Getting The Facts Straight

Author: Mandrakel

Posts

Total: 45
#31
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,980
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'm not about getting facts straight as yet. 
I am searching for  " THE LINK "

Link. 

Believing  in a God thing of sorts ,, has Something to do with being in /  joining one of them religious group things they have these days
Or vice-versa. 

Fathom that for a second. 
And a one. 

It's crazy right?

I'm betting every theist on this site.
No not theist , because that's what that means.
I'm betting every person on this site that believes in a god type thing is IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP. 
《 great numbers 》 

AFJ
APART FROM JANE.
That's apart from Jane.  

The sheer number of people that believe in a God thing 《 AND ARE IN  》 one of them religious group things. 
Is ummmm. 
Well it's amazing. 

Beliving in god has something to do with joining and or being in a religious group. 

Imagine waking up tomorrow and you think. 
Well yeah . 
I reckon we are all here because a god like thing made us. 
And this then turning into. 
I'm going to join one of them religious group things.

Or
Or 

Joining and or finding yourself in a religious group.
And this then turning into. 
Well , now I'm in one of these religious groups. 
I'm going to start believing  in one of them God things. 
Anddddddd. 

Imagine if you can. 
You start to ummmm, favor this creation way. 
Next thing you know you start to think, creation is definitely.
Ya starting to belive more.
Then a little more. 

And then POWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. 

You come to The realization  that this God thing you've been building on just so happens to be a ( NON-MAKE- A-BOOK ) 
Your are then like. 
Well that sucks. 
END OF STORY. 

The Non- make a book gods are weak to say the least. 

It's only common sense that if you where a god. Like a real proper god , you wouldn't just like, not leave a book.

Gods get a bunch of guys to do a book for em. 
Real gods do. 
It's a fact.



' kicks dirt ' 

Yeah.

#32
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
How can you spend so much time around people and know nothing about them. 
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How can you spend so much time around people and know nothing about them. 

You are confused Witch.  It not the people, Witch.

  No. Its the scriptures that I have spent so much times studying and that I have spent "so much time around".. 40+ years in fact.   And I would have thought devout theist would have spent a lot more time around them than I have ever done. But when they are actually put to the test, I find they know absolutely nothing about that which the believe and have faith in.  Tradesecret is a classic.  He is a Pastor AND a Chaplain that  claims to  preach and teach and tutor all over the place, but knows nothing, absolutely nothing about what it is he charges Universities to lecture their students on.  You couldn't make it up. He's a fraud in other words , Witch. 

SO;
 If you have nothing else to ask me why not address the OP , there's a good girl ?
#34
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
None of that has anything to do with the fact you consistently  post comments to people you post  with daily inaccurate "facts" about what they think and believe. As far as the OP they gave their opinion and I gave mine.  Then you stepped in and gave what you thought was mine. Maybe you should quit speaking for others and state your own thoughts. 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
None of that has anything to do with the fact you consistently  post comments to people

Nope. I was giving my side of an opinion opined by another poster. I have never started a thread to attack theist. NEVER. And you couldn't show me one . So wind your fkn neck in Witch, you are creating an unnecessary personal argument with me on someone else's thread. 


you post  with daily inaccurate "facts" about what they think and believe.


 well let us see just a few examples and we'll put that accusations to the test shall we?


As far as the OP they gave their opinion and I gave mine.


 As did I .  I gave my own personal experiences - as did he - that I have had and still do have with apologetic theist. 


Then you stepped in and gave what you thought was mine.

Nope, I responded to what you wrote in reply to me, Witch keep up. LOOOOOOOOK HEERRREEE>>>#25  Show me where I have said something was your opinion?  and hurry up about it!


Maybe you should quit speaking for others and state your own thoughts

 I don't speak for others but only myself and you cannot give me one single example of me doing so. 

AND I  have already stated my thoughts and opinions on this very thread when prompted to do so. LOOOOOOOK! HEERRREE>>>>#11


KEEP UP, Witch

#36
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Half your posts are you telling theists what they think. 


#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Half your posts are you telling theists what they think. 

 Nope.  Where are you proofs and examples.

And the irony here , Witch, is that this thread is all about  "getting the facts straight".   You haven't manged to produce any facts to support your claims directed at me personally.

So when you are ready lets see them or simply cease and desist with your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.



Half your posts are you telling theists what they think. 


Most of my posts are questions to theistic apologists. And many more also show the apologetic theist they are bible ignorant.

 Now put up or shut up" FFS!
#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are. 
I highlight this admission because it bears repeating with virtually all your commentary of #21, to wit:

we are dealing with a state of delusion
"We" who? You? or your pocket mouse? If that is your choice to be deluded, that is your choice.

irrefutable evidence that confirms evolution
I agree. Did I not say that creation and evolution are hand-in-hand processes on the same side of the coin?

in reality nothing more than self-centered to the point of delusion.
In reality? Reality, as in the belief we had not so many centuries ago, of geocentrism? That self-centered? And did we not determine, eventually, that geocentrism was a delusion? You're playing your own game, not realizing that you have just become a game piece. Come on, that isn't where or what you are, although, as you admitted,

I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are.  
So, start there, with your "I don't know" definition of faith, and start discovery of what it really is. Only then will you begin to understand the delusion of 

I would be talking hypothetically since there is no such thing as God.
because, at present, you're no better off than claiming geocentrism.
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
there is always one side in particular that will not look at the facts
Show me the evidence that you have the facts. Don't just tell us:

We don't yet have the technology to prove God:
Who said technology is supposed to prove God?  And who said:

You have to believe/have faith:
say the same thing; that the two are synonymous? You, and  your pocket mouse? Your credentials, please.
Topic's author
#40
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me the evidence that you have the facts. Don't just tell us:
If you wish I will go to my IT support and get a print-out of my hard drive where the facts are stored and send it to you.

#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
I repeat:

Who said technology is supposed to prove God?

Topic's author
#42
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Who said technology is supposed to prove God?
The pastor in the Church I attended for starters.
What point (if any) are you trying to make?

#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
What point (if any) are you trying to make?
My point: Even those who profess to know religion, including "professionals," which, in this particular industry causes me to question those in which their "professionals" are paid a salary, do not necessarily know what they are talking about.

This idea of proving God by technology is a case in point. What is technology? A known science. Clearly, we thought the known science of the universe was that it was geocentric. Clearly, even Genesis is organized after that view. But, was God really giving Moses an astronomy lesson, or just describing events from a perspective Moses understood by his limited observation; a geocentric view. Would Moses have understood the process of creation described from an omnipresent perspective that is God's? Not likely, but the point of observation was not the critical factor for Moses, but rather, the actions of the creative process themselves.

But, then we discovered that geocentrism was not the correct perspective of the universe; it's just our perspective that the rest of the universe in no way shares. Even the view from the Moon is obviously a different perspective, isn't it? Should God have used that view? or, more to the point, should we discount the Genesis description just because we have disproven the geocentric perspective? Except we have not really done that, have we? We still have that perspective, even while knowing it is not the "absolute" perspective. Get's us to an impossible discussion of the absolute of reality, but only because our perspective is, after all, limited.

Thus, we are given to understand that perspective is not the most important factor, that truth has more important matters of sustenance. More important than our technology, too, because that, as reality, is limited, as well.
Topic's author
#44
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Thus, we are given to understand that perspective is not the most important factor, that truth has more important matters of sustenance. More important than our technology, too, because that, as reality, is limited, as well.
Point taken. When or if we do ever positively recognise the existence of God the proof will come from a panel of qualified scientists who have thoroughly researched and submitted conclusive evidence......not from a bunch of religious, biased airheads who can only speculate and quote from irrelevant and unverified myths.

#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
And, just as with tech, who says the existence of God will only depend on "religious airheads?" Again, is that from your pocket mouse? He didn't do such a terrific job of explaining the limitations of tech to you, did he?