Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
When did that happen?
Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.
I recall a story from an uncorroborated,....
FLRW did not mention corroboration.
...anonymous and ancient text (of which we have no contemporary version)
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".
...that God spoke to an individual through a burning bush.
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?
If there was another event, especially one witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, please let me know.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?
It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!
Thanks for the validation of my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is it sensible or reasonable to free criminals.....Simply because a barrister was prepared to put their wellbeing on the line and tell the truth?
The answer is different depending on whether you are asking a legal or a moral question.
Legally, the law must be followed, or there is no purpose to the law. She was not supposed to divulge the conversations of her clients to the police.
But is following the law in this case moral?
If she could no longer perform her job legally, she should have quit as a lawyer. She broke the law, and as a consequence, all legal options are bad. While I see your moral case, it would harm society more, and for longer, if the law is not followed.
The police are at fault here too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
I would say speaking to the world through a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show would be valid.
And I will say I'm sure God is going to hop right to it for your believing pleasure.
To the Gentle Reader:
Note that God already spoke to the world through a burning bush, and most militant atheists ridiculed it. And ask FLRW what he would say if someone he was debating used the Jim Banker show as a source.
Why would FLRW believe it was God and not a trick? He does not believe the parting of the Red Sea, or the virgin birth, or the resurrection, why would he believe that? Does he find Jim Baker credible?
Because I cannot honestly address such dishonest silliness without risking a ban, I just make a note to you the Gentle Readers whom I know see the total lack of sincerity in his reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.
Are you telling me that, or are you telling yourself that?
You tried to hold me for what YOU said. I'm telling you.
I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say
This is what I meant when I said you lack basic reasoning.
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.
“Everywhere, including time” is the same as “throughout time.”
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
You agreed with the former but not the latter.
Yes.
Can you explain how they’re substantively different because I sure as hell can’t.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does not flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
But then ethang5 will eventually say you can’t test God.You see, he acts in bad faith. When it’s convenient he’ll go back on his word.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the global flood described in Genesis 6–8.
Attempt by whom? Certainly not Christians.
In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.
Then please go talk to a YEC.
The bible needs no reconciliation unless you first put up false expectations in the geological data and then claim the bible doesn't mesh with your false expectations. I see no reason that the bible must agree with science when science has been consistently wrong over time, and science only claims the best current knowledge anyway, not truth.
So then, telling me in 1970 that "science" had concluded that there was not enough water on Earth for a global flood, would have meant nothing as far as the truth was concerned. Just as your YEC link means nothing now.
The bible isn't YEC, and neither am I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Why is what I think important to you? I don't go to atheist websites and challenge atheists there. I don't care what you believe, and I'm OK with you believing what you want. Why must you convert me to your way of belief?
Your beliefs about Christianity are all built on false information. You don't know the thing you oppose. Why am I saddled with the responsibility of first educating you and then convincing you? You approached me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I think you should be free to believe whatever you like.
I am a Christian. I believe the bible. I know why I believe it, and I can logically defend my beliefs. I am not the silly caricature in your mind of a theist. And I have no interest in correcting you.
We can discuss issues, but this atheist thing where you're supposed to be the great logical authority grilling the illiterate theist is not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh no sir! I've asked YOU that very question, and you dodged.
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
I'm going by the scenario Reece set up. He said there was a dragon in his garage, but he doesn't tell us how he knows this. Now you're asking ME to tell you what credible way he can know! Lol.
The entire scenario is fake. A dragon is a physical being. There is nothing intrinsic in a dragon about being invisible, or intangible. Fire breathing might be, but then your scenario goes and makes the fire not-fire. None of this is true for the Christian concept of God.
We do not postulate a physical God and then deny the physical. Intangibility is inherent in the nature of what God is. We aren't making excuses for why a spirit God cannot be physically perceived, but that is exactly the lie your scenario attempts to substitute for the truth.
The invisible dragon is faux logical fakery, just like the FSM. It's meant to convince neophytes and poor thinkers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Just like the other atheists yammering about there not being enough water on Earth for a flood, you are just ill informed. Allow me to educate you. And you will notice I can think without first having to have some "expert" do it for me.
You don't need a Ph.D. in geology to know that desert dunes and other desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters. These require not only time, but also dry land. The Flood of Noah supplies neither.
But you do need to be able to think on your own. The flood lasted less than 3 years, a length of time insignificant for geological formations.
Several lines of evidence derived from this great geologic formation create difficulties for the flood geology model. For instance, the interfingering of these sandstones with marine sediments shows that the shoreline of this continent advanced and retreated several times.
And why should this create difficulties for the flood geology model? A "model" of your creation I might note.
Thus the desert rocks are entangled with rocks that the flood geology model says were formed within the one-year-long flood.
Not only is your "flood geology model" nonsense, one year would not be enough time for rocks to form, especially with moving water. Your "model" needs work.
Also, redbeds, consisting partly of rust formed above sea level, are also found in this formation. These would not have been formed in any catastrophic flood.
Why not? Exactly how long do you think the flooding lasted?
These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe.
You are confused and overly pedantic. The flood did not cause a climate change, it did not last long enough. A "dry" climate is not broken by 3 years of water. Nothing about Noah's flood says or implies a climate change. Stop setting up strawmen to burn down.
I bet you were one of those atheists who gave the formula for how no intensity of rainfall could produce enough water to cover the peaks of mountains in 40 days until you learned that it was not just rainfall, huh?
And I just know you were one of those atheists who smugly asserted that there was not enough water on Earth for a global flood until science shamed you.
...desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters.
First thing is, desert deposits do not form in a year. Think man. A one year flood is nothing to a 500,000 year geological formation.
Second, who told you there were "roaring flood waters"? Got that from your "model"?
While I have you, let me ask. Do you have any thoughts that are your own? Your entire discourse on Dart seems to be nothing but one citation after another, many of them just walls of text not really addressing the topic.
I've met this before, and while it makes the young and poorly read think you're really smart, it fails with people who can actually think and are not impressed that you can cut and paste a page from the NOVA website.
Just sayin'.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks man!
Wow. An atheist wanting context. Relax twe, I didn't brainwash you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Then he's not really "aware" is he?
And it's you answering, not him. Your experiment is as bogus as they cone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
You haven't asked me to do anything. And while you may be enamored with Mr. Sagan, his invisible dragon is basically infantile logic for sloppy thinkers.
I don't know and I don't care about your dragon, and I have seen no reason from you how this is pertinent to our discussion. If your invisible dragon is supposed to represent God, your analogy is incorrect, for your dragon could represent "thought" or a "black hole". With this sort of thought experiment, your "dragon" must be a faithful representation of God or your entire thought experiment is bogus.
It is silly to require physical evidence for something nonphysical. It is like doubting the existence of black holes because you can't see them. Physical things can be proven with physical tests. Non-physical things cannot.
what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
Well for one, you wouldn't be sprinkling powder on your garage floor if there was no dragon.
The actual logical error Mr. Sagan makes is that he assumes that the "dragon" not being detectable by physical tests, is the same thing as the "dragon" being unable to affect the physical world. There is no logical reason for that assumption. It is a leap of logic.
Mr. Sagan misses the most logical question because of his bias, that even a high schooler would figure out.
Ask the claimant how he became aware of a fire-breathing dragon living in his garage!
This "experiment" is akin to placing a person through multiple brain scans to find out if they are thinking instead of simply asking them if they are thinking! But the "trick" in this thought experiment needs the multiple failed physical tests to divert from the obvious question not being asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.
I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.
I asked:
I know what you asked. The question here is what I said.
“Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?”And this is what you said:
Correct.
Now, if you can show how this implies that God cannot precede everything, I would love to see it.
You also said when referring to God:
And immutable and eternal.
It’s funny how you would nerf God when it’s convenient.
Lol. Don't be a sore loser. You are new to logic and your experience doesn't justify your confidence.
You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.
No, it’s you also.
I don't have to explain anything I did not say. We are on a board that faithfully records what we post. Don't paraphrase me, quote me.
I’m ignoring everything else for practicality sakes
Uh-huh. Practicality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Same to you my godless friend.
...successfully vaccinated New Year.
Thank to President Trump. Operation warp speed.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Make disciples of all the nations", from (Matthew 28:19)
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your dear old Mum sounds like she didn't much like fakery and doublespeak. My kind of girl.
Created:
Posted in:
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally.
I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.
How’s that?
You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.
Let’s stay on one topic. Once you concede this, we can move on.
Lol! I know you'd love me to "concede" something you said, but honesty prevents me. God is the creator of time and does not exist in it. Time rather exists in God.
God is superior to time itself, and does not need it to exist. He is eternal and immutable.
For something to precede, it requires time by definition.
God is not a man, and does not suffer the limitations of men. God existed before time and exists outside of time. Do not confuse the limitations of human language for the attributes of God. God precedes everything, even time itself.
You will have to find your concession somewhere else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what about Pennsylvania then?.....You did mention Philly a while back.
I was born in Philly and currently live there with my better half. I am retired so within the limits set by Mrs. Ethan, my time is pretty much free.
Work part time as a delivery driver, renovate our cottage, walk the dog a lot and cycle a lot.
Sounds idyllic. And the Welsh countryside is beautiful.
The days fly by.
The always have. Very soon, I'm going to be kneeling before my great and wonderful King. It's going to be awesome!
Created:
What do you know? The atheist broke his spamming finger and ran away.
Created:
Posted in:
Hmmm. Seth ran away when the truth of the bible was irrefutable.
...in order for the noah flood myth to be true it would require 3 times the amount of water on and in the Earth.
And by coincidence, scientists say there is 3 times the water in the Earths mantle as in all the Earth's oceans! What do you want to bet that the atheist will find another reason why the Noah story can't be true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That after 2,020 years you have not a clue between you all...
Is it me or does every single one of Stephens threads end with him making this conclusion no matter what replies he gets?
Why does a person not get bored posting the same lame thread and making the same lame conclusion over and over?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
He did that in a couple of his socks. Sometimes pretending to be theist (but his militant anti-theist can't be hidden) at other times, a virulent atheist.
He was quiet during my time away so I can only conclude that his fixation is with me and not just Dart. It's difficult to see who has the more pathetic life, him or hari.
Where are their families?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Correct. I mentioned Kansas, not that I lived there.
Other than count sheep, what do you do in Wales?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Lol. Yeah, I see you managed to find me in the politics forum. Be careful Stephen might get jealous.
Do you want to know where I live Zed? It seem quite important to you. It's currently 1:30 am where I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Before I answer Danielle, I would like to know if you think the same requirements should apply to lawyers and their clients.
It seems to me that the only pedophiles who would seek out a religious authority to "confess" are ones dissatisfied with their criminal conduct. This law targets only the least vile of these criminals.
We just need common sense. Known homosexuals should not have unfettered access to male children. We already do this for men (assumed hetero) and little girls.
And no, I am not saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, but a sexual attraction to a certain gender is reason enough for the restrictions. Why else are men restricted from women rest rooms? Hetero men are not up in arms about the public's assumption that little girls need to be protected from them. Why should homo men feel picked on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is someone stopping you? Go sleep. We'll miss you but we'll survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
No. God is not synonymous with religion. God is superior to, and precedes, all.
God precedes all?
Correct.
So God does not precede all?
Sorry, I only do logic.
No comment about how you were wrong? OK
How was I wrong?
You claimed:
[I ] would probably agree and accept what [you're] about to say in different circumstances.
I did not agree, and there is no circumstance where God would be the same age as the worship given to Him by His creation. You were wrong.
You also said, "So yes, I’m capable of fully understanding what people believe better than they do themselves.
Not if you were wrong and illogical in the process. You aren't capable of fully understanding what people believe better than they do themselves.
By the way it will probably be better if we focus on one issue at a time.
You were wrong first. I am dealing with each issue as it comes up. But I understand why you want to side step this issue. Carry on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What's a demented soul?
A Trump voter?
Is that the current scientific consensus? Because I was asking for actual reality, not, "what we think today that might change tomorrow."
And are demented souls (Trump voters) worse than evil spirits (Biden voters)? I guess we'll know after minority employment drops back to dismal and poor people think they have to keep being evil spirits to keep their welfare checks coming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
OK, but his point that we get little value for the taxes we pay, fully addresses HB claim that we pay relatively low taxes. Factor in value for money, our taxes are sky high. Fully half of Americans paying taxes hardly benefit from those taxes. They are funnelled to low income people who do not pay taxes.
And as the current spending bill shows, even funnelled to foreign countries instead of the American people. Gender studies in Pakistan????
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That doesn't address my point...
I thought it did.
...but it informs a more effective way of brain washing for the person to be aware that they used to think differently and their mentality was "corrected"...
Good point. Except that we are talking about high school kids, they are pretty much blank slates. They have no clue they are being brainwashed because they enter the school system knowing nothing.
...personally I see the man as a mixed bag.
Thank you for validating my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You wrote,
HB: Our taxes are not that high for a first world countryGP: Yeah well taxes used to be uniform and a lot lowerOne day GP will respond to someone without a red herring. Today is not that day.
GP said his response to HB's point about high taxes was not his main point, but he did respond to what you noted HB said. You just picked another one of his responses and implies he had not responded to HB's comment. He did.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I've only heard of Charles Darwin when I enrolled myself in college this year.
Interesting.
But you have an interest in literature, like to read philosophy opinions, frequent the Dart philosophy forum, and have a current reading list of Hume, Aristotle, and Butler. Amazing that you missed Darwin with such an impressive past.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Typically, people being brainwashed do not know they are being brainwashed. And in the best brainwashing, the brainwashed will insist that they were never brainwashed.
The BLM high school crowd wanted to cancel Abraham Lincoln as a "slaver". Think any of them will see their brainwashing?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A Madrassa for example
The US dept of education does not allow Madrassas as schools. Though I'm sure liberals would love it. Multiculturalism and all.
And I don't know about Welsh Schools.....I was educated in England.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
But I'm pretty certain that both curricula, put forwards the modern idea of Hominids of the species Homo Sapiens.
At least you know that about Welsh schools.
What on Earth do they teach in U.S. nodding donkey Academies?
Pretty much everything you espouse here. You could be a teacher there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I think that I suggested that one opinion displayed a poor level of wisdom...If that's what you mean.
That is your stock reply to every theistic opinion.
Hardly ranks as hypocrisy.
Sure, if that was your only post, and if you didn't at the same time think so highly of your vacuous posts.
There won't be many honest souls on this site who would agree that "crock of shite" is a pearl of wisdom.
Your opinion of what an "honest soul" would think. Don't worry, you won't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I guess it's not mocking and celebrating when the outraged SJW mentions Christians being killed. Ah, liberal logic! HistoryBuff also thought it was "spreading rumors" only when I ask about a story.
But I see you're still managing to mention TS in every post of yours to me. Untreated obsessions get worse and worse. You know that right?
Don't try and wave this away as insignificant in relation to that vile and disgusting, thoughtless comment.
You are insignificant Stephen. What you think of my comment even less so.
You are damn right I am "outraged", you sick little puppy!
Yawn. And?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
God precedes all?Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?
Correct.
No comment about how you were wrong? OK.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Some schools teach kids that a specific god is real and that he knocked the World together in his extra-universal workshop in a matter of days, just a few thousand years ago.
Schools in Wales must suck.
What can you do, hey?
Send your kid to a US public school where they will teach them they are monkeys, life has no purpose, and pass out condoms to 8 year olds. You can do that.
Perhaps they should keep fairy stories for story time.....Just a thought.
Liberals would howl their rage. The best solution for sensible parents is to send their kids to a credible private school that does not hire libtards as teachers.
Created:
Lol.
I tried to respond earlier but traffic to your thread was too high.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That is what you say in virtually every post you make to the religion board.
My response: eh
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Like saying that an opinion is not valid unless it is my opinion.....Sort of thingIs that what you mean?
Nope. No opinion is valid.
Nonetheless all opinions are valid, even if we might think that they are a "crock of shite".....In my opinion.
Yet your treatment of other peoples opinions sharply differs from how you treat yours. But hypocrisy.
Forum cross over as it were.
When Stephen reports it, bribe the mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I can only see her behavior, but she might be better than you even genetically. My money would be on her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And far too many sheep in Wales, for me to be worrying about Jihadists
Mffft! Wales is England for all practical purposes.
My body is unblemished.
How dare you call inking, blemish! You are going to lose your libtard credentials. Then labor will have one less vote when they again try to import thousands of backward peasants from some prehistoric culture. Be careful!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You really are disgustingly fkn ignorant at times aren't you. You will say just about anything as long as it serves you as a response.
The perpetually outraged SJW is outraged again.
Those "sheep" you mention also happen to be hundreds of thousands of Christians that are being murdered all over the fkn globe by jihadists.
Christians get murdered every day. How is the observation of the reality that they do an insult?
You was bragging not long ago how Christianity was expanding in African and the east,...
Why would I be bragging? I didn't cause the expansion. I was just mentioning it correcting those who were saying Christianity was in decline.
yet here you are mocking & deriding - if not celebrating - the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gods Christian "sheep".
Just noting that Christians die is mocking and celebrating? You liberals sure are detached from reality.
I think you are ill, I really do.
You aren't I'll at all. Your behavior here is stable, polite, and logical. ; )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And yet you're awake worrying about jihadists. Tsk, tsk.
You are more likely to die from an infection gotten from your tattoo. Relax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Darwin is a crock of shite......Yep an opinion, if you like.
You know opinions can be true, right?
But I've never expressed the opinion that the Bible is a crock of shite.
You've never had to. You called it fakery.
I've always accepted the bible for what it is in my opinion.
I'm sure Christians the world over are relieved, your opinion being so important.
And I've always accepted that others have an alternative opinion.
Yet your behavior was different from that of Jane, who actually accepts that others have alternative opinions. Strange huh?
Disagreeing with alternative opinions is what it is.
Everything is what it is. Did you come up with that yourself?
And "crock of shite is what it is" and in my opinion clearly says a lot about janesix.
It doesn't say anything about her that your comment doesn't say about you. It is her behavior that makes her different from you. There is no hypocrisy between her comment and her behavior. You can't boast that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hey Mr Ethan your starting to backslide.....Ease up on the personal attacks....As it will only end up with another 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness..
Thanks Z-man, but you and Willows put way more value in ability to post here than I do. That is why the mods act as if they are Smeg, sitting on a treasure.
And are you up late or up early..... Are the thoughts of all those Syrian Jihadists keeping you awake?
Why would any sort of jihadist keep me awake? Most of the world is not as run over with jihadists as England is. Only sheep or soldiers get killed by jihadists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But I am wondering, how many people can a mental patient be obsessed with at one time?
I don't know.
It's certainly at least 2.
Forcing me to remind you of your own misdemeanors and out right abuse and disregard for forum rules when you single out members for what you consider to be a breach of the forum rules, is not spamming.
Your ban for spamming was probably not deserved then.
Yet you seem oblivious to your own hypocrisy and double standards.
But you can see it right? Keep trying to "remind" me. Perhaps your spam will one day do more than clutter up the board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oops! I meant the fake account holder, not you. Can you imagine someone with 33 fake accounts calling anyone else fake?
Your expertise is in hypocrisy, not fakery. My bad.
Created: