issues. This goes with real sports too though- some people can take them too seriously to the point of being irrational and it gets scary. I've seen this plenty of times during PE in highschool-- one kid even smashed a hockey stick over someone's head causing him to bleed terribly. But, from an aerial POV, having these crazies who take games too seriously is nothing out of the ordinary.
They role-play murders (as horrible as they can imagine them) and pretend to be killing family members, enemies, etc. This is causing the children to be filled with anger, hatred and it's carrying over into their "real life" when one 7 year old just last week told his dad that he hated him and was going to kill him...simply because his dad refused to take him to a store to get some candy. (And while kids saying hateful things to their parents isn't anything new, this kid had been telling his "pact" that he could use his "mind" to control his dad. It was when that failed, he got MAD.)
Little kids with overactive imaginations saying mean and absurd things to their parents and friends. Seen this plenty of times myself. And no, I don't think it's odd at all. I don't like it (obviously), but like you thought I'd say- it's nothing new. Remember, he's SEVEN and lives in a media-enriched country. I probably did something similar after watching Star Wars when I was 5. :P
but they have no idea that their kids are spending so much time on-line "role-playing" with pedophiles and dirty "old men". I know three of them in our area that spend as much time as possible on the role-playing sites. They know how to "spot" a child and they pretend that they too are about the child's age. Are you telling me that you wouldn't mind if you had a seven year old daughter or son involved in sex "role-playing" games with an "older pervert"?
Oh yeah! I agree with you with kids being on the internet too much and there are always dangers of the crazy online pedophiles that Chris Hansen targets. But you must understand that the majority of the online games are protected decently. There are whole FAQ's that are usually presented (and sometime mandatory before you begin) explaining the dangers online. Heck, you can't even swear in the majority of them without the game doing the "****!!!!" censoring. To your question though- I'm fairly certain my 7 yr old son/daughter wouldn't even know what the heck the pervert is talking about, and I probably wouldn't let them be playing anything online if it involved major gore or sexual themes. Because they're 7. The mistake is on the parents side for not taking an interest in the child's interests, not the game itself.
An example is this- I say that because a rottweiler bit a kid on the arm once, nobody should be able to own dogs and should just avoid them entirely because they can be dangerous. Wouldn't you think I'm overreacting and fearmongering? It's the exact same thing here that you're doing with these types of games.
I know one family whose children have been involved in an on-line game where they have been making their own chants and curses. The seven year old boy has had to have his parents come pick him up from school a few days a week because he's so hysterical...the teacher's can't calm him down. The parent said the boy's face was "pale white", there's no way he has been doing this for attention. The parents can't calm him down at home. He's been seeing "people" that no one else sees, he's been talking to "voices" that no one else hears. He's undergone several medical tests, nothing found. He's undergone several "counseling sessions", and the verdict was "he's doing it for attention". The parents are upset because they know he's not, but relieved because they thought they were going to have to have him "committed". Now, his nine year-old sister is currently having the same problems. I know this family and know for a fact, these kids didn't have these issues until they started spending so much time with their "role-playing" on-line. They're obsessed, they can't think of anything else. They don't care about their schoolwork, they don't care about anything...except their "fantasy gaming".
1.) If he's not doing it for attention, he could be suffering from the same thing Marieelisa (thread originator) was suffering from. I remember she was saying the same thing (voices), and she a major mental disorder that grew as she grew.
2.) So the kids are playing too many online games and their grades are slipping? GROUND THEM FROM THE GAMES. They obviously have growing addiction issues. Or maybe it's easier for them to pay all those needless doctor and med bills and think it's magical curses at play (false attributions). It sounds like bad parenting. Though they're not my kids, so who am I to judge? These are just my educated assumptions.
None of those mentioned above are "christian" families. If they hold any "religious" beliefs at all, they've never shared them with me. They are all well-to-do families and the parents both work alot of hours at very well-paying jobs. They are tired when they come home and so as long as the kids are "quiet", they're happy. Perhaps this is the "norm" for kids these days, I don't know. I find it disturbing.
Now you're on the right track. I don't find it disturbing, but more of just annoying and uncaring at the avoidance of problems. They're parents, so they should be paying attention. If they're not, they're just bad parents. That's really all there is to it.
I've gotta get to work, it's going to be a LONG, "grueling" weekend...dread it. Hope yours is great!!
Likewise. Take is easy and make the best of it!
-
the "role playing" is causing the kids to have some serious problems.
Yes, just like 2,500,000 other things in the last 5 years according to extremist fearmongerers.
They role-play murders (as horrible as they can imagine them) and pretend to be killing family members, enemies, etc. This is causing the children to be filled with anger, hatred and it's carrying over into their "real life" when one 7 year old just last week told his dad that he hated him and was going to kill him...simply because his dad refused to take him to a store to get some candy. (And while kids saying hateful things to their parents isn't anything new, this kid had been telling his "pact" that he could use his "mind" to control his dad. It was when that failed, he got MAD.)
Little kids with overactive imaginations saying mean and absurd things to their parents and friends. Seen this plenty of times myself. And no, I don't think it's odd at all. I don't like it (obviously), but like you thought I'd say- it's nothing new. Remember, he's SEVEN and lives in a media-enriched country.
As a further general example of "role-playing", there are generations of little girls who role-played with dolls. At least some of such role-playing involved either reflecting observed anger, hatred, love, kindness which may have carried over into their lives.
I know one family whose children have been involved in an on-line game where they have been making their own chants and curses. The seven year old boy has had to have his parents come pick him up from school a few days a week because he's so hysterical...the teacher's can't calm him down. The parent said the boy's face was "pale white", there's no way he has been doing this for attention. The parents can't calm him down at home. He's been seeing "people" that no one else sees, he's been talking to "voices" that no one else hears. He's undergone several medical tests, nothing found. He's undergone several "counseling sessions", and the verdict was "he's doing it for attention". The parents are upset because they know he's not, but relieved because they thought they were going to have to have him "committed". Now, his nine year-old sister is currently having the same problems. I know this family and know for a fact, these kids didn't have these issues until they started spending so much time with their "role-playing" on-line. They're obsessed, they can't think of anything else. They don't care about their schoolwork, they don't care about anything...except their "fantasy gaming".
1.) If he's not doing it for attention, he could be suffering from the same thing Marieelisa (thread originator) was suffering from. I remember she was saying the same thing (voices), and she a major mental disorder that grew as she grew.
2.) So the kids are playing too many online games and their grades are slipping? GROUND THEM FROM THE GAMES. They obviously have growing addiction issues. Or maybe it's easier for them to pay all those needless doctor and med bills and think it's magical curses at play (false attributions). It sounds like bad parenting. Though they're not my kids, so who am I to judge? These are just my educated assumptions.
For kids too young to accurately distinguish between "fantasies" & 'reality', being indoctrinated into their parents' religious beliefs at an early age can undermine a child's ability to make such disctinctions to a significant degree. Oftentimes, that degree is so extreme that a child may become unable to determine the difference between 'prayer/chanting' and wishful-thinking. To be fair, such wishful-thinking is very often encouraged by the seemingly 'harmless' birthday wishes while blowing candles out on a cake, (this is essentially a 'magical ritual' implicitly intended to promote the idea that such 'magic' works - just as 'prayer' is promoted to 'work'). There is no essential difference between "fantasies" except in specific content.
None of those mentioned above are "christian" families. If they hold any "religious" beliefs at all, they've never shared them with me.
There are, no doubt, instances of other xtian famillies whose children engage in such role-playing games without apparent ill effect. Be that as it may, for xtians to denigrate one form of 'fantasy role-playing' while overlooking the white elephant of their own 'fantasy role-playing' activities is a hypocritical stance. This just indicates a preference for one "fantasy" over another.
-
For kids too young to accurately distinguish between "fantasies" & 'reality', being indoctrinated into their parents' religious beliefs at an early age can undermine a child's ability to make such disctinctions to a significant degree. Oftentimes, that degree is so extreme that a child may become unable to determine the difference between 'prayer/chanting' and wishful-thinking. To be fair, such wishful-thinking is very often encouraged by the seemingly 'harmless' birthday wishes while blowing candles out on a cake, (this is essentially a 'magical ritual' implicitly intended to promote the idea that such 'magic' works - just as 'prayer' is promoted to 'work'). There is no essential difference between "fantasies" except in specific content
I 100% agree as it has already been demonstrated countless times on this forum.
There are, no doubt, instances of other xtian famillies whose children engage in such role-playing games without apparent ill effect. Be that as it may, for xtians to denigrate one form of 'fantasy role-playing' while overlooking the white elephant of their own 'fantasy role-playing' activities is a hypocritical stance. This just indicates a preference for one "fantasy" over another.
Overall I don't think belief systems have anything to do with games. They're completely separate entities aside from the make-believe hypocrisy you brought up. One belief system isn't going to ensure addiction or non-addiction to a new player of World of Warcraft. That quality varies from person to person and in different variables (alcohol, drugs, gambling, overachieving, games, etc.).
-
:-[ I so sad for you... If you haven't been through a rough time and a better and greater outcome has come out of the situtuation...WE CALL IT A BLESSING than I guess you weren't one of his choosen children???? :peace:
-
Who do you think keeps the people and universe in sync? Of course there is God because the universe did not just appear and run on its own.
-
Who do you think keeps the people and universe in sync?
What causes you to believe that "the people and universe" are "in sync" and further, that such requires a "who"?
Of course there is God because the universe did not just appear and run on its own.
The 'reasoning' is faulty; 'of course there is an invisible pink unicorn because the universe did not just appear and run on its own', (speciously concluding that the IPU exists because the universe exists). A premise cannot constitute its own supporting evidence, (circular reasoning), so unless evidence directly attributing the "universe" to any supernatural being can be produced, it's mere speculation.
-
If you haven't been through a rough time and a better and greater outcome has come out of the situtuation...WE CALL IT A BLESSING
Others would call that 'life'; perseverance through determination and taking personal responsibility for one's actions, (instead of palming events off as "god's plan").
than I guess you weren't one of his choosen children???? :peace:
Naturally, you are privy to such a list of "chosen" and can produce it, otherwise you wouldn't be making unfounded claims.
-
You know he may be fake to you but alright with me. :angel12:
-
You know he may be fake to you but alright with me. :angel12:
Who, the invisible pink unicorn or someone else?
-
than I guess you weren't one of his choosen children???? :peace:
Naturally, you are privy to such a list of "chosen" and can produce it, otherwise you wouldn't be making unfounded claims.
You know he may be fake to you but alright with me. :angel12:
Who, the invisible pink unicorn or someone else?
OHHhhhh......I was thinking it was gettisbrooks they were referring to as "fake to you but alright with (Zanta70092)"
because he/she hasn't produced the list of "choosen children" as of yet...... ???
hmmm, maybe it is the IPU though...
So anyway, falcon9........I know the IPU is definitely fake to you -- but that's alright with me
;D
-
So anyway, falcon9........I know the IPU is definitely fake to you -- but that's alright with me
;D
Well, I used to wonder how the unicorn could be pink if it were invisible and then I remembered that since no one has produced evidence of seeing one, they could pretty much be any 'color', no?
-
Well, I used to wonder how the unicorn could be pink if it were invisible and then I remembered that since no one has produced evidence of seeing one, they could pretty much be any 'color', no?
Glad I wasn't the only one who had the thought "How do you know the color of the invisible unicorn is pink?" pass through my head briefly before I stopped and thought about it.
Of course, 8) I didn't mention it to anyone (to avoid :-[ ); but now - since you said it (first), I will too.... ;D
-
Glad I wasn't the only one who had the thought "How do you know the color of the invisible unicorn is pink?" pass through my head briefly before I stopped and thought about it.
Of course, 8) I didn't mention it to anyone (to avoid :-[ ); but now - since you said it (first), I will too.... ;D
That's just as well since the ones who keep insisting that the non-existance of something be 'proven' apparently need repeated reminders that, not only is that irrational, but also that one can just as easily substitute an 'invisible pink unicorn' for any hypothetical being and still have no evidence of either.
-
I believe in the Christian God, the one God because I am Catholic. Now that does not mean that I believe in everything the Catholics teach because I am now starting to research where they got that knowledge from. God, a higher power, the supreme being whatever you want to call him or her or it, a higher power does exist. It follows all logic. Things were planned to happen. You cannot tell me that there is not a structure, an order, to this world. Can I prove that God exists? No. But can you prove that he doesn't? Enough said.
-
a higher power does exist. It follows all logic.
Does it?! http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
-
a higher power does exist. It follows all logic.
Does it?! http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Brought to mind "One man's trash is another man's treasure." In this instance I would say, "One man's logic is another man's lunacy." ;)
-
Now that does not mean that I believe in everything the Catholics teach because I am now starting to research where they got that knowledge from.
Which parts of catholicism do you selectively disbelieve?
God, a higher power, the supreme being whatever you want to call him or her or it, a higher power does exist. It follows all logic.
Well no, an unsupported assertion does not follow any logic. If you've made the claim of 'deital' existence, it's incumbent upon you to back up your claim with evidence.
Things were planned to happen.
How was such a conclusion determined, (irresistable pun ... okay, 'arrived at')?
You cannot tell me that there is not a structure, an order, to this world.
Sure I can; I can even indicate evidence supporting the observations of lack of structure/changing structures, (order into chaos and cycling back via emergent phenomenon), disorder/chaos in this world and far beyond it. In mathematical chaos theory, there are artifacts called islands of stability, (order within chaos). Now, before you suggest something along the lines of 'they were created that way by a creator', I'd suggest in turn that they were created by a process which includes emergent/meta-emergent phenomenon, (there's at least some mathematical support for such a counter-argument while there is none for a 'creator').
Can I prove that God exists? No. But can you prove that he doesn't? Enough said.
No, that isn't enough said. You're employing a common logical fallacy of requiring that a negative premise be 'proven'. You can't prove that invisible pink unicorns exist, therefore they do? No. Same concept. This is diametrically-opposed to your direct claim that 'god' exists since you cannot provide evidence to support your claim. Such a claim is therefore specious.
-
I feel sorry for people that don't have God to believe in.
-
I feel sorry for people that don't have God to believe in.
I don't feel pity for those who choose to abdicate reason in favor of blind faith. That's their choice, (although it's probably unrealistic to expect them to keep such a personal choice to themselves).
-
What is it that makes you feel that God is fake?
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
-
What is it that makes you feel that God is fake?
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
I love the broad assumptions made by you. Either you do not know any atheists (I'm fairly sure I could have made that You DO NOT KNOW any) or you are full of yourself and delusional enough to think you actually know how an atheist, or anyone for that matter, thinks. You don't and if I sat here and wrote the same all inclusional statements about Christians, you would be up in arms. The difference being I was a believer and a Christian for decades, so I would have a point of reference. Have you ever been an atheist? No? Then you are full of it -> :bs:
"thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician"
No, we do NOT believe in 'a god', so it's moot to state we think we have that 'power', but I know there are magicians who are also atheists.
"Atheist can't believe something they can not see"
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I [and others] believe in gravity, wind, magnetic forces, many other 'things' that cannot be seen per se, but the effects of them are proof of their existence.
"nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance."
As for faith in children and parents, that makes no sense and as a Christian, YOU should have faith in nothing other than your God and that is stated very clearly in your Bible. If my car breaks down (and I DO preventive maintenance on it) it is the failure of mechanisms within the car. You making a case for cause vs reality is right up there with the most ignorant assumptions. If you are unable to provide valid comparisons, don't make any comparisons, period - it makes you look even more ignorant.
"Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs."
Shallow? How freaking dare you make that declaration. I can't speak for others on here, but my entire adult life has been spent doing the best I can to make babie's, toddler's, teen's and adult's lives bearable while they battle every type of cancer known to man. I am soooo shallow my own family and kids often went through long periods of time only seeing me for hours in a week and rarely was I able to enjoy holidays with all because I was at the hospital working. I can't count the times I have put myself through an immense guilt trip, even though my sons were cared for by a relative/good friend when I had to be gone. They also knew I was trying to give other families as much time on this earth as possible with their loved one(s) and it has never been thrown in my face, thankfully. The money I earn on here is not for me - I use every cent of it to buy toys, crayons, whatever for my pediatric cases. That in itself is pretty darn shallow, yes?
You really ought to take lessons from the true Christians on here (jcribb, sherlsshadow, a few others not around) because they remain open to hearing from we 'awful people' and aren't blatantly hypocritical and 'shallow' like you appear to be in what you've written. So, being that I am one of the "people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter", make sure your God gets your a** out of the way before that car hits you....I'll use my 'brain' and dodge it on my own, thank you. ::)
-
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
It's a good thing that percentage is slowly dwindling because people that have your opinion are proving to be a major hurdle for our world (Jdog's post is a prime example of this). Do everyone a favor and please educate yourself on the subject. You sound like a complete imbecile which is not a good thing to be doing if you consider yourself a spokesperson for your religion.
-
Hiya, Falc! We're finally in the "same place at the same time". 8) Great post from my fellow 'shallow' friend. ;)
P.S. Did you happen to notice yet another one who uses "their" vs they're/ "your" vs you're? Reminds me of good 'ole Rev An..lla. ;D
-
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them.
It's a good thing that percentage is slowly dwindling because people that have your opinion are proving to be a major hurdle for our world (Jdog's post is a prime example of this).
Although people clinging to superstitious beliefs is nothing new in the world, Jdog's response was right on the money.
Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
Do everyone a favor and please educate yourself on the subject. You sound like a complete imbecile which is not a good thing to be doing if you consider yourself a spokesperson for your religion.
The sheer hypocrisy of some religious adherents would be astounding, were it not so prevalent. An example of this is shown by juxtapositioning that "non-belief" comment, (which is inaccurate; it's 'disbelief'), with the contradictory "shows with their beliefs", (a disbelief is not a belief since the terms are mutually-exclusive).
-
@richrd42,
So in regards to your previous post on "atheists" would you say that you are a "stepping stone" to Jesus or a "stumbling block"?
I have several friends, and many more aquaintances that are atheists. None of them have ever lacked the words to tell me why they feel that there is no God. They each have their own different, personal reasons...but their answers have sounded very straight forward to me.
They love their children, and I'm fairly certain that ALL of them have a better relationship with their parents than I will ever have with mine.
They are better at making sure preventative maintenance is done on their vehicles than me...or I wouldn't of had to have some of them come and help me when my car has fallen apart a few times in the past.
My recently learned "life lesson" of putting people on "ignore" because they don't measure up to my own personal expectations had made me a more shallow person than any atheist I've ever known.
I know that alot of Christians shun atheists (and many actually have hatred toward them) and will say that atheists & Christians can NOT be friends. The Bible says people reap what they sow. If they can't sow
seeds of love towards all people then why should they expect to reap love from God?
I went through the WORST time of my life last year and you know that saying "you find out who your friends REALLY are in times of trouble"? Well, while the majority of my "religious" friends were busy making their "critical, judgmental and just plain mean" remarks (or just totally avoiding me altogether) it was actually a "militant atheist" on this forum that posted something precious to me. It wasn't so much WHAT she posted as it was that... she just posted. I was going through so much and was so "down" and that post from her meant more to me than anything anyone else had said at the time or has said about it since. If I had chosen to shun her because of "atheism", I would have missed out on that blessing.
I love my atheist friends, not because they are atheists but because they are human...just like me. The only difference is I have chosen to love and serve a God that they can not see...yet. My prayer is that they will see that God in me.
Are you praying for the unsaved, or are you just "smug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug" in the security of your salvation?
-
What is it that makes you feel that God is fake?
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
The thing is, here, is that just as Christians choose to place their faith in God, Atheists choose to not believe there is a god. Even though our thoughts and views differ totally, we still should offer respect for each others' choices. I am a Christian, but I'm not going to "force" my view on others who are not. I will share my faith with them when I feel I should, want, or need to. In forums like this, both sides discuss, debate, share resources and experiences, give personal views and opinions - back and forth.
Respect is the key word I always believe in and strive for - for both sides. Name-calling and threats, including threats of hell, just cause dissension are just plain ole out arguing mean. There are a few in here I have debated and discussed with very nicely. Sure, there are sparks, but that is normal. There have been a couple I have chosen to not debate with as often, because I feel the respect is lacking and people are offended when the same words/argument is thrown back at them over and over again. Both sides should be willing to listen to the other side, and come up with their own views/answers/resources.
I'm only saying this because not all Christians are willing to debate nicely, and not all Atheists are either. However, on both sides, there are Christians and Atheists who can debate with respect and good sense. You can't just "box" all Atheists into one box - they are not all the same. You can't just "box" all Christians into one box, either. Many Atheists used to be Christians until something came up or showed them otherwise. We Christians, now, may not understand how they could do that, but talking about it is much better than beating them down. If someone is raising the blood pressure (and it does happen, I know!) the best thing is to step back, take a break, and decide whether it's worth continuing with that person or not.
Thank you!
-
What is it that makes you feel that God is fake?
Atheist can never answer that question with a straight forward answer. Their the ones who are delusional thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician. Atheist can't believe something they can not see, nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance. Its all about the atheist and their non-belief in a higher power. What they don't realize is, 87% of Americans believe in a higher power which puts them in a very low percentage of people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter. Atheist are going to cry-out in fear one day when their world comes crashing down all around them. Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs.
I love the broad assumptions made by you. Either you do not know any atheists (I'm fairly sure I could have made that You DO NOT KNOW any) or you are full of yourself and delusional enough to think you actually know how an atheist, or anyone for that matter, thinks. You don't and if I sat here and wrote the same all inclusional statements about Christians, you would be up in arms. The difference being I was a believer and a Christian for decades, so I would have a point of reference. Have you ever been an atheist? No? Then you are full of it -> :bs:
"thinking they have the power of a god to change things like a magician"
No, we do NOT believe in 'a god', so it's moot to state we think we have that 'power', but I know there are magicians who are also atheists.
"Atheist can't believe something they can not see"
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I [and others] believe in gravity, wind, magnetic forces, many other 'things' that cannot be seen per se, but the effects of them are proof of their existence.
"nor do they have Faith, in anything. Not even their children, or parents, or their car getting them from point A to point B. And if it breaks down along the way, it was their reality that caused it, not the fact they didn't use preventative maintenance."
As for faith in children and parents, that makes no sense and as a Christian, YOU should have faith in nothing other than your God and that is stated very clearly in your Bible. If my car breaks down (and I DO preventive maintenance on it) it is the failure of mechanisms within the car. You making a case for cause vs reality is right up there with the most ignorant assumptions. If you are unable to provide valid comparisons, don't make any comparisons, period - it makes you look even more ignorant.
"Atheists are very shallow people, and it shows with their beliefs."
Shallow? How freaking dare you make that declaration. I can't speak for others on here, but my entire adult life has been spent doing the best I can to make babie's, toddler's, teen's and adult's lives bearable while they battle every type of cancer known to man. I am soooo shallow my own family and kids often went through long periods of time only seeing me for hours in a week and rarely was I able to enjoy holidays with all because I was at the hospital working. I can't count the times I have put myself through an immense guilt trip, even though my sons were cared for by a relative/good friend when I had to be gone. They also knew I was trying to give other families as much time on this earth as possible with their loved one(s) and it has never been thrown in my face, thankfully. The money I earn on here is not for me - I use every cent of it to buy toys, crayons, whatever for my pediatric cases. That in itself is pretty darn shallow, yes?
You really ought to take lessons from the true Christians on here (jcribb, sherlsshadow, a few others not around) because they remain open to hearing from we 'awful people' and aren't blatantly hypocritical and 'shallow' like you appear to be in what you've written. So, being that I am one of the "people who believe in their own brain as having power to save them from anything they encounter", make sure your God gets your a** out of the way before that car hits you....I'll use my 'brain' and dodge it on my own, thank you. ::)
Thank you. By the way, you aren't "awful, hypocritical, or shallow!"
-
There have been a couple I have chosen to not debate with as often, because I feel the respect is lacking and people are offended when the same words/argument is thrown back at them over and over again. Both sides should be willing to listen to the other side, and come up with their own views/answers/resources.
No doubt people can become "offended" when the same unsupported religious claims keep coming from that religion's adherents, (and when the same challenges/refutations/dissent stem from those repeated claims). If religious adherents want to hear different challenges to their claims/declarations/opinions then they're going to have to come up with different claims/declarations/opinions. I agree, the same was are getting tedious to repeatedly challenge, (as if the adherents making them aren't 'listening' and only 'hear' "the same words/argument ... over and over".
-
I have more of a reason to say there is no God given the fact that I suffer with my illnesses everyday. However, God is not as simple as an explanation. If you have had a unique and divine awakening so to say then you will no without question. Guess what, no one can prove God to you. If you don't want to know that there is a God and a higher power, you just won't and never will. My favorite way of explaining God is that if you have an ant farm, the ants do their thing while you watch them. Yet they don't know who we are, why we stare at them and we can destroy them at any moment. The difference is that God is on a morality unlike ours. If a person, a human minded person was God would you be able to fix all the mess we get ourselves into without taking away our free will regardless of the outcome.
I think life is a test, some are born to test each other. When I say God, that applies to the other Gods in the world that people believe in. No God in any religion condones murder and basically hurting others to improve self. Again, the morality of people is questioned.
If a company produces a harmful product selling it to the public regardless if the product appears to improve our lives. The product is toxic to produce and toxic to consume and kills many. Later, our government can do little to stop its horrible effects to each person. People become sick, can't work, people die leaving children orphans. The company has closed down and no one can recoup loses from the company. Now the government has to pay to cremate the dead that can't afford it and pay out social security to the spouses and children. The children and spouse may need medical care and are left paying for the medical care of their loved one that died. I could say that this person was the bred winner in the family, this person made all the money and decisions and now they are gone. There is a domino effect that will continue for decades to come from this.
Is this GOD'S FAULT? Is it God's fault that we all want to make money sometimes without considering who we hurt in our choices. This scenario is not that ridiculous, it happens everyday!!! So, God is a fake because, we cause the evil in the world. Tsunamis are sometimes our fault. Man is always messing with stuff. I won't get into that as it is a whole other story.
-
I have more of a reason to say there is no God given the fact that I suffer with my illnesses everyday.
Lots of people suffer with various illnesses daily; this fact has no bearing on the existence or, non-existence of a hypothetical 'deity'.
However, God is not as simple as an explanation. If you have had a unique and divine awakening so to say then you will no without question.
There's no actuality to the contended concept of "divine awakening", (especially given the mundane unawakened state of 'sleep-walking' the vast majority of xtians wander around in, abusing the term "awakening" - which means to become more aware, not less). Currently, there is no extant evidence to support the existence of 'god' to become aware of. The onus of producing any such evidence is upon the one who claims the existence of such a 'deity'.
Guess what, no one can prove God to you. If you don't want to know that there is a God and a higher power, you just won't and never will.
That's a cop-out to avoid the burden of proof requirement. It's rejected as a dodge; if you're claiming there is a 'god/higher power' then produce evidence supprting your claim. If you cannot produce such evidence, your claim is specious.
My favorite way of explaining God is that if you have an ant farm, the ants do their thing while you watch them.
People aren't ants; the parallel is an invalid comparison.
I think life is a test, some are born to test each other. When I say God, that applies to the other Gods in the world that people believe in.
Are you proposing that all 'gods' are lumped together as 'one god'?
So, God is a fake because, we cause the evil in the world.
The other people in the world caused your illness? Anyone but your 'god', right?
Tsunamis are sometimes our fault. Man is always messing with stuff. I won't get into that as it is a whole other story.
I'll get into it then; tsunamis are linked to earthquakes. So far, people have been unable to cause earthquakes, (neither can these be attributed to 'gods').
-
A believer's life should be "sustainable evidence" that the God they are serving exists. If it's not, there's no point in wasting one's time or breath trying to convince others that "God exists".
-
A believer's life should be "sustainable evidence" that the God they are serving exists. If it's not, there's no point in wasting one's time or breath trying to convince others that "God exists".
The problem with trying to provide that vagueness as "evidence", (testimony is not equivalent to evidence for one thing), is that whatever effects the "believer" is attributing to a 'deital' cause have no veracity, (no evidence of direct connection other than the believer's unsupported claim/'faith'). Since faith = belief without evidence, such 'faith' does not constitute evidence.
No substantive evidence has been presented to support any claims that 'god' exists, (although insubstantive evidence certainly isn't lacking).
-
You really ought to take lessons from the true Christians on here (jcribb, sherlsshadow, a few others not around) because they remain open to hearing from we 'awful people' and aren't blatantly hypocritical and 'shallow' like you appear to be in what you've written.
@jordandog
There's something about saying someone is a "true Christian" and implying someone else is not that makes me uncomfortable. I think every Christian should strive to be the best example of the Lord that they are following. We're called to be 'humble servants' just as Jesus was. There's no record of Jesus ever being "cocky". Christians aren't perfect, one can't expect them to be because no one IS perfect.
You all know I'm not perfect...and I KNOW you (as well as the others) are NOT 'awful people' and are NOT blatantly hypocritical or shallow. Remember that is something that I had "to learn" though. When I first came on FC, I treated unbelievers BADLY. I'm not even sure why or where it comes from that so many Believers think it's ok to act like that. If it hadn't been for falconer02, I could STILL be "mean"... :( I would have missed out on each one of you which, would have been sad because I consider each one of you to be a Special Blessing in my life.
-
A believer's life should be "sustainable evidence" that the God they are serving exists. If it's not, there's no point in wasting one's time or breath trying to convince others that "God exists".
The problem with trying to provide that vagueness as "evidence", (testimony is not equivalent to evidence for one thing), is that whatever effects the "believer" is attributing to a 'deital' cause have no veracity, (no evidence of direct connection other than the believer's unsupported claim/'faith'). Since faith = belief without evidence, such 'faith' does not constitute evidence.
No substantive evidence has been presented to support any claims that 'god' exists, (although insubstantive evidence certainly isn't lacking).
I think you totally "overthought" my statement...where's that duct tape btw? (I'm kidding!) :D
-
A believer's life should be "sustainable evidence" that the God they are serving exists. If it's not, there's no point in wasting one's time or breath trying to convince others that "God exists".
The problem with trying to provide that vagueness as "evidence", (testimony is not equivalent to evidence for one thing), is that whatever effects the "believer" is attributing to a 'deital' cause have no veracity, (no evidence of direct connection other than the believer's unsupported claim/'faith'). Since faith = belief without evidence, such 'faith' does not constitute evidence.
No substantive evidence has been presented to support any claims that 'god' exists, (although insubstantive evidence certainly isn't lacking).
I think you totally "overthought" my statement...where's that duct tape btw? (I'm kidding!) :D
Nonethless, one could attribute a winning lotto ticket to their Santerian rituals if they so desired however, there is no causal connection between the effect and proposed cause. Similarly, erroneously attributing some effect to another religion would be invoking a magical cause for that effect.
-
Nonethless, one could attribute a winning lotto ticket to their Santerian rituals if they so desired however, there is no causal connection between the effect and proposed cause.
They could...but how would you prove it? Someone could attribute a winning lotto ticket to God as well and there is no casual connection between the effect and proposed cause, but Believers would KNOW that because of what the Bible says about gambling, our Provider, false hope, etc.
-
Nonethless, one could attribute a winning lotto ticket to their Santerian rituals if they so desired however, there is no causal connection between the effect and proposed cause.
They could...but how would you prove it? Someone could attribute a winning lotto ticket to God as well and there is no casual connection between the effect and proposed cause ...
Exactly so and had you stopped right there, we'd be in agreement.
... but Believers would KNOW that because of what the Bible says about gambling, our Provider, false hope, etc.
Nope, hands-down you'd have some fundie yahoo claiming that 'the laird provided a winnin' ticket for me and ma', (thus falsely attributing those lotto winnings to a supernatural cause). That example isn't so far-fetched, there have been several instances of such claims. It's funny you should mention "false hope" because I'd considered using that phrase to describe 'faith'.
-
I can honestly say I have never encountered a person like Falcon. I am seriously speechless behind your comments. I believe in God wholeheartedly and i'm pretty sure you believe what you believe wholeheartedly. I would not even sit on here an take offense to some of the statements you make or for that matter anybody on here, because I don't judge or allow people to feel as if they're opinions make a difference in my life. My only issue is when people say. "prove that god is real", well, you prove to me that he isn't...
-
I believe in God wholeheartedly and i'm pretty sure you believe what you believe wholeheartedly.
Then you'd be incorrect, (again); belief is unnecessary. Something either exists or, it does not. If it exists, evidence supporting such an existence also exists. If it does not exist, no evidence will be found to support non-existence.
My only issue is when people say. "prove that god is real", well, you prove to me that he isn't...
Same logical fallacy, different xtian. Once again, the person who makes the initial claim, (that would be you), has the burden of proof to support their claim. It is irrational to expect the one who challenges your claim to go around proving any number of things _don't exist_, (let alone helping you out with your specious claims). Simply put, a requirement to prove that 'invisible pink unicorns DON'T exist' is exactly the same as demanding one prove an 'invisible deity doesn't exist'. It would be unreasonable for me to request that you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist, (however, if I claimed they did - and I haven't - the burden of proof would be on me). Does this clarify the burden of proof in making a claim/stating an empty opinion?
-
LOL!! Not that you have a point or anything. I just choose not to respond, you have a blessed night!!!! :heart: :heart: :heart:
-
LOL!! Not that you have a point or anything. I just choose not to respond, you have a blessed night!!!! :heart: :heart: :heart:
So, you responded to let me know that you chose not to respond? Thank you for providing some substantiation to the contention that your ability to reason is speculative and theoretical at best.
-
Duh; say that again? ???
-
You really ought to take lessons from the true Christians on here (jcribb, sherlsshadow, a few others not around) because they remain open to hearing from we 'awful people' and aren't blatantly hypocritical and 'shallow' like you appear to be in what you've written.
@jordandog
There's something about saying someone is a "true Christian" and implying someone else is not that makes me uncomfortable. I think every Christian should strive to be the best example of the Lord that they are following. We're called to be 'humble servants' just as Jesus was. There's no record of Jesus ever being "cocky". Christians aren't perfect, one can't expect them to be because no one IS perfect.
You all know I'm not perfect...and I KNOW you (as well as the others) are NOT 'awful people' and are NOT blatantly hypocritical or shallow. Remember that is something that I had "to learn" though. When I first came on FC, I treated unbelievers BADLY. I'm not even sure why or where it comes from that so many Believers think it's ok to act like that. If it hadn't been for falconer02, I could STILL be "mean"... :( I would have missed out on each one of you which, would have been sad because I consider each one of you to be a Special Blessing in my life.
I see what you are saying re my "true Christian" reference. I should have worded it differently (that good old 'hindsight'), but in my mind I knew what traits I was thinking of and they were not traits that came through in richrd42's words.
Christians aren't perfect, one can't expect them to be because no one IS perfect.
I try my best NOT to put expectations on anyone but myself, all that does is lead to disappointment. I know my own capabilities and also my limits. It is the members who not only imply their 'perfection', because they can say they are Christian, but also imply we non-religious don't have a snowball's chance in Hades to become worthy of existing on the same planet with them unless we surrender and submit as they have.
I have to wonder if richrd42 will come back to this topic, see posts after his, and [possibly] reconsider his own wording and how it came across. That alone is another key difference and ties in with what you said about yourself when you began posting in the Forums. If you/me/anyone didn't have the desire to learn why a particular opinion's given or a particular view is taken, we learn nothing and remain stagnate in our own little world of "I am right and they are all wrong!". I've told my friends/family I don't want to ever be remembered as 'a grumpy old broad who never listened to anyone else because she was always right'. Thankfully, I am able to come to FC, take the burdens of life off my shoulders for awhile, and interract with the friends like you (and enemies too ;D) I have gained here. Correct me, put me in line, make me take a look at a different point of view; just do it without holding empty threats over my head such as, "You will burn in h*ll and I won't."
-
I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God.
What God do you believe in?
I believe in my personal savior God who is All knowing and a loving God. :fish:
-
@jordandog:
I liked what you said about not putting expectations on others because of disappointment. Even when others try their best not to disappoint others, it still happens.
I've told my friends/family I don't want to ever be remembered as 'a grumpy old broad who never listened to anyone else because she was always right'.
LOL, last week an older lady told me that I was "entitled to have an opinion---I just wasn't allowed to say it out loud". I would bet that that's a "rule" that applies to her hubby too. ;D
but also imply we non-religious don't have a snowball's chance in Hades to become worthy of existing on the same planet with them unless we surrender and submit as they have.
They just seem to forget how it when they were the ones wearing "non-religious" shoes. Those that get "saved" out of fear of hell are usually the ones that don't stay with their decision. Many believers don't realize that this is 2012 and most non-believers have been to church at least once and could probably give a more detailed description of hell than the average believer, simply because they've heard about it so many times. As a Believer, I don't believe in "skipping over it, or around it". (The "hell" issue.) If it's real, it's for eternity. Jesus said He was the ONLY WAY to get there.
I saw something the other day where someone was asking why Jesus just didn't let good people into Heaven regardless of them being saved and the reply was "would you let strangers move into your house for eternity"? That personal relationship with Jesus is important.
I think people have encountered so much these days from tv, the internet, movies that there isn't much fear of hell anymore. I have been researching as many "life after death" experiences that I can find and of the ones that go to Heaven... not one wanted to come back. Of the ones that encountered hell...not one wanted to stay.
-
As a Believer, I don't believe in "skipping over it, or around it". (The "hell" issue.) If it's real, it's for eternity. Jesus said He was the ONLY WAY to get there.
I must have missed the part where someone said he said he "was the ONLY WAY to get there" in regards to "hell" context. Although that aspect probably makes "sense" within the religious concept of 'divine judgement'.
-
Thank you. By the way, you aren't "awful, hypocritical, or shallow!"
And thank you, was happy to see you were back here posting - unless you have been and I missed it? I 'assumed' you took a break due to your health problems, but could be very wrong. I have thought of you often and especially the last couple months. Our E.R. has been overflowing with asthma and breathing problems, so many little ones have been admitted. This is going to be a very bad year as far as pollen counts and I hope you 'weather it' well, as well as possible. ;)
-
Falcon9, by your logic "love" doesn't exist. Almost all of us believe in it. There is no evidence that it exists.
-
Falcon9, by your logic "love" doesn't exist. Almost all of us believe in it. There is no evidence that it exists.
Some would say that there's at least circumstantial evidence for "love", (or for "hate", "envy", "lust", general "warm fuzzies").
There's a difference between the unperceived existence of a 'concept' and the perception of that which isn't purely conceptual. If the periperheral effects are observed to be directly, (causally), attributible to a concept, that's indirect evidence. If peripheral effects are have no attributible connection to the concept otehr than a belief, that isn't evidence.
-
There's a difference between the unperceived existence of a 'concept' and the perception of that which isn't purely conceptual. If the periperheral effects are observed to be directly, (causally), attributible to a concept, that's indirect evidence. If peripheral effects are have no attributible connection to the concept otehr than a belief, that isn't evidence.
LOL... But the indentations that speculate from photosynthesis postulate that hypothesis. A neophyte may consider methamphetamine a source of energy however contrasting observations demand evidence.
-
LOL... But the indentations that speculate from photosynthesis postulate that hypothesis. A neophyte may consider methamphetamine a source of energy however contrasting observations demand evidence.
The only thing that can be 'proven' about someone else's hallucinations is that circumstantial evidence may show they're having them, (not that the hallucination exists as a 'real thing' to anyone else).
-
Thank you. By the way, you aren't "awful, hypocritical, or shallow!"
And thank you, was happy to see you were back here posting - unless you have been and I missed it? I 'assumed' you took a break due to your health problems, but could be very wrong. I have thought of you often and especially the last couple months. Our E.R. has been overflowing with asthma and breathing problems, so many little ones have been admitted. This is going to be a very bad year as far as pollen counts and I hope you 'weather it' well, as well as possible. ;)
It's great to see you! Yes, I did take a break, mainly from debating; still did my paid stuff and posted here and there.
Actually this past Friday and Sunday, I had asthma attacks (breathing/coughing/almost fainting from not getting my air.) I was in Walmart that Friday, and it really scared me almost passing out. Their workers and asst. manager were right there helping me to sit, placing cold wraps on my neck, and bringing me hot coffee - for my throat and by then my sugar had dropped, too, so the coffee helped. They were going to call an ambulance but I asked them to call my family instead. I probably should have gone, but with no work, I can't afford the bill when it comes in. Sunday was a repeat and I've seen my lung doctor since. So I'm on an antibiotic, again, for bronchitis, and my nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours. With an agreement that if it happens again, I WILL go in.
I sure hope those little ones are okay. It's hard enough for an adult, but I really feel bad for kids because it can get scary and some just can't understand what's happening. I'm pretty much confined to inside over the summer. They finally figured out that my allergy cells don't protect me from the outside pollutants, pollens, etc., and started me on Xolair shots (subcutaneous injections monthly.) They help my quality of life better, but not so well in the summer, including the heat.
Sorry, I rambled on. I know you are busy! But it is really nice seeing you again! Hope you keep yourself well, too! :)
-
LOL... But the indentations that speculate from photosynthesis postulate that hypothesis. A neophyte may consider methamphetamine a source of energy however contrasting observations demand evidence.
The only thing that can be 'proven' about someone else's hallucinations is that circumstantial evidence may show they're having them, (not that the hallucination exists as a 'real thing' to anyone else).
That's what I mean. I have never personally experienced it but some, many actually people claim they can "feel" God in their life. I'm agnostic but have a tiny hope that there is a God. Don't pee in my cheerios. If Cub fans can believe that they will someday win a world series why can't I believe that I have a soul?
Oh yea, because people use God as a means to control. They claim to know his will and even filled a few books with "his" words. Ok, now I see why maybe this guy could be dangerous.
-
I have never personally experienced it but some, many actually people claim they can "feel" God in their life.
They can claim it however, with evidence attributing what they "feel" to "god", those claims remain unsubstantiated speculations.
I'm agnostic but have a tiny hope that there is a God. Don't pee in my cheerios. If Cub fans can believe that they will someday win a world series why can't I believe that I have a soul?
Oh yea, because people use God as a means to control. They claim to know his will and even filled a few books with "his" words. Ok, now I see why maybe this guy could be dangerous.
That hypothetical "guy" is far less dangerous than 'his' followers.
-
I have never personally experienced it but some, many actually people claim they can "feel" God in their life.
They can claim it however, with evidence attributing what they "feel" to "god", those claims remain unsubstantiated speculations.
The same thing could be said but replace "love" with "God"
Same circumstantial evidence. You don't believe in love, God, or Big foot, do you?
-
You don't believe in love, God, or Big foot, do you?
Maybe, no and no.
-
You don't believe in love, God, or Big foot, do you?
Maybe, no and no.
ahh we have a maybe 4 God. Now if we can only get queenie of nines to give God a chance? :angel11:
-
You don't believe in love, God, or Big foot, do you?
Maybe, no and no.
ahh we have a maybe 4 God.
No, sequentially that was a 'maybe' for "love" followed by two no votes. Thank you for providing additional evidence to support a previous contention.