Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Ethan did not make this thread. But why let the facts stop you right? You're bench, you can't be wrong.First off congrats on making a bait thread and failing to link to a video that actually works,...
....you're both retarded.
Yeah. You're coming off as super intelligent. How do two people make a thread?
Was calling this a "bait thread" difficult with the bait in your mouth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Is Fanboy Type1?
Nah. I think he's just really young.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Lol. So the point is not what actually happened, but what you think would have happened in some hypothetical scenario?Do you think Fox pundits would spend their time hammering home that nothing has been proven in court if was Obama rather than Trump? We both know the answer to that. And that is the point.
Do you proof-think your posts?
What is it about Trump that makes his haters abandon logic?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it sensible to call my inability to give birth, a "limit"? Is the fact I cannot be a married bachelor a limit?The are both limits and any being that has limits such as this is not unlimited.
This is untrue, and as I said, you have made no effort to show any reasoning why we should consider it true. Just saying it is a limit may work on atheist forums, but here, logic is required of you.
So answer. How are you "limited" by the impossiblilty of you being a married bachelor?
Is it do hard to just admit that you believe in a god who has very definite limits?
It is hard to accept illogical and unsupported assertions. That is what is hard.
Created:
This is untrue, and you have made no effort to show any reasoning why we should consider it true.For that to be a true statement the being in question could not have logical limits because those are limits.
You are playing semantics when you say "logical limits". What is a logical limit? How does it differ from other limits? Is it sensible to call my inability to give birth, a "limit"? Is the fact I cannot be a married bachelor a limit?
The phrase " logical limit" illogical nonsense posing as rationality.
Created:
Posted in:
The point is, is Trump guilty now at Cohen's charge or innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
MSNBC and CNN say he is guilty. Fox says it has not been proven in court. Which news station is correct according to US law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
So what has been the top story on the MSNBC & CNN News website for the past 365 days? Trump. Classic.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Good post, but you are still thinking the size of the rock has a relationship with God's ability to lift it. It doesn't. God can lift all sizes of rocks equally easily. Bigger rocks are not harder for Him to lift. Like the color of the rock, the size is immaterial.
Saying "make a rock larger so that God can't lift it, is logically exactly like saying, "make a rock yellower so that God can't lift it. Neither the size or the color of the rock affect God's ability to lift it.
The question is illogical gibberish.
Created:
Whether weight is linked to God's ability to lift something isn't the issue.
It is the issue if you make the ability to lift a rock the issue.
OK. But this cannot be demonstrated with an irrational example. Thus you have shown no contradiction.The issue is that God cannot be limitless without apparent contradiction.
One can easily leave weight out of it. Can God create a rock that can never be moved, even by Himself?
Inchoherant. "Can never be moved" is not a created quality. You cannot create a contradiction in God by setting up illogical scenarios. The contradiction is in your question, not in God.
If so, can He then later move the rock? If the answer to either question is no, then God has limits. But one cannot answer yes to both questions without a contradiction.
Because the question is irrational homer. It lacks sense. It is self contradicting.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Then you should be ashamed at not being able to address it. You should have learned by now that stupidity is not a good debate tool.This post is as silly as the average Smithereen's comment.
But as it isn't yet illegal, knock yourself out.
Created:
The heavy rock question makes no sense because for it to make sense, the heaviness of the rock must be logically linked with the ability of God to lift it. It isn't.
The question, "Can God make a rock so yellow that He can't lift it?" Is just as stupid. What does the color of a rock have to do with God's ability to lift it? Nothing. The question is stupidity.
What does the weight of a rock have have to do with God's ability to lift it? Nothing. This question too is stupidity.
It just never fails to amaze me that people claiming to have functioning brains cannot see the inherent stupidity in the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Right. And since that didn't happen, it is a non-issue.It hardly takes a constitutional authority to recognize religion walking with government policies violates the establishment clause.
However, assuming the board did discriminate against Phillips...
No assumption needed. The Supreme Court ruled that the board did infact discriminate against Phillips. That must be so hard for you to comprehend.
it does not wash away his discrimination of homosexuals.
This thread is not about that. Plus, he has not been convicted of anything yet, so please curb your irrational bias.
so let us hope he is appropriately called to the carpet this time.
I will hope he wins his case and political correctness is not allowed anywhere near that court. And with Trumps recent additions to the supreme court, the possibility of common sense in the court is increased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
defending immigration policies with religion:
When did the Washington Post become a constitutional authority?
Discrimination is not a religious right.
Neither is it a governmental or atheistic right.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
My bad, One and the same. That is the type who the task force is for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The reality is religious books are not needed to justify actions of a secular government.
Please stop being paranoid and silly. Sessions was not justifying anything. Your fantasy is just that. Fantasy.
If they hold value to you, then fine, but don;t use them to speak for other people who may or may not share your religious views and recognize them as any sort of a justification.
OK. And since he didn't do that, its a non-issue.
That's the problem.
Untrue. The problem, according to the Supreme Court, was a government antagonistic to religious rights. Were you on that California board, you would have validated and approved of their abuse of his religious rights. The supreme court ruled you wrong and in violation of the constitution.
:Being religious is not an excuse to break the law.
And being an anti-theist is not an excuse to violate the religious rights of citizens. Observe, though the supreme court ruled that the California board violated the cake maker's rights, you are completely unconcerned and can see only his alleged violation.
...And now we have a task force to to crack down on those evil non-Christians who don't want to be subject to religious privilege and/or law. That'll fix 'em!
Right. The supreme court was wrong. I have no obligation to respect inane opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
OK. But after you succeed, you can stop trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If he were logical, I would have no problem with it. But he was not using the bible to justify actions of the US government. You just think so and cannot see that your opinion is not reality.So, if Achmed Sessions were to use the Qu'ran to justify actions of the US government, you'd be fine with that? This is not a matter of anti-theism, E.
I'm familiar with the case. The decision of the court was narrow and did not rule on the actions of the baker...
Exactly, because we aren't talking about the actions of the religious. The court ruled that his religious liberty had been abused by the government. Why is a task force to make sure that doesn't happen a wrong move?
You're missing the point. The argument here does not concern the actions of the religious. Your antireligious bias is evident.and he is being sued again for the same stuff (because it's still illegal).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If you were going for anal retentive, you succeeded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
>The only way to "leave the text pristine" is to avoid any translation at all.
Not true. The text is just a vessels for the meaning. Any text carrying the same meaning remains the same.
>Once you translate, you can't help but introduce numerous subtle changes in nuance and meaning.
This is one of the advantages of having a living God. He can affect what happens in the real world.
>From what I understand, in Hebrew all nouns are gendered. If an object has no intrinsic gender, it is typically referred to using the male form. When translating into a language where most nouns are neuter, like English, it is therefore more true to the original text to avoid assigning a gender to God, who has no gender. Or at least that is the argument proponents of a sexless Bible make.
And it would make sense if God were not also referred to as Father.
>Another interesting point is that, while the Old Testament uses the male form when referring to God, it uses the feminine when referring to the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God.
I find these arguments juvenile. Any sensible adult knows gender and sex are traits of God's creation, not God. Questions asking the gender of God invariably are borne of ignorance or guile.
I have time for neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zarroette
How then do you tolerate yourself?I don't have any tolerance for things which are obviously wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Yes, but it is considered bad form to mention people by name. You can point out the faulty argument, even mention the thread, but don't name them.Have you too encountered this reversal of burden?
People trying to switch the BOP is one of those things you will have to live with if you continue debating online.
Created:
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.
How did you reach this conclusion?
Sorry. Ethan never plays obtuse games. There is too little time in life for such games.
If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.
What exactly are you suggesting?
Do or don't. Pontification is not necessary.
I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.
My comment needs no correction.
Sorry. I assumed you preferred your comments to be true. That was rash of me.
Thoughts are born of a reality, not Tabula Rasa.
And still thoughts remain different from reality.
If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.
Not quite. There is a vital distinction.
It doesn't matter in the sense of the writer (i.e. a woman/man writing 1+1=2 is always correct, regardless of gender).
It does matter when considering gender and its place in society.
...and making [gender] matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.
If it is true that making [gender] matter defeats the purpose of a debate site , then your entire OP is nonsense, for you made gender matter.
Forgave me but I have a distaste for doublespeak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The point of the matter is, will the bible be considered authoritative or not?
At DDO, there was this idiot who would deny the verses that said Jesus was innocent at His trial, but would use the very next verse as proof of some other doctrine. He would stupidly call Jesus a lunatic based on a verse saying that someone called Jesus a lunatic, but would deny the author of the book calling Jesus the Savior of man.
If one believes and employs silliness like that, then God can be any gender as your basic position is irrational anyway. One of the best ways to stay away from stupidity is to leave the text pristine.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If men and women were equal, then why would it matter which you were?
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.
If they are not equal (a sane suggestion), what advantage would one have in stating his/her gender?
If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.
I think if one ponders this question thoroughly, a seemingly innocuous request holds a plethora of underlying psychological bias, which is fascinating in an arena designed to be of the cognizant, rather than subconscious.
I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.
It's not necessarily that I want to keep it private, it's that it doesn't matter at all,....
Then I am very lucky that you decided that for me. The question has been withdrawn, what exactly is your issue now?
and making it matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.
If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't care about your religious beliefs - they have no value to me.
Neither does my religious freedom.
I do care about your right to have religious beliefs
No you don't. That is just what you say, but your behavior contradicts your words. Discrepancy.
this has tremendous value to everyone regardless of where they fall on the belief spectrum.
It should have value. But discrepancies.
Hmmmm, just so you know, this would be more than just yourself looking out for your religious freedom
It would be action initiated by me for me. I am the only guarantor of my rights and freedoms.
But...whatever, I'm ok with that.
It would be the same if you weren't "OK" with it, but thank you very much.
...but he is also the same guy injecting his religious views into government business.
This is your personal opinion. Last I checked, the constitution was not interpreted using your personal opinion. Sessions has a whole team of lawyers, and did not create the task force in secret. Your anti-thrism is confusing you.
Clearly, he doesn't understand religious freedom!
It's funny how things are always so clear to the befuddled. Do you not remember the recent case of the cake maker and what the supreme court said about his religious rights being violated by government anti-religious bias?
As Casten suggested (and you agreed,) if he had been of a religion other than Christianity saying and doing these things, there would be outrage. It's a double standard.
And that double standard would have been in the general public. Not in Sessions or me. You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush.
You disagree with Sessions, but fail to see that it is just your biased opinion making you think so, or the many informed professionals who do not think he has done anything wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You don't care abut religious freedom.....attack on religious freedom.
You have no need of a religious freedom task force?
Like I said, your fantasy world is real to you. But my representatives, whom I voted for to create such bodies, would be surprised you were able to come to such a inane conclusion.
If so, we agree.
Of course you do.
What liberals say = We are concerned about attacks on religious freedom.
What liberals do = We don't want any govt action mitigating attacks on religious freedom.
You won't see the discrepancy, but don't worry, we will note it for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Then you didn't need to inform me of how you would take it. But you are welcome.I do not need your permission, but, thanks all the same!
I made no comment on the conversation between you and Castin.
No, but since you were the one butting in, it was incumbent upon you to have something meaningful to add. You had nothing.
It is concerning more people dont see this as a problem and recognize it as a potential attack on religious freedom.
And of course, the way you see it is reality, and all those people who don't agree with you are incorrect.
As an American Christian, I know the only one guarding my religious freedom is me. If it were left to liberals and progressives, I would have no religion, much less freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Harikrish
The thread has nothing to do with Africa or blacks. Racism. Spam. Reported.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Harikrish
This is the 3rd or 4th time you've posted the same thing in the same thread ignoring the post to you. Spam. Reported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zarroette
ravensjt was not disrespectful to you in any way. Why the insult? Do you intend to diminish yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Take it however you like. It's obvious your fantasy life is more real to you than reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So, the OP was accidently placed in the religion forum? ;-)
Not unless you accidentally placed it there and I have false memories of making the thread.
Otherwise, I placed it where I wanted to, and your belief that it was placed where it was by accident is fantasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was having a convo with Castin when you butted in. The actual question is, "Do you have anything meaningful to add to this topic?"
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
To the owners of this forum who put that question in their profile questionnaire, yes.Does it matter?
But I can see you want to keep that private, so I withdraw the question. No offence meant.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Are you female?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You and I aren't strangers.
First, I will keep my comments relevant to me.
Second, I will keep my comments relevant to what you say. You said, "A religion (any religion) being favored by the government eventually diminishes religious freedom for everyone."
This is one of the nice things liberals say that mean nothing to what they do. What I said was relevant to what you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well first, it would indicate that whatever is making cultures all come up with the same thing must be actual in nature. It cannot just be human imagination.Let's say human cultures do need god stories, what would be the significance of that?
Second, it would give us a more full understanding of human nature. That information can inform a host of other disciplines. Medicine, psychology, social studies, criminal law, history, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Cop out. It was the same list. If it was a violation for Trump, it was a violation for Obama too.I don't know the details of Obama's list, or how it actually caused any restrictions on travel.
I don't think it was ever challenged in court.
Of course not. Irrational bias works that way.
The court struck down the first two versions of Trump's ban because they only applied to Muslim-majority countries. The latest version squeaked by because two non-Muslim countries were added: Venezuela and North Korea.
Listen. The version under review by scotus was the first version. That is the version that was found to be constitutional.
And even this version was unconstitutional in the opinion of four justices.
Untrue. Scotus ruled on the first version only. And thank God activist judges were not allowed to railroad the constitution into their politically correct image. The supreme court ruled that Trumps ban was constitutional.
Your moaning about the 4 dissenting judges only shows your contempt for our democratic system. You would gladly violate democracy if it meant you could get rid of Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Is there anything you can tell us Mike? If not, no worries, just curious.
Created:
Posted in:
Me neither, but I do know that Beelzedad dude was a few beers shy of a sixpack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
If simplicity of grammar is your concern, would you be ok with a translation that uses the feminine pronoun for God?
Simplicity of grammar is important, but beauty of grammar, and understandability of grammar are more important. But most important is truth of grammar.
The original script says "he". Translations should be translations, not recreations. I am against any change to Bible text at any time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
So was Obama also guilty of making a list based on religion?
Tell us the part the court struck down that would have been a violation. Can you?
The version the court upheld was version #1. And squeak or no, it was no violation of the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
True, but the public includes teens and immature and uneducated adults. They wouldn't have the self-control even if they understood the stakes.
Both films and the public in general have been increasing in stupidity the last few decades. That trend is unlikely to stop.
Created:
Posted in:
Reminds me of a cartoon where the birds in an aviary remark about their human feeder, "He must have come from a really big egg!"
why should our translation of God's Word the masculine pronoun?
To save the world from monstrosities like this,
''For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish, but have eternal life.''
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
No, I do. What I don't see is Trump's ban being based on religion. It was not.
First, the countries on the ban list were from an Obama list not compiled using religion. Second, the courts allowed it to go into effect, proving it was not a violation.
If it was a violation, why did the court allow it?
Created:
Posted in:
Another question.
If the country is more or less evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, how come Fox news is #1 by such a wide margin?
Do liberals not watch news?
Created: