Sidewalker

-->

@K_Michael

Why are the Psalms in the Bible if they're not scripture?

I already told you, they were an anthology of religious hymns that were originally set to music, and yes, the Book of Psalms is included in the Bible making it scripture. The books of the Bible include history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables...and according to your faith, it also contains lies told to you.

I'm sorry, but that thing about you is pretty far fetched, but hey, if that kind of delusional thinking floats your boat, go for it.

But understand, this is a debate site and you are making a very extraordinary claim, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, do you have any evidence, an argument, anything other than your faith?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

we should have healthcare that's universal and affordable- but the government could fuck it up

-->

@Greyparrot

I don't care who Trump likes. Keep voting like it matters. Over 50 years of broken promises on Medicaid for all.

We do have to vote like it matters, voter suppression and election denial are fundamentally the opposition to votes mattering.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Back to the Future: Trump’s History of Promising a Health Plan That Never Comes | Kaiser Health News (khn.org)

-->

@K_Michael

I see, so you reject competing religions because they are not infallible about what science will learn in the future?

I've noticed that the Bible isn't a very good cookbook either, maybe that would be another way your religion could deny competing faiths, I mean, the God that forgot to tell everyone about the Copernican Revolution for three thousand years could have at least provided us with some really good recipes, you should definately reject a God that can't cook.
Once again, I do not fault a text that leaves out details unimportant to its purpose. But God didn't "forget to tell everyone about the Copernican Revolution," he straight up lied about how the solar system works. This same God is supposed to be omniscient, so it isn't just an honest mistake, he literally created the solar system.

The Book of Psalms is an anthology of Hebrew religious hymns written over a period of about 500 years, roughly between 3,500 and 3,000 years ago. One of the authors of one of the hymns did not know that the Copernican Revolution was going to happen 2,500 years later, and for some reason, you think that means God lied to you.

I’m sorry, but that is some really weird logic you have there, it’s certainly not going to help you proselytize your faith, I’m sure nobody else is going to believe that Psalm was about you.

But hey, if you’re going to make up your faith, you may as well make it a good one? What the heck, I’m open minded about other faiths. So I’ll tell you what, I’ll give it a and go and try reading Psalms again and this time I'll pretend they were singing these songs directly to you, who knows, maybe there will be something to be learned from it. Actually it really seems silly, I think you need better material if you really want to convert anyone, but what the heck, I'll give it a try.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

we should have healthcare that's universal and affordable- but the government could fuck it up

-->

@Greyparrot

Neither is John McCain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWeayFHsH90

Yeah, but Trump "likes people who weren't captured".

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

we should have healthcare that's universal and affordable- but the government could fuck it up

-->

@n8nrgim

Democrats have been promising this for over 50 years. If it hasn't happened by now, it aint happening.

Yeah, except for Trump is not a Democrat.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

you believe it is invalid as a religious text because you think God should have told the authors about the Copernican Revolution 3000 years before it happened?
No, I believe it is invalid as a religious text because it lies. It doesn't need to bring up the structure of the solar system, but if it does, then it has to get it right.

I see, so you reject competing religions because they are not infallible about what science will learn in the future?

I've noticed that the Bible isn't a very good cookbook either, maybe that would be another way your religion could deny competing faiths, I mean, the God that forgot to tell everyone about the Copernican Revolution for three thousand years could have at least provided us with some really good recipes, you should definately reject a God that can't cook.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

science believed that the sun orbited the earth until the Copernican revolution less than 500 years ago, does that invalidate science also?
No. Science is explicitly based upon a presumption of imperfect knowledge being improved over time, whereas God is supposed to be eternal with perfect knowledge.

The Bible is a collection of writings that were written over a period of 1500 years, and yes, there are references to facts about nature that were believed at the time, but in your faith, you believe it is invalid as a religious text because you think God should have told the authors about the Copernican Revolution 3000 years before it happened?

That’s a pretty bizarre belief system you have there, but hey, if you want to see the Bible as representing a faith that is competing with your own, that’s fine, whatever floats your boat. Most people are going to think it’s contrived and pretty weird, and completely faith based, perhaps you shouldn’t try to pass it off as a logical, factual, or intellectual evaluation of religious texts.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

what is the basis of your belief that the Bible is a science book
If by 'science book' you mean a book that makes claims about reality, with specific subfields such as astronomy, biology, etc., then the Bible is unequivocally a science book. If you mean a book that makes claims about reality based upon scientific inquiry, then not so much, though 1 Kings 18:18-39 does qualify as a type of empirical experiment (Elijah ruins the controlled variables by pouring water on his sacrifice though).

The term 'science book' is yours though, I'm just saying that the Bible gets some pretty basic stuff wrong. I could literally check the flying insect claim with five minutes and a fly swatter. More importantly though, the Bible should be able to get stuff that isn't easily checkable right. God should know that the earth orbits the sun, for instance. Yet it reads
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalms 104:5 NIV

It is strictly a matter of your faith that you think that a factual error in a text written three thousand years ago invalidates religious belief, science believed that the sun orbited the earth until the Copernican revolution less than 500 years ago, does that invalidate science also? Of course it doesn’t, you are applying a middle school understanding of science to a grade school understanding of religion, and it’s contrived by your ideological agenda and your religiously held belief that science and faith are at odds.

You are contending that God wrote the Bible and got the science wrong, that is a preposterous contention based solely on your own faith. When you challenge belief in God you are talking about metaphysics, particularly ontology, your commitment to materialism is a form of metaphysics and your second implied assertion, that the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge is a matter of epistemology. Ontology and epistemology are branches of metaphysics, you aren’t talking about science, you are making faith based metaphysical assertions, which is fine, but don’t try to pass them off as science or scientific conclusions, that isn’t what they are.

is that a principle of your faith perhaps?
I don't have a faith.

Sure you do, it’s a faith based belief in scientism, and it is deeply religious in nature. All fundamentalists say they don’t have faith, they are just talking about the way things are, they are presenting facts. Your religious beliefs are no different than any other fundamentalist religious beliefs, they are characterized by rigid adherence to strictly faith-based principles with a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, and opposition to those who hold other beliefs.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

Here's the thing about scripture. If the Bible had called, thousands of years in advance of science, stuff that no other religion claimed, it would be HUGE. Like if Genesis said, 'Hey, there are 8 planets. Two are closer to the sun than Earth is, and two of them are so far away you can't even see them yet.' And then when telescopes were invented we were able to look and be like, 'yep, there they are.' You would have to believe that the Bible was either the word of God, aliens, or some advanced human civilization lost to time, like Atlantis.
That's what science does, except it has to show it's work.

OK, so that's what it would take to make you think the Bible is an accurate book about science, but what is the basis of your belief that the Bible is a science book, is that a principle of your faith perhaps?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

The trolls have arrived
They never leave.

That's true, I was just commenting that those two clowns have now brought thier weird mating ritual into this thread.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

You don't have to believe the 7 days of creation are literal 7 days to be a Christian.

No, you certainly don't. but there is a very interesting way of looking at it differently:

Genesis 1 recapitulates the story of the creation of external reality in only thirty-one sentences, these 31 sentences provide a rather remarkable correspondence to modern scientific theory. Among our spiritual detractors, it is fashionable to challenge these thirty-one sentences as if the Bible were a science textbook and point to any missing details or contradictions between science and these thirty-one sentences as if this renders the truth found in the Bible invalid. This contrived pseudo-intellectual approach to biblical analysis not only betrays a rather irrational approach to analysis of sacred texts, it also tends to betray a complete lack of understanding of both science and faith.

The question as to whether the universe was created in six days or fifteen plus billion years is based on jumping from one frame of reference to another and then asserting that the associated contradiction proves the Bible is not true. If we consider what science has learned about time in the 3500 years since Genesis was written to be valid, then we must stay within that frame of reference to make any meaningful statement about the comparison between six twenty four hour days and fifteen plus billion years.

Let's stay within the scientific frame of reference and look deeper than the superficial way that this challenge is typically presented and actually examine what science has learned about time, and see how our modern understanding of time relates to the 31 sentences that recapitulate the story of physical creation in the first book of the Hebrew Bible. I’m going to briefly present an analysis of the subject by Gerald Schroeder, who is a world-renowned physicist and author.

As far as time is concerned, modern cosmological theory is based on the General Theory of Relativity, a theory that has been experimentally validated to the point of being accepted by science as fact. The General Theory of relativity is explicitly ontological, it tells us that space, time, matter, and energy are intimately related, and it tells us that the words space, time, matter and energy are referential to relationships rather than things. Space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference, and from our human frame of reference, since the creation of the universe in what we call the “Big Bang” the time/space continuum has been expanding.

Modern cosmology has quantified the data to provide us with an understanding of the relationship of time "from the beginning" to time as we experience it "now" within our current frame of reference. The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference.

What science tells us is that from its inception the universe expanded rapidly and as the universe got bigger, time expanded exponentially, and therefore from our frame of reference this exponential relationship is inverted. From today’s frame of reference, each time the universe doubled in time and space, from our frame of reference the perception of time is halved. Scientific theory tells us that the initial moment, the point at which the relationship we refer to with the word time began, is the moment that matter precipitated out of energy, time began when the dynamics of heat and expansion brought the temperature of the universe down to the point at which matter formed and therefore the relationship we call time began, this moment is referred to by science as the temperature of quark confinement. As far as relative frames of reference are concerned, the General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time from our frame of reference to the frame of reference of the beginning as the ratio between quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). From that starting point we have an initial ratio that from the beginning frame of reference expands exponentially as time proceeds and from our frame of reference, contracts exponentially.

What science tells us is that from the frame of reference of the beginning of time, in the Big Bang explosion of pure energy, a single twenty four hour day would by now, have stretched or expanded in such a way that it would be measured as eight billion years from today’s frame of reference. Calculating a second twenty four hour day from that beginning frame of reference and using the same algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we find that a second twenty four hour day would be measured within today’s frame of reference as four billion years, a third would be two billion, a fourth would be one billion, a fifth would be measured as a half billion, and a six would be measured as a quarter billion years. Add these six twenty four hour days together and what you get is a universe that is fifteen and three quarter billion years old. Therefore, science does not in fact challenge the six day creation story, when you stay within the scientific frame of reference, it confirms it.

If you stay within the scientific frame of reference and apply what science tells us about time and the relativity of frames of reference, what modern cosmological theory states is that, from our current frame of reference, the creation of entire universe from the Big Bang to the creation of Man literally occurred in six twenty four hour days.

While the Bible is not a science textbook, there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years. It is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between science and Genesis as coincidence only.

I find this fascinating, what do you make of it?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Stephen wrote: Ok so you can explain the intelligence behind this classical mess for us then.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it?page=2&post_number=34

Sidewalker wrote: It would be futile to try to explain the complex ideas associated with spiritual transcendence to a mind too unintelligent to conceptually grasp anything deeper than surface level literalism.
So that will be a- no-, then.

I guess I shouldn't have used such big words, yes, that would be a "no".

I'm sorry, but it's just too far over your head.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, the ability to recognize connections, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the insistent demands of our spiritual detractors that Genesis be understood and explained literally is an unintelligent claim.

Ok so you can explain the intelligence behind this classical mess for us then.

Is there only one god according to the bible?

Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Deuteronomy 4:35The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Deuteronomy 4:39
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Deuteronomy 6:4
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me. Deuteronomy 32:39
The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. 1 Kings 18:39

I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10
I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isaiah 44:8
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. Isaiah 45:5-6
There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me. Isaiah 45:21
I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me. Isaiah 46:9

The Lord our God is one Lord. Mark 12:29
There is one God; and there is none other but he. Mark 12:32
That they might know thee the only true God. John 17:3
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. 1 Corinthians 8:6
There are several gods.
In the book of Genesis, God used a plural pronoun to refer to himself (herself, itself, or themselves), implying that there is more than one god up there.

And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 3:22
Let us go down, and there confound their language. Genesis 11:7
The Old Testament God is a "god of gods" who is worshiped by the other gods.

For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 10:17Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 97:7
O give thanks unto the God of gods. Psalm 136:2
No other god is like him.

Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 86:8
He is better than the other gods.

Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 18:11
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 20:3-5
What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works? Deuteronomy 3:24
Great is our God above all gods. 2 Chronicles 2:5
Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 135:5
The other gods will die someday.
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11
The Hebrew God judges the other gods.

And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1
And will punish them.
I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods. Jeremiah 46:25The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth. Zephaniah 2:11
He is a jealous God (whose name is Jealous). So he forbids us to "go after" or worship any of his competitors.

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exodus 34:14Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you.) Deuteronomy 6:14-15
Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve them. Deuteronomy 28:14
If you give God glory, he'll go easy on you and all your other gods.

Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods. 1 Samuel 6:5And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Jeremiah 25:6
But you must fear God more than all the other gods.

The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. 1 Chronicles 16:25For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 96:4
Don't sacrfifice to any of the other gods. (Or God will kill you.)
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
Don't put any of the other gods before him.

Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Deuteronomy 5:7
Don't make a covenant with them.Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Exodus 23:32
Don't burn incense to them.I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods. Jeremiah 1:16
Or even mention their names.Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:13
Put away your father's gods.Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served. Joshua 24:14
And stay away from the god named Chemosh.Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? Judges 11:24
But don't revile the other gods.Thou shalt not revile the gods. Exodus 22:28

Other people served other gods (as did Abraham's father Terah).Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Joshua 24:2
And a witch once saw gods going up to heaven.And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Samuel 28:13

Always remember that people are gods too. (Jesus used this when he was accused of making himself a god.)I have said, Ye are gods. Psalm 82:6The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10:33-34
And the three gods in heaven are really only one god. (Don't worry about this one too much. It's a mystery.)For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

When you are ready.

It would be futile to try to explain the complex ideas associated with spiritual transcendence to a mind too unintelligent to conceptually grasp anything deeper than surface level literalism. I’d probably have a better chance of success teaching my dog to play chess.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

The trolls have arrived.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

I only use the bible for evidence in this case, because you quoted from the bible as well.

You don't have to believe the 7 days of creation are literal 7 days to be a Christian.

Well if you are using the bible as evidence, it states "days". But then you say one doesn't have to believe the bible evidence literally.

You are not making things easy for yourself are you.

Like your profile, the bible is full of holes. You need to go away and have a rethink before digging any deeper.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, the ability to recognize connections, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the insistent demands of our spiritual detractors that Genesis be understood and explained literally is an unintelligent claim.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

That's not my call, and it isn't yours either.
Yes, it is. If your argument is women birth baby's therefore, babies right to live is only decided by women, then that is morally and objectively wrong.

Fair enough, but practically speaking, it is a woman's decision to make, and that decision will be made under a set of circumstances that we are not privy too.

You are saying "There is no instance where abortion is ok at all", followed by "I am pro-life", there are certainly circumstances where an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, how is denying abortion in that instance "pro-life" if it causes death?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

If you didn't want people to give thier opinion, then you probably shouldn't have said, "I am pro-life how about you?"
I never said that people shouldn't give their opinion, in fact I encouraged it by saying, "I am pro-life how about you?"

You are actually the one who didn't want people to give their opinion by saying, "There is no instance where it is ok at all, for men to try to tell a woman what she can do with her own body." by saying this, you are saying that men don't have an opinion in the abortion issue.

Yes, that is my opinion, I'm not saying people shouldn't give thier opinion, I an just of the opinion that abortion is a supremely personal decision for a woman, and from the outside looking in, men can't really know the situation well enough to weigh the different aspects of such a decision.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

I don't know, answer this question. Question one: What caused the supernatural being
Proving gods' existence is harder said and done. I will admit that you have made a really good point, yet it doesn't make me change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm a believer too, just recognize that it is a matter of faith and there are no proofs.

Taking what you said, and thinking about it, my evidence and claims have only disproven the scientists that claim thing just came to be. The only thing that I have proven, is that some other force, or some other being exists that created everything that we know of today.

Both science and religion strive for a fuller consciousness of the universe, but they do not compete, rather they complement each other. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation, but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding. Rather than conflict, I think they are referential to each other.

Science explicitly points to a transcendent reality, all of the unifying theories of science postulate more dimensions, most reference ten dimensions, that is to say that reality ultimately consists of at least six additional dimensions that transcend our four dimensional frame of reference. The reality that we experience, that we are capable of experiencing, is a lower level, four dimensional aspect of a far greater reality in which we live and move and have our being.

Proving gods' existence is a much harder argument to argue, and I should have changed my forum title to Disproving Scientists Claims about the origins of the Universe.

I don't think it's possible to prove, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the question of God's existence, belief in God is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose.

Thank you for actually having an intellectual argument with me, and this just proves that unlike some people, I actually pay attention to people's arguments and work off of it.

I'm quite impressed actually, most of the time people are just talking past each other here, rather than paying attention to people's arguments they are just waiting for thier turn to talk.

Thank you for actually having an intellectual discussion with me, it's much appreciated.

You have proven the argument I am making impossible with the evidence that I have. But I am sure with time and resources I will be able to prove gods' existence.

I don't think that is possible, but I wish you the best of luck, I'd like to see you do it.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

There is no instance where it is ok at all, for men to try to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
It's not the woman's body, it's another living human in her body, so she doesn't have the right to kill a human baby just because she doesn't feel like having it.

That's not my call, and it isn't yours either.

Abortion is none of my business,
Then why are you arguing on this forum?

If you didn't want people to give thier opinion, then you probably shouldn't have said, "I am pro-life how about you?"

You see that "how about you?" thing you typed, check out the punctuation, it's a question mark, you should probably assume a lot of people are going think that means it is a question.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Donald Trump’s personality cult and the erosion of U.S. democracy - The Washington Post

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Ok, let's start from my first standpoint, the Big Bang.

What is the Big Bang Theory? | Space

"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."

Let's start with this argument and then we can work our way up to the others.

"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat. Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. This was a period of cosmic inflation that lasted mere fractions of a second — about 10^-32 of a second, according to physicist Alan Guth’s 1980 theory that changed the way we think about the Big Bang forever."

They don't explain how, "Suddenly, an explosive expansion began...". They just state that it happened. No scientist to this day has factual evidence of where that mass of energy came to be, and why it suddenly exploded.

I don't see why this is relevent, this applies equally to the postulate of a supernatural being. Nobody to this day has factual evidence of where a supernatural being came from, or why it suddenly created the Universe. The lack of knowledge about something doesn't prove something else.

If you truly believe the Big Bang was purely based in science, then answer this question.

Question one: What caused the "infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched"

I don't know, answer this question.

Question one: What caused the supernatural being?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Of course, you would use the insider as a source.

There are a lot of sources.

Our False Messiah: Why Trump's cult of personality is danger to both America and democracy | Milwaukee Independent

The One Way History Shows Trump’s Personality Cult Will End - POLITICO

GOP Moved From Conservative Principles to 'Cult of Personality': Riggleman (newsweek.com)

The Cult of Donald Trump (theintercept.com)

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Of course, you would use the insider as a source.

You used Trump as a source for how well he performed as President, which only makes the point of the article.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Abortion is none of my business, and a lot of men don't realize how it really is not up to us. There is no instance where it is ok at all, for men to try to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

The White Man's Burden in Qatar

-->

@Dr.Franklin

I am absolutely sick and tired of all these westerners spreading liberal values to non-western and non-liberal countries.

And this is you spreading your values, right? So your thing is intolerance, and you are just whining about others that have different vales than you, is that it? You are advocating the censorship of “liberal values”, that is typical of a person with your values.

The West is not the spokesperson for the rest of the world

And you are not the spokesperson for the rest of us. The western athletes are expressing their values, none of them is claiming to be a spokesperson for the rest of the world.

and Qatar has the absolute right to enforce their own laws and values in THIER OWN COUNTRY.

Yeah, and we all have the right to take our values with us wherever we go, if Qatar wants to host the World Cup, then they are inviting the other countries to come to Qatar whether they share their values or not. Qatar has the right to their values, and visiting teams have the right to express our values at the World Cup games. People express their values when they interact, soccer players are expressing their values with armbands, intolerance is your thing and you are expressing it with this stupid post. That’s just how values work.

This is the modern version of the white man's burden.

No it isn’t, it’s the modern version of expressing what you believe in, Qatar has established a world stage by hosting the World Cup games, and western athletes are expressing their values on that stage, that is just the way the world works.

When will the west stop their nonsense?

So you think “liberal values” are nonsense, but that isn’t going to stop anyone from having and expressing their values, so the answer to your question is never.

Fact is, the times are changing, the world is becoming more diverse and more tolerant, your values just haven’t kept up, the real question is when will you stop living in the past.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

1: The Singularity

Many scientists today call use the term singularity to represent what they believe to be the big bang. Now before I go any further, I just want to point out that I do agree with science, and in fact it does prove gods' existence.

Ok back to the singularity.

We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing.

No, that’s not what science says, the theory is that the Universe popped into existence from the pre-existing singularity, science makes no claims about something from nothing.

If nothing existed at the start of time, then nothing would be here now. It is impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing. The only way for something to come into existence from nothing, is if something, or someone puts it there.

Science has no tools for addressing something from nothing, current theory only applies if one postulates a singularity from which the Universe arose.

The big bang defiantly did happen, but God is the one who ignited the match.

That is believed on faith, there is no proof of it.

2: Design Has to Have a Designer

When you see the various aspects of nature, like birds, dogs, trees, and all of nature itself, and all of the specific roles they play you have to wonder how they got like that. We as humans try to copy nature sometimes with the way that we use technology, aerodynamics etc.

We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain. We try to copy and mimic those things by making fake arms and computers and things like that, but we never even get close to a direct copy.

Now this all goes back to the question; well, where does design originate? We'll let me give you an example:

If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?

Science has gone a long way to explain how complexity arises from simple principles, Darwin identified the mechanism by which organisms evolved from simple to more complex species.

3. What Created Life?

Scientists use the term Law of Biogenesis to explain how life works. The way it is explained, is like this:

Law of Biogenesis: "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of its own kind.

Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.

So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.

A supernatural being is not the ONLY explanation, and it is not valid to say that things we don’t fully understand somehow constitute proof of a supernatural being.

4. Moral Law

If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God.

We don't say that when a dog stole a bone from another dog, that dog broke a moral, law no we don't. But we do when it comes to humans. So, at what point did moral law become important.

There is a strong argument for objective morality that doesn’t require a belief in God. Logic cannot answer the question of what we ought to do or the question of whether, in our moral and religious lives, we are encountering a transcendent aspect of reality, and it is only as a matter of faith that one can postulate a supernatural being.

5. Human Reasoning

We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.

This isn’t even in the ballpark of constituting a proof, the premises are just speculative questions, they don’t provide evidence or reasons, and the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Asking questions and then saying God did it isn’t a logical argument.

Created:

2 years ago

2

Posted in:

Republicans Have Built a Cult of Personality Around Trump (businessinsider.com)

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Well, I mean there are a lot of ways I can prove his existence.

No there aren't, faith is belief in things "unseen".

But I was hoping someone else would put in why they don't believe it so I can disprove their argument.

How about I tell you that I'm a believer that recognizes that there is no way to prove His existence, which is why it is a matter of faith, does that work? Then you can show us your "proof", and I can disprove your argument.

Created:

2 years ago

2

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Fauci being hauled off to court to answer for his crimes against the American People.

-->

@Greyparrot

The GOP alleging "conspiracy" and "cover-up", what a big surprise.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Your article in an opinionated article.

That's your opinion

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@ILikePie5

You guys are just saying stupid shit to help the OP make the point, right?
You do realize that without middle America you wouldn’t have food on your table right?

You do realize that without white supremacists, Trump wouldn’t have a movement, right?

2024 Campaign Strategy meeting with a slavery denier and a holocaust denier:
Trump hosted Holocaust denier to Mar-a-Lago club alongside Ye, a week after announcing 2024 run | CNN Politics

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Educated Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans, i.e. Trump voters tend to have a low education.

-->

@Greyparrot

@Wylted

@ILikePie5

You guys are just saying stupid shit to help the OP make the point, right?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

How Young Does Someone Have to be to Choose Their Sexuality?

-->

@Athias

Athias, you've obviously never had a child, any parent can tell you just how preposterous your position is. Children simply aren't viable on thier own, they need a parent or guardian to help them develop into an independent, responsible adult.

Any parent can tell you that what a child wants at age nine isn't what they wanted at eight, and won't be what they want at ten, a nine year old lacks the maturity and simply isn't responsible enough to make such life decisions, at nine they are probably just as likely to feel they are a Unicorn trapped in a human body.

There is a reason that the parent or guardian is legally responsible for raising the child, children are necessarily dependent upon a parent or guardian because they simply aren't capable of surviving on thier own.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@SirAnonymous

I get all that, but it's a matter of serving the Party's agenda, rather than the serving the people, a polarized country is in the politicians interest, it is not in the interest of the people. The task at hand is for the elected officials to work together to serve the people, polarizing, obstruction, divisiveness are politician tools, but they are a betrayal of the people they are elected to serve.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

That may be true from a Trumper point of view, hating the opposition is the entire agenda
Isn't this an ironic statement? You can't possibly be using the word "Trumper" in anything other than a pejorative way in that sentence.

Well duh...in any sentence, the only way to use the word Trumper is in a perjorative way .

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@SirAnonymous

Isn't obstructing pretty much the opposite of effective?
If he was obstructing his own agenda, then yes, it would be. However, if he obstructed the other party's agenda, which he did, then it is effective. Senators and Representatives are elected both to try to pass things they agree with and to stop things they disagree with. When they are in the minority, their primary job is to stop things they disagree with. So if a Senator is successfully obstructing things they disagree with, then they are doing their job and being effective.

That may be true from a Trumper point of view, hating the opposition is the entire agenda, but hey, news flash, Congress is an elected body, in Trump world, politicians are loyal to and represent Trump, but in the real world, politicians are supposed to be loyal to and represent the electorate, obstructing the will of the people isn't the job of our elected lawmakers. Obstruction might be effective for Trump, voter suppression might be effective for Trump, but it is not effective for the people or our country.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in: