Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
After your little temper tantrum for no reason in the other thread I don't know why you want to discuss anything. But call me scumbag again for no reason and I will be reporting it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You deny what femininity is, they you deny what God is and force the entire burden of proof onto me in some weird cycle. This is why I will not do this as an official debate against scumbags who use dirty tactics like that. Which gender is god more like?
Wow, you have issues sir and do you really want to call people scumbags? I did nothing but try and explain to you about the nature of the Creator. Why are getting offended? did I say something offensive? and this would be why I DON'T LIKE TO DO THIS. I also never denied what femininity is, at any point in this thread. Get a grip son.
She's a woman if a human and made men second, not Adam first.
You can believe God is a female all you want, but keep it to yourself if you wish not to discuss it. Doesn't sound like your up for anyone showing you otherwise.
Created:
-->
@eash
you lack the knowledge of people meditating to have a sex with a so called female goddess.
Not at all, all you had to do was ask. There are countless spiritual beings in higher places and more advanced areas of creation. However, all goddesses and demi-gods come out from the same Source. They are created entities, but the Source is not and has no embodiment or parts.
i think its funnyto callita female. no breast, no nipples, no belly button, no sex and they can see its feet to know if it has hoofs.i am no noob. but i know that this is why you can find text in the bible warning people that this creator is not a creator of the universe.
Created goddesses do have body parts. These are higher spiritual beings and they have many things they can do with humans lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Which just happens to be the same voice as the one you "never like much".
What can I say? his voice always sounded goofy to me, just an opinion.....over vibrato and generic lyrics. I like the Gospel stuff better but not my favorite singing voice. I like soulful, scratchy voices, with a high range.
you like Presley's voice better than mine!!
Yep, and I think I could be right in believing that so do half the population of the world. I think I would rate you as .... must try harder.No offence
Not very wise to jokes huh? Nothing I need to try harder at, it's my natural singing voice, but obviously not one you prefer, no offence taken. Also, I'm not a world-wide musician, I am a Dad and that is the life I pursued. But if you wouldn't mind, this thread was for people to post videos or Gospel songs, could you post some?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't really understand what the hell you're getting at here
Lol, God is not a She or He in any literal sense of the words.
but I'm looking for "God the Father" type opponents here who refer to her as "he".
Because again, God the "father" and the 'he" thing are just attributes, not gender role or sexual organs. The God of the Bible is portrayed as a leader, King and protector type, so "He" is just attributes and nothing else.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sex is one way to have genders.
It's the only way, because of separation and contrast through form and physical anatomy. Otherwise it is useless and non-existent. What makes a female is what that soul perceives and experiences through a female body.
God is gendered, not necessarily physically sexed or sexually active. Her role and nature are feminine in many more ways than the physical. Her emotional way of making morality, her way of helping ding and only wanting thise that desire her enough to seek her out, seduce and gain her love and affection... It all adds up to a her and not a him.
So you mean attributes like I said? why not judge God based on more than that? like creativity, pure consciousness and everything that awareness would implicate without any sexual role or anatomy, why jump to "she" conclusions, it seems totally unnecessary as it makes just as much sense to say God is not either, rather has expressions and desires and manifests them through creation. God could be neither male nor female and still have everything you just wrote. You can't justify labeling God a "she" based on a non-reproductive (gender) reality, it doesn't fit. Imagine yourself with no body at all, no sexual organs and no sexual preferences just a pure conscious reality.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You don't need all your body parts either.
What?? in what sense?
God didn't choose to be God nor to exist at all. God exists, period.
Correct, that is true, doesn't necessitate male or female though in any way, shape or form rather a conscious reality that is neither.
She can't kill herself even if she wanted to, she's a slave like us to her being. The issue isn't if she chose to be God or needed to be, she just is.
Correct, accept for the "she" baloney.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Creator creates bodies in creation to be capable of reproduction, but God Itself can not reproduce sexually, only do embodiments claim roles of male and female according to their anatomy. So if you mean this as non-literal, now would be the time to say so, that way I know where ya commin from....
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If God had body parts, Gods existence would then depend upon those parts. That is not the case, the Creator creates embodiments but has no role as male or female sexually.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What do you mean wrong? so God has female reproductive parts? God does not bring about creation through any fertilization of Itself. Only through other embodiments is this necessary. You can say God has female attributes, but God does not have body parts, and has no need of them.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So your God has an embodiment and reproductive organs? I was under the impression God (Creator) is neither male nor female, has no sexual or reproductive body parts and no need for them. God, apparently in original form is outside the limitations and preferences of bodies and embodiments that soul inhabits and plays a role as male or female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
As of right now, they are irrelevant to this particular discussion and I feel will add no value. My experiences are rangy, and apply to different things and various methods. Reason being, is because you have five layers that cover the soul that you can observe through, four layers beyond that of the physical layer. So, when dealing with experiences of God or God Itself, we're talking about the actual soul layer, which is beyond space and time, beyond the mind and the five layers. This takes place at a pure conscious layer of what we can experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
why do you think that?
Not just me, but the proposition you supplied.
Universal mind or universal consciousness- "is a concept that tries to address the underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe. It includes the being and becoming that occurred in the universe prior to the arising of the concept of "Mind", a term that more appropriately refers to the organic, human, aspect of universal consciousness. It addresses inorganic being and becoming and the interactions that occur in that process without specific reference to the physical and chemical laws that try to describe those interactions. Those interactions have occurred, do occur, and continue to occur. Universal consciousness is the source, ground, basis, that underlies those interactions and the awareness and knowledge they imply."
I believe the above for many reasons and we've been discussing it for years. One reason included is the superior understanding and observation of consciousness and soul as well as the universal mind. I don't buy into materialism and naturalism, it makes no sense. To me, a universal consciousness fits better with our experience, answers why the universe exists and why things act with a purpose in creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I take a naturalistic view.
Correct me if I am wrong, both naturalism and materialism both have the same meanings? in essence they both deny that an event or object has a supernatural significance.....
Naturalism-
a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.
Materialism-
is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
Not if there was a materialistic process of the universe. There would be no moral authority.
Why not?
Read the definitions.
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it? and why would it have any preference for conscious entities for them to grow? rather the universe shows evidence that is was created for conscious entities, not the other way around, if first was a mindless universe conscious entities would be irrelevant . If God were a natural function of the universe it would be the universe that is God, correct?
I didn't say the universe was mindless. I said the opposite. The universal mind is the Universe/God. And that would include all the minds in the universe.
So now you believe in the universal mind? the universal mind was before creation, the universe. It represents what I have been proposing, not you. It addresses the underlying cause of all being including the universe.
UNIVERSAL MIND-
"is a concept that tries to address the underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe. It includes the being and becoming that occurred in the universe prior to the arising of the concept of "Mind", a term that more appropriately refers to the organic, human, aspect of universal consciousness."
Those interactions have occurred, do occur, and continue to occur. Universal consciousness is the source, ground, basis, that underlies those interactions and the awareness and knowledge they imply."
However, even before the projection of the universal mind is pure awareness (consciousness), as a mind is useless without an observer, because the mind is not an entity. Again, the universe is not the originator, the Creator is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think that the universe may be a natural phenomenon.
So you do take a materialist worldview of the universe?
God is our moral authority
Not if there was a materialistic process of the universe. There would be no moral authority.
and the Universe created the solar system so conscious entities would have a place to grow spiritually. God and the Universe are both parts of the natural functioning o the universe,and we are a part of that.
How did the universe create our solar system by itself and all that is within it? and why would it have any preference for conscious entities for them to grow? rather the universe shows evidence that is was created for conscious entities, not the other way around, if first was a mindless universe conscious entities would be irrelevant . If God were a natural function of the universe it would be the universe then that would hold authority correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Panentheism-
is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheism of Baruch Spinoza.[1] Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I lean towards a being I call the Universe, who I think is part of the fabric of the universe itself.
But why not panENtheism? meaning that God is not just the universe but just before it.....what put the universe in motion from a conscious reality? Can you give me a reason to think God is JUST the universe and not the Creator of it?
The normal idea of God is the Creator. I don't have the normal idea of God.
Give me an example then, so I know what abnormal looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not sure if the universe was created. I think the solar system probably was.
So...you would lean towards a materialistic process?
I don't know if God is the creator.
Wouldn't that what be what God does? if God was not the originator of existence what does that qualify God as? or does it qualify as "God"?
Created:
Posted in:
Intelligent design has a process. Creationism is something random's will. ID would implicate everything was pieced together and evolved to get to this point. Creationism would implicate a wave of a wand and poof. Also, ID doesn't have to be just one entity, it could be more than one working to create which i like to have to possibility in the mix. It's mainly that ID is a process that each atom was intelligently directed and put together to make a larger creation. It's like finding the material, putting the computer together, making the computer stronger, then having complex video games vs. i thought of a game and poof here it is.
Wait a minute, why is creationism not a process? who defined it as not being one? I believe in both creationism and the process of creation...they go hand in hand. ID and creationism are compatible.
Creation IS a process, from point A to point B.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
But not responsible for the creation of our universe?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ibthink what janesix is trying to say is that it is unreasonable to expect someone to believe someone else simply because say they are a witness to someone.
Never claimed that. I would never expect someone to believe someone else's testimony. However, there is more testimonial evidence for spirituality than any other thing. That is something to CONSIDER, and not just brush under the rug.
Like, I can believe someone is being honest about believing what they say, but that doesn't always mean I believe what they say.
Nope, but what constitutes evidence is what consists of evidence. With dealing with spirituality we move away from
physical" based evidence.
We don't always see things as they really are, you know?
Correct. But experiences with the Divine are experience with the Divine, that is how this works and how religion and spirituality have been formed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am not 100% convinced it was God who designed the solar system.
Then what did God do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I believe in intelligent design... not creationism.
What would be the difference if I may ask?
Created:
-->
@janesix
If you wish to disagree with what evidence consists of and how it is defined that is your choice, and very unfortunate. But you will not be in any position to argue over what is defined as evidence.
Created:
-->
@janesix
What exactly are you disagreeing with? the definition of testimony and evidence? or the nature of spirituality?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Spirituality is between you and God. And me and God. It is an individual process.
Never denied that.....but which would fall under the category of testimonial evidence. Which is personal observation, which IS evidence.
Created:
-->
@janesix
We're talking about evidence and what that consists of. Before we go further you will have to concede that.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Physical evidence is needed for God, too.
Nope, God is not a physical entity or object, try again. That is why your biases for evidence doesn't fit, does not work and is not congruent with the nature of the Creator.
Created:
-->
@janesix
So in other words you deny the very definition of evidence and testimony? and which type of EVIDENCE spirituality consists of?
TESTIMONY-
evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
Well that is very unfortunate, as well you deny the nature of spirituality and how evidence for it works :(
Created:
-->
@janesix
there isn't more evidence for God than anything else.
If you think so, supply one other single topic that has more testimonial evidence than spirituality, I'll wait right here....
Created:
-->
@janesix
No they wouldn't, because a lot of people won't consider the nature of God and the nature of evidence. As for evidence and proof, there is more than any other topic according to what evidence consists of. That is not debatable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nice. But I didn't find it moved me like a gospel choir going full tilt does or the sincerity of Presley's brilliant baritone voice can.I am not religious but the mood and feelings conveyed by the above mentioned are sincerely moving .
Lol, no, not going to move you like a choir would, wait a minute....you like Presley's voice better than mine!! JK...I never liked his voice that much, but actually I liked it much better in his gospel songs.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Testimonial evidence for which God? Or are you lumping in all Gods throughout history together?
No, I'm "lumping" all of spirituality together as proof, which would be the reflection of what humans observe and experience. Regardless, it IS evidence, along with philosophical strength, logic and commonsense. Why people wish to disregard actual meanings of evidence and proof is bedside me, and only verifies to show biases. There is more proof and evidence for God than any other thing.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Read carefully....
TESTIMONY-
evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Testimonial evidence is all that correlates with the nature of spirituality, however the evidence far surpasses that of gnomes. Physical evidence is needed for gnomes due to the description of them, which is easily dismissed and debunked. Again, NOT a sufficient comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'll have to check those out, thank you for the suggestion. What did you think of my little gospel hymn in the first link?
Who can deny that the sound that comes from a gospel choir is uplifting.
It is because it does in fact uplift your spirit, it edifies that aspect of yourself even if you don't believe there is a spirit or that you have an aspect of yourself that transcends the physical body.
Created:
-->
@janesix
The point I am making is it is silly to say something exists because it is in the dictionary.
Yeah but that is not the point I was making, you have to evaluate the contents of any given definition and whether or not it contains something worth looking into that reflects reality.
The God concept is more common, but there is still little proof of either.
Is there "little" proof for the God concept? doesn't that depend on the type of proof or evidence that correlates with the concept? I don't think there is "little" proof and evidence for God, not even close but it depends on what you wish to look at as "evidence" or "proof".
Proof-
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
There is plenty of the above to establish the concept of God as existing, so I don't think gnomes is a sufficient comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Let's be clear: nobody accepts or rejects God simply because of "logic".
Let us be clearer, that is baloney. Plenty of people come to the conclusion that there certainly is a Creator of kinds based on reasoning and logic alone. Many people look around at the world and it is obvious to them as well. Logic is based on reasoning and so I don't see how you can say this, especially if you're not a Theist or have spiritual beliefs and are just assuming things.
Logic is a justification, but there are always other reasons.
Are you saying people don't have justifications for their beliefs? perhaps you haven't been asking.
There are things people want, things that trump rationality. Maybe it's a desire to be unique, or to feel yourself superior. Maybe it's the opposite: maybe you're more afraid than you are proud. Afraid of hell, or simply of dying. You can always find some way to justify believing if that's what you want. And those justifications can't be dismissed entirely, so...
Or...….maybe it is rationality. How about justification based on logic and reasoning and not some silly motives? Do you know what the purpose of spirituality is for? it is not solely about beliefs, and those beliefs based on whims no....rather application and observation both collectively as well as individually and of course we are talking about perception beyond the physical experience, and this has been around for thousands of years it is no whim and neither are Theistic beliefs, they are based on logic and rationality. The practice of spirituality is objective by nature, because it exists independently of personal opinions and desires and so formed beliefs are not always based on being afraid of dying, or because someone wants to feel good about themselves ect ect..this is an assumption people make and really only applies to certain people if at all. Certainly doesn't apply to anyone in a debate forum hopefully. Either way it is an assumption with no real justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Because in the end, not believing gives you nothing. Absolutely nothing. It gives you temporary relief but nothing in the long term. That's why hardcore atheism will never triumph over the masses.
Acquiring beliefs is not always about getting something, as for me (and many others) I think about my beliefs first before I accept them or reject them, all my beliefs, and at the very least I make sure I know how they conceptually work and IF they can work.
Created:
Posted in:
That's all good. But i am pretty sure a nutrivore diet is almost as healthy... bc that is lean meats and fatty meats but all natural... with a raw veggie and fruit diet. I guess it just adds meat to the diet you prefer but no processed stuff.
Yeah okay, if you really want to eat meat at least do meat and fruits like you said, maybe cut back on starches, processed and junk foods like you said and definitely no dairy or cheese.....if you did that you would be pretty ripped, I was always kind of muscular shaped but now I am a lot more defined. You could also eat salads but please lol, if you do the carnivore diet don't eliminate fruits, if you must eat an acidic diet make sure you have the alkaline chemistry to bring in for balance.
It makes me feel the best anyways. There just isn't any proof of it yet since it hasn't been studied like the latter has. One thing i found interesting about cutting meat from your diet is that you would age slower. There is something in meats that promote the aging cells or whatever.
Yeah because like I said, that dern meat is acidic in nature and it has a breaking down tissue effect, aging, dehydration. I mean really, you're eating tissue, cells and blood......it is dead flesh, on top of that you cook it, so any living quality that may have been there is now chemically changed. Once you cook something you mutate what it was you were trying to get from it. So now, you've cooked the dead flesh and now your body has to break all that muscle and tissue down just to receive an acidic kick/ash lol, just seems totally opposite of fruits which are healing and naturally beautiful and delicious as well as anti-aging.
But i'm Persian and we age well in general so i'm hoping my genes can step up for me there.
Wow, we do have a lot in common. I'm half Persian and Caucasian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
That's all good. But i am pretty sure a nutrivore diet is almost as healthy...
Did you know that a frugivore or raw foodist falls under the category of nutrivores? however the funny thing is that supplements mimic what is in fruit. That's why I supplied that link that showed all the nutritional components of fruits. So the difference is that a frugivore doesn't need to take supplements they get all that from the raw fruits and veggies.
Nutrivore-
"A nutrivore is a person who understands the health producing and disease preventing power of micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, and accessory micronutrients) and strives for micronutrient sufficiency through their diet and supplementation program.
A nutrivore lifestyle can be achieved regardless of which dieting style an individual prefers to follow. Whether following a vegetarian, vegan, low carbohydrate, low fat, Mediterranean, raw or any other type of dietary philosophy, a nutrivore chooses to eat micronutrient rich foods, reduce their EMDs and fill in their nutritional gaps by taking proper supplementation."
Thought you might find that interesting, that what I'm saying in this thread falls under that term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How should a claim without evidence be evaluated?
You're still addressing the question incorrectly....you ARE evaluating the evidence (weak or strong)…….A reasoned claim or experience is SOMETHING that "indicates" a proposition true, which qualifies a witness as evidence. Again go back to the definition I supplied.
And unless the person is known to be a liar or delusional they and their person are irrelevant to the validity of the claim.
In the case with God we have more than a couple of "delusional" claims by liars and far from it, and we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.There is no other single subject with such a vast array of observation, evidences, literature and experience/knowledge available. Again, we only rely on testimonial based evidence (as opposed to physical evidence) because of the NATURE of the Creator, the nature of souls, so it is not that anything is lacking, rather the nature of spirituality naturally eliminates the method of a materialistic study which leaves personal observation and experience. On top of that, everyone seems to ignore the fact this supposed absurd claim (which amounts to believing in gnomes) has been debated and considered by the most prominent philosophers and even scientific minded people for generations. That is due to the fact that the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes.
Created:
-->
@janesix
You have to evaluate the substance or nature of the defined terms in determining whether it is a legit proposition or claim. So it is not the words themselves but the meanings and whether or not they MAY reflect reality or even if they can at all. While I do not support Mopac's "Ultimate Reality" stuff (because it is a weak argument) I do think some things/terms are to be considered more of a reality than other things/terms. I mean you do see the difference in considering the concept of God then say.....belief in a gnome right?
Created:
-->
@Mdh2000
You assert the consciousness exists externally of the brain.
I'm not asserting anything less than what you are. You ask me a question, you will get an answer (not assertion) from a Theistic point of view. Just like you will assert consciousness is a product of the brain, I'm not just asserting it I'm giving you explanations. I've explained what consciousness is, where it originated, how the soul operates through the body and brain and how the brain and body functions work with our soul inhabiting it. You've offered no argument that I am aware of, and if you did I answered it. I'm not asserting anything, and it's not something I make up, this knowledge has been around well before you and I and I have reasons and experience for my beliefs.
I ask how you can confirm this.
I've given you several answers, that is why I'm getting bored at this point, you chop my full statements and explanations and then repeat the same thing I already answered. That is annoying, go back and read what I wrote about verifying.
You assert that NDE's couldn't occur if the brain produced consciousness as NDE's occur outside of the brain (you also assert that these were brains in a state of brain death a state deemed irreversible to the point it's actually part of the definition unless I've missed it you haven't addressed my queries on this).
I don't assert it, I've explained it and then asked you how it would be possible for someone to travel outside their own body and brain if consciousness was confined to brain activity. You have yet to give me a good reason or argument to accept your assertions. If a person is unconscious, brain dead and completely unaware of its surrounding, how can that persons soul travel outside the body and know exactly what everyone is doing? I say with common sense and common knowledge that it is only possible because of the soul, it exists independent of the human body, and the mind which you claim is generated by the brain. Did you not look at the link I supplied that has medical facts and testimonies about NDE's???
I ask how you can confirm that this isn't a product of the recorded surge of activity in the brain at the moment of death.
I answered that with my analogy of the circuit board and also that yes, the brain will have a surge in ACTIVITY at the moment of death because the soul is experiencing something it normally does not, but then the soul continues to experience yet again you've ignored my arguments and then just repeat, Pete and repeat were on the boat....Pete fell off and who was left? This is getting tedious. I ask again, how can you consciously travel OUTSIDE the human brain (which includes the mind) if the brain was what creates your awareness, how can the soul travel after brain death? the mind does not exist independent of the brain as YOU claim.....these are things you have yet to answer. That I have seen yet anyways.
Now, you have made comments on experiences being the most real of your life I believe? Yet this doesn't dismiss the construct of the brain. If the materialists assertions were correct then we would expect experiences created by the mind to be potentially indestinguishable from reality. Can you show that isn't the case.
Oh really now? so now the mind, which is created by the brain (according to you), is now able to travel freely outside a brain lol? wow, that is pretty incredible. Even after brain DEATH, somehow the mind can now have conscious experience. Why ASSUME that when there is a time-tested understanding of spirituality and the soul? this would be a good time to observe Occam's razor. The information is here and has been here, consciousness is an open question in science, it has been shown over countless testimonies and through religion that the soul exists as it is, independent of any brain, just like experiences and evidence show. So why take so many assumptions about the brain and mind when you don't really know? I also explained the nature of spirituality, and how it opposes the products of the mind and body, and you can observe your soul away from the body. Again, the mind is not an entity, it is a storage compartment......you've never even argued any of most of my responses!! if the materialists view were correct, then we wouldn't see what we do in fact see, that is the whole point.
See where we hit a problem is that the answers you give to your claims tend to be more claims. It's starting to look like turtles all the way down. While I will honestly consider your claims, I will always question them. So far I'm not seeing anything that puts your claim ahead of the materialists.
Everything you know is a claim. However, my answers, I repeat answers aren't just empty claims. I can show you how it works with reason, common sense, evidence and arguments.....that is not just claims unjustified. At what point do you ever consider something an answer and not a claim? Now I can expand on those arguments but not until you concede or actually address my whole statements. Once you are satisfied or give me a good reason to reject a superior understanding we should move forward, I don't enjoy repeating myself unless you give me a good argument to what I supplied. Maybe you should go back and read the answers again or consider the fact that materialists don't know what consciousness is, and that would be due to the reality that the soul exists independent of the body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You don't know what evidence is and apparently can't read, and as long as you lie to yourself and others you will never be in any position to argue anything about God, and you don't and can't...and everyone knows it. See ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If someone has an experience with a gnome, is this evidence of gnomes?
Technically yes, because it falls under the category of evidence as testimonial, do you know someone who has an experience with a gnome that we can evaluate?? we know a good portion of the world testifies to a Creator of kinds....however, unlike the Creator the evidence or lack thereof for any "gnomes" can easily be classified as weak (if it exists) if at all and can be debunked by examining the description and this is where you fail to see why this is not comparable to evaluating God. God not only has more testimonial evidence than any other topic, it has philosophical strength, meaning it is not an absurd proposition like that of a gnome. When evaluating testimonial evidence there are many things that can be considered besides just the claim, that is why Creationism is a superior claim/fact.
Gnome-
"most generally refers to very small people, often men, that live in dark places, especially underground, in the depths of forests, or more recently in gardens. Most European ethnic groups have had some kind of gnome legends with local variations. Modern traditions portray gnomes as small, old men wearing pointed hats and living in forests and gardens."
So, based upon that description it is safe to say that we don't observe gnomes and they most likely do not exist as they state that they are, since they are said to live in forests and gardens and have very distinctive hats lol, there is no reason to accept or consider the proposition because it is easily debunked. See where I'm going with this? until you atheists acknowledge that evidence does in fact exist for God in the form of testimonial EVIDENCE (which is at least a portion or half of which is defined as evidence) and that based upon the definition, philosophical value, reason for belief and wide range of evidence Creationism or Theism is not comparable to a gnome and it is just immature, and lacks any real intellectual effort. Again, what qualifies as evidence (not proof) is as follows. Then we examine the evidence on a case by case basis to determine whether it is something to be considered and can be either classified as weak or strong evidence, or even dismissing the evidence. But not so with God, it takes much more effort and intellectual honesty to justifiably reject it.
EVIDENCE-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Of course go for ripe, and preferable organic no doubt. However make sure you check out all the links I supplied because fruits are still and always will be superior in nutritional value. You can still get ripe fruits you just have to be picky and even store bought grapes are powerful, red grapes in particular and they were great this year. Nature is always superior but more fruit is better than less, and better than none at all. I mean come on, what are you comparing them to? even a lesser quality fruit is better than cheese, bread or meat! think about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I'm not trying to be divisive. I acknowledge there is evidence that a veggie diet is good for you. But there is also evidence for "some" people it isn't very good (especially if it's only fruits). That's all i'm saying. Everyone wish's it was black and white so they can easily find a good diet. But that isn't how it usually goes down. Things that work for some don't for others unfortunately.
Break down the human body and everything is constructed of cells, all your organs, skin, bones, glands ect are all made up of the very same thing, cells. So the physiology of one persons parts are the same as another, the tissues and cells that make up your heart are no different than mine. However, what condition those parts are in may vary and they may have different issues health wise and possibly poor genes or good genes....but there are no differences in the reaction of chemistry, tissue and cells are tissue and cells. When you eat, everything you put in your mouth is interfacing directly with chemistry and there is no mystery or debate about that and it is the same for every person and that chemistry will either have a positive effect or a negative one. So when you're dealing with fruits, the chemistry composition and nutritional value does not change from person to person nor does their reaction or utilization of that chemistry change, so if an apple is good for this cell over here, it's good for that cell over there.....if grapes are excellent for me, they are excellent for you.
When you're looking at peoples diets make sure you actually know the specifics about them because even a "vegetarian" diet can be unhealthy because all that means is they don't eat meat, but they eat cheese and dairy products, starches, processed foods and junk food so the body is never in a position to be healthy and clean itself out. That is why I use the term "raw" because even though it is the most difficult to maintain because of discipline it the most natural and most healthy. That means no junk foods, no processed foods, no cooked foods, no diary and of course no meat and only fruits and veggies and anything you can eat without cooking. You aren't going to find any true raw fruit and veggie eaters that are unhealthy but you can find many unhealthy "vegetarians". So make sure you don't judge anything unless you actually try it yourself, and all you have to do is give it a few tries and examine the energy from it. What's three meals really? If you look at all the links within this thread I provided an abundance of nutritional facts about fruits and their nature scientifically so that is the same for every person and every cell and body. You can also simply just eat more fruits and keep your diet, just check out all the information here and make sure you think about it.
I started first with meat in my diet because cheese is one of my weaknesses lol, then I did dairy finally and man what a difference in feel, much lighter and quicker all swelling gone. Now I practice adding as much fruit as I can and eliminate as much bad as I can but I still love pizza lol, but there is no doubt which foods make you physically and mentally feel the most vibrant. Meats are actually a type of stimulant, so when you consume it you might feel a burst of energy if you're lucky but it quickly breaks down and begins to have a negative effect on tissues because of its acidic ash, meat is notoriously acidic and hard on the kidneys and digestion. This is the chemical nature of meat and the effects on tissue are negative whereas the chemical nature of fruits build and strengthen tissue, not deteriorate it. Acids have a negative result on cells and tissues not a positive one and you eventually die because of it, hopefully we can slow that process down with a natural, alkaline diet.
Anyways, I know how ya feel about it! we just talking I know you have your own view and I'm good with that just consider it as you eat and what you choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Hold your horses for a sec, what do you think man did before he built fire and tools to take down animals and cook their dead flesh? you really think he went around taking down animals with his bare hands and eating its dead corpse?? if you want to talk about natural.... man did not eat then, like he does now and there is evidence to suggest humans are not omnivores or meat eaters but frugivores/vegetarians as they are most certainly closest to the primate family in genetics and if man evolved from that then it is obvious. Primates are first fruit and plant eaters and meat being the very last option for apes and gorillas, you don't see apes cooking meat over a fire lol, no all their power and stamina comes from a raw fruit and veggie diet. Pure Carnivores on the other hand pay a huge price for consuming such an acidic diet, however their anatomy can handle it due to the digestive track which eliminates meat very quickly but they sleep way more than horses, primates, elephants, rhinos ect ect….they don't have the power and longevity of other species.
Man migrated from tropical climates to cold weather climates forcing them to search for alternative eating. Never was man originally a meat eater and never was he intended to be a carnivore or omnivore and it is a proven fact that raw fruits and veggies are superior foods and very goof for man health, and that is because it fits his physiology and anatomy. Check out my topic "Is man and Omnivore?" and check out some of the links. There is many more sources now that are becoming available with fresh information and a way better alternative. Just look at the condition of man across the world and the health crisis, and it is partially due to false misconceptions and poor discipline. Look at the links I supplied with the nutritional benefits of fruits and their composition. This is simple chemistry, whatever man puts in his mouth his body is interfacing with chemistry and whether or not that chemistry will have a negative effect of a good effect. As far as sugars go, check the link just before this one and take a look.
"Follow-up investigations indicate as well that foods eaten by humans today, especially those consumed in industrially advanced nations, bear little resemblance to the plant-based diets anthropoids have favored since their emergence. Such findings lend support to the suspicion that many health problems common in technologically advanced nations may result, at least in part, from a mismatch between the diets we now eat and those to which our bodies became adapted"
Created: