Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
I am aware.
Good, then you should know you can't "counter" a fact.
And it is the whole reason that I created this thread addressing your point and countering it too.
Your thread doesn't "counter" my claim. It validates it.
Your just to dumb to recognise that.
So your claim that Islam will one day be #1 "counters" my claim that Christianity is #1 now? Lol, and you actually call other people dumb?
I haven't contradicted the fact - your fact - that Christianity is the leading religion in the world - at this time.
We know. You claim to have "countered" it. One wonders what definition of "counter" you're using.
I have also addressed your question of why it has lasted for over 2000 years on your own thread but you are pretending that you haven't seen my responses here...
I saw it and I laughed at it's childish simplicity.
Two photos show Sunday morning services in churches in East London
I can show you regular church services of 5,000 people, and they have 2 services every morning. Finding a place like London where Christianity is dwindling does not counter my point. It just shows you're desperate to be right. But you aren't.
I honestly would like to believe that. But Christianity is being out bred by Islam in nearly every country in the world and at a rate of 14 to 1 in Britain alone.
Just do the math. At the rate (and it is a rate, not the number of people) it would take Islam 300 years to equal Christianity. You probably just don't know what "rate" is. Let me educate you OK?
Let's say Islam had 4 people and Christianity had 10,000. If Islam grew at a yearly rate of 50%
It would have added only 2 more people for a total of 6 people. If Christianity, in that same year grew, at a rate of only 10%, a full forty percent less than Islam, it would have added a thousand believers to Islam's 6. You are so emotionally eager to trash Christianity, and so ignorant of math, you ran ahead without critical thought.
Let us see your evidence for that bs cliam?
Its in the bible. But you don't know the bible. One wonders why you keep trying to pontificate on a subject you know very little about.
This is a lie.
I knew you would soon call something a lie. You seem to think "truth" is only the very little you know.
Get used to it sunshine your time is up.
Not quite Abdul. Christianity is #1now, and will remain #1 long after you're gone. Jesus rolls like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@PGA2.0
My Swag, that was a good post!
And you'll keep waiting PGA. I think some claims are made simply for their "outrage" value. Nothing else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
His posts actually prove that he is aware of my point but can't address it, so he goes the usual dodge way.... "Not Yet!"
The total population of Europe is 800 million people. Christianity has 1.2 Billion more believers than Islam. Simple math tells us that if the Muslim population of the entire Europe should double today, Christianity would still be #1.
...his point was how Christianity seems to be in every region successfully while other religions are not
They NEVER want to talk about that Doc. In 3,000 years, Hinduism has largely failed to move past the dry Indian valley of its birth. 76% of Muslims are in the middle east. 92% of Muslims are in Asia. Christianity is #1 seven of the seven continents! How many Muslims are there in Japan? Argentina? Chile? Negligible.
The funny thing is, if Christianity was like other religions in being geographically and culturally limited, atheists would be saying that a message truly from God would not be influenced by mere difference in geography or culture. And if Christianity wasn't #1, the same atheists would be asking why it wasn't #1 if it is really the truth.
For a thousand years doofuses have been predicting the death of Christianity. But new converts in India, China, and Africa alone will keep Christianity at #1 for a long, long time.
But though my claim is true, Jesus told us that the number of Christians would dwindle to almost nothing before He returned. This is as it should be, so Christians will not be surprised or made despondent by it. The game was over the moment Jesus said, "It is finished!" on the cross 2,000 years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
In your case, you've directly lied and dodged the same question for several posts now. This indicates that you are dishonest.
First, you have answered none of my questions. I have told no lies, unless you believe lies are whatever contradicts you. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite. You will ignore thousands of libtards roaming the streets and then have a cow over Trump not wearing a mast at a rally.
Does trump "desperately want people be well" given his callous approach to Covid-19?
My answer was, "Trump desperately want people to be well." You add in your personal opinion of a "callous approach to Covid-19" and then pretend your opinion is fact. Trumps approach has not been callous. Your TDS is what makes you confuse your opinion for fact.
I would call you a hypocrite....
It would not help you if you did. The hypocrisy of the left about excusing demonstrations while trying to condemn Trump is common knowledge.
...but you would obviously already know this given that you are a master of detecting hypocritical behaviour.
Dealing with libtards makes one a master of detecting hypocritical behaviour quickly.
I saw your loony interpretation, I did not see Trump say it. Which is why you dodge again.
In other words, I did not say it.
You could not. Trump did not sat anyone should ingest disinfectants, and you cannot post where he said so. The post where you made that false claim has your loony interpretation yes, but it doesn't contain any comment from Trump saying people should ingest disinfectants. So did not say it, yet you claimed it. That, my morality challenged friend, is commonly referred to as a lie.
Nice copout. Or in other words, I have not and you cannot provide evidence against it.
You have not what? You called yourself a liberal, does that not mean you subscribe to the touchstone positions of liberalism? Words mean things slick.
(Have you noticed Gentle Reader, that liberals tend to hide their true full positions during debates?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I keep expecting that someone, sometime is going to follow up the statement by example of why they think Trump is a threat to democracy, but they never do. So, why are they so shy?
Their belief is not based on empirical fact, but emotional liberal dogma. Every prediction they made about Trump at his gaining the office has proven false, yet the go right on as if a record of 100% wrong matters not.
For them, it's liberal dogma, not reality, that matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I consider myself a liberal and I embraced the Letter in Harper's the other day in the spirit I think it was intended.
You may try to gloss it over, but Obama said exactly what conservatives have been saying is wrong with liberals for years.
Did you hear of the secondary row about J.K. Rowling being accused of insensitive remarks about transgendered folks and several people who signed the letter recusing themselves from endorsing the letter because she is a signatory?
Talk about cancel culture run amok.
(PS. I was using the political definition of liberal.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Ludo
Your reply states clearly you're convinced she feels something (love for you) because you feel her love.
Just as I'm convinced she said something because I hear her voice. Is that illogical to you?
You then go on to cite various physical verification of her presence, which is more a case of that she is there. If you're not trying to convince anyone, why are you on a debate site?
I am here on the religion board first to commune with other Christians, than to learn of different points of view, and to defend Christian doctrine. You approached me with questions.
There are plenty of Jesus Love sites,...
This isn't a Jesus love site. It's a religion board. And I am religious. Why are you here? No "nothing love" sites?
...and you probably won't get banned every couple of weeks from those.
I am dissatisfied with a life of mediocrity. Having nothing worth dying for is having nothing worth living for.
I think I'll survive being banned from a little inconsequential site in the boondocks of the net. But its nice that you care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What makes you think that I am terrified?
Your post #59.
If Christianity could be proven to be an accurate hypothesis that would be an enlightening experience, rather than terrifying.
You claim Christianity has not proven to be an accurate hypothesis, thus it is NOT an enlightening experience, rather, a terrifying one. See, I pay attention to what you say.
And what do you think that it is, that terrifies me?
The reality of God. The same thing that terrifies all of you militants and peoples you to come to a religion board and set up a homestead. A living God is a terror. I get your fear.
And what is your board?
This is a religion board. You are an atheist. You say religion is myth, false, irrational. Yet here you sit, day after day.
Maybe you think that Jesus and Mrs Ethan love you and that you love them....But other than within your head, your thoughts are meaningless.
I agree. Jesus though, is not. And I give meaning to the love of Mrs. Ethan. Christians have been the ones telling you atheists that other than within your head, your thoughts are meaningless. Yet you keep telling us your thoughts. Who cares? You must, cause you're here asking me about it.
There is a reason your worldview is fringe Z-man.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well the reality is, that our only reality resides only between our ears....Which is also the only place where your "Majesty" exists....Think about it.
I have, and I rejected it as self-contradictory nonsense. The reality between your ears is just your perception caused by the reality outside your head. The reality outside your head resides outside your head, which is why the world remains when you sleep.
And America is a nation of sub-groupings...
I said I did not live in a liberal society. Address the points put to you.
Just as you and I were corrupted with ideology
Speak for yourself. You were corrupted with illogical nonsense.
And you avoid group thinking, yet continually argue for the success of the Christian group and the conservative group.
I argue for reason and logic. Whoever agrees with me is incidental. "Groupthink" doesn't mean you are never a member of a group, but that you do not allow your thinking to be determined by the group.
You've admitted being terrified at His excellency, King Jesus. You should be. But thinking He is only your imagination will not invalidate Him. When an ostrich sticks his head in the sand, the world doesn't disappear.
Created:
Posted in:
I see you missed that point too.
What point would that be? My argument is that Christianity is #1. How does this make that untrue?
You as Christians are being out numbered 14 to 1 in Europe by Muslims and Islam
Untrue. But still, my claim is correct. There are more than twice as many Christian as Muslims. Address that truth.
So the the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 28 October 312 AD is why Christianity is #1 all over the world almost 2,000 year later? >>chortle!!<< OK Mr. "Researcher".
Yes.
>>chortle!!<< OK Mr. "Researcher".
You would think that in 2,000 years, someone would have been able to duplicate that feat.
No matter what non-sequitur you post, the fact is that not only does Christianity have more believers, but that Christianity is far more geographically, and culturally diverse.
A little research would educate you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
...obviously it's nicer if you're honest that you do it.
Yes. The conservative is always lying. Only you can never show his lie, and when he asks you pointed questions, you dodge answering. One of us is being dishonest true.
It's really just the intellectual dishonesty.
Yet I can and have answered all your questions and you've dodged answering mine. Ducking questions is a classic sign of dishonesty. But I will still beat you, even if you run away from my questions.
Do the BLM demonstrators want people to be well?
What does this have to do with the assertion that trump "desperately wants people to be well"?
I want to show your hypocritical dishonesty. Do you condemn BLM demonstrators for the same behavior you're condemning Trump for? No, you don't. So you had to dodge that question. But the Gentle Reader sees you dodge. That is all I need.
Perhaps post the post where I made the claim that he did.
I saw your loony interpretation, I did not see Trump say it. Which is why you dodge again.
I've made none of those claims or have stated none of those positions.
In other threads you have. You are a blazing liberal. Even now, you can't deny any of those positions. And again, you dodged every question.
Why you snowflakes think dodging questions is a winning ploy, I'll never know. If this was court, you would be forced to answer, but as I said, I'll beat you anyway. Readers will form their own beliefs on why you will not answer question.
But anyone with experience of liberals will know its because your worldview is riddled with contradictions and irrationality, and thus cannot afford to allow it to be examined.
You won't answer questions, so I see no value in continuing this exchange. I've beat you on the topic. Yes, I know you'll disagree even as you dodge questions. Eh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So in otherwords, you've made up what you think his intentions are, and then you've made up what you think his clarification towards his intentions are?
No. You do that. I just take what he says.
Why not just accept words as they appear?
I do. Your TDS makes you see what's not there.
It must be difficult in life to treat everything with such hostile scrutiny.
What am I treating with hostile scrutiny? Your take on what he said? That's "everything"? It isn't hostile scrutiny. I simply dismiss what you say because I have his actual words and it is clear he did not say what you claim he said. That's why you could not answer any of the questions in my posts to you. I answered all of yours.
I was only pointing out that your assertion that trump "desperately wants people to be well" is obviously false without any additional qualifiers.
Do the BLM demonstrators want people to be well?
I was always under the assumption that trump supporters looked towards his actions rather than his rhetoric. To what do you base your support on when you apparently ignore both?
The only thing you're always under is TDS. Here, you will dodge, but it will still cause you some cognitive dissonance. Post the sentence where Trump said we should ingest disinfectants. See? You can't do it, and yet, you think it. I bet you're easily hypnotizable.
I think you're confusing discourse with forcing people into political opinions.
You want Trump to wear a mask. I can guess you want Brazilians to stop cutting down trees in the Amazon rain forest. You want kids to stop drinking colas. You want other people to pay for abortions. You want all immigrants to be allowed into the country. You want me to embrace homosexuality. You want everyone to be vegetarian. You want our guns confiscated. You want us to refer to men as "she".
Is that discourse or trying to force people into your political opinions? Are laws against " hate speech" discourse? Is forcing us to pay for your abortion discourse?
It's one thing to think electric cars are better for the environment, it's yet another thing to want to ban my car and close down all petrol companies. What did I miss?
Believe what you like, but why must you liberals use laws, social coercion, and cancel culture to force others to bend to your political opinions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You're convinced your wife feels something because YOU feel it?
No. I'm convinced my wife loves me because I've felt her love. The sense of feeling is like our other senses. When I see, hear, smell, or taste something, I tend to believe its there. Do you often doubt and disregard your senses?
I'm not doubting your wife loves you. I'm just curious as to why you're convinced she does,
What can I say. When I see her form, I'm convinced she's there. When I hear her voice, I'm convinced she spoke, when I feel her love, I'm convinced she loves me. How is it different for you?
...and saying "well I feel that she does so it must be true" is all you've offered for both Jesus and your wife.
That isn't what I said. I did not say, "I feel she does." I said I feel her love. Just like I see her grace. And smell her scent. And hear her voice. I'm talking about my senses, not about what she does.
How did you know that Jesus loved you, what did you find so convincing?
I've told you. His love. He loved me, and it made me want to love Him back. His love felt great, and I wanted more. I'm not "offering" you anything, I'm not applying for your belief. I'm answering your questions. Your belief or disbelief makes no difference to the reality of Jesus' love for me. Though I wonder why you would doubt one of my senses.
Jhn 7:17 - If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself
Jhn 10:14 - “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me —
Jesus Christ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So why did he backtrack over his statements and label them as sarcasm if this was his intent?
Because Trump knows nothing he could say, and I do mean absolutely nothing, would satisfy the fake news media. He was again trolling you. We who aren't suffering under TDS know this, and we are greatly entertained. He didn't backtrack. What he said meshed with my first answer to you. You think he "backtracked" because you think your interpretation was correct. It wasn't. So, yes, his statement was not what YOU thought he first said, but he can only back tract from his position, not from the one YOU THOUGHT was his position.
So he holds a rally in the midst of a pandemic and refuses wear a mask?
Where is your righteous indignation when BLM comes out end mass during demonstrations? How many people get close to Trump at rallies? Notice now that its the young getting infected? But as always, your laser-like focus is on one guy not wearing a mask, as you ignore thousands roaming the streets "in the midst of a pandemic," and now causing infection rates to spike.
And again, Trump is not a progressive liberal. He doesn't want to force everyone else into his political opinion. But you do. Don't you guys ever tire of being outraged over everything? How are you able to sustain such a constantly high level of petty outrage?
Trump knows that no matter what he says, the libtards will twist and misrepresent it, so he simply trolls the MSM. On twitter, he can say what he wants without it going through the libtards filter. Other times, he just tosses the libs for lolz.
Go, hate Trump and prosper. I think he's the best President we've had since Reagan. And he may prove to be greater. Go vote for Biden. You'll lose, but this is America, even losers get a vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
- Are you really that slow that you cannot work that out for yourself?
I may be asking to see if you know, not because I don't know. But for you, your opinion is fact right?
In fact , simply being born of Muslim parents makes one "born" Muslim according to Muslims
Why are you babbling about what Muslims believe?
Try some research, you may be able to answer some of your own silly and simple questions.
So the the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 28 October 312 AD is why Christianity is #1 all over the world almost 2,000 year later? >>chortle!!<< OK Mr. "Researcher".
Christianity would have died a death had it not been for Rome making it its national religion.
Ancient India, China, and Egypt had national religions too. Christianity is the dominant religion on every continent, including Antarctica. The Roman empire died hundreds of years ago and did not touch much of Africa or Asia.
Your answer is glib, and needlessly caustic, the traits of ignorance. But thanks for playing. And remember, sometimes the questioner knows the answer, but wants a discussion. This is a discussion board, if you can see past your petty bitterness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I felt that love. Just as I did for Jesus. Now years later, I have more proof, but I love Jesus because He first loved me.
Created:
Posted in:
Open Letter On Cancel culture
...censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.
The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
A huge list of famous notable liberals in academia and literature signed this open letter. Look at it and see how many of them you recognize.
Obama on Call-Out Culture: ‘That’s Not Activism’
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of: ‘The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people,’” he said, “and that’s enough.”
“Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb,” he said, “then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.’
“That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change,” he said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Mr. Obama said. “You should get over that quickly.”
“Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb,” he said, “then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.’
“That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change,” he said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Mr. Obama said. “You should get over that quickly.”
(Liberals didn't know what to do with this rebuke from their darling!)
It seems like liberals are getting fed up with liberalism. Antifa is burning down their buildings, demonstrators are surrounding their homes and businesses, they are losing jobs and contracts to cancel culture, and they can't get a cop when they need one. political correctness is out of control and is correcting even liberals. They don't like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Trump wondered if it would not be great if we could get something inside the body that treated the virus like disinfectants do. Knock them out. He is not a doctor, and was not pretending to be one. He was not offering medical advice. He was simply wondering like any leader would be at watching his fellow countrymen die.
I listened to the panic porn of the BBC, MSNBC and CNN as they went into a froth faking their interpretation for what Trump said. It obviously worked on some of you, because even the actual transcript doesn't jar you back to sanity.
Trump's statements around injections referred to something in general that could "knock out the virus inside the body"
Trump's comment referred to something that had a similar effect on the virus as disinfectants do. What is so strange or weird about that? He did not say anyone should ingest anything. He suggested it should be under proper medical supervision. What exactly is your issue?
Trump's later quote seems to show that disinfectants on the inside was the correct interpretation.
Trump wondered if we could devise something that had the same effect inside the body as disinfectants do outside. I would suggest that such wonderings are at the root of all medical advances.
Your TDS, bolstered by the fake news MSM needs your narrative to be true. Why?
The sad thing is, even if Trump was ignorant and or wrong, his Intent was honorable. He desperately wants people to be well. But all the perpetually outraged liberals see is their hatred of Trump. They care more about hating Trump than the lives of real people.
What are you and the fake news media trying to prove? That Trump isn't a doctor? We know. That Trump is ignorant? How does that help the country? People are dying by the thousands and you lot are franticly consumed with an off the cuff wondering of a distraught leader.
How do you not see the derangement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was not conditioned as you were, therefore Christianity is not convincing....
Critical thinking and logic play no part eh? Just how one was "conditioned"?
If Christianity could be proven to be an accurate hypothesis that would be an enlightening experience, rather than terrifying.
Of course, again, you leave out the, " to me".
Perhaps underneath you're conditioned facade it is you who are are terrified,...
Lol! You are the one freely admitting he is terrified, but you conclude you're not terrified, but the ones so content you have to come attack them on their board, are? Rich.
..because you are patently aware that the fundamental truth, is that belief is not actually proof.
Neither of us has said belief is proof. Maybe your terror is what is hindering your understanding.
Both Jesus and my wife love me. I asked neither of them for "proof" of that love. What sort of "proof" did your wife offer you?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
...in comparative terms The U.S.A. is an extremely liberal society...
Compared to whom? America can also be said to be extremely conservative society in comparative terms. So what?
...And you benefit thus...
Nonsense. I benefit from obeying the rules of His Majesty Jesus Christ and keeping commonsense about me. I avoid group-think and faddish political correctness. Finally, I work, ant that benefits me. The "liberal society" in America wants to corrupt my children, tax me to death, and deny my values in favor of liberal idiocy like multiple genders, multiculturalism, and abortion.
And I would suggest that...
Yeah, yeah, I know what you suggest, and I'll keep telling you, your opinions are not facts. Reality doesn't reside between your ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Even liberals agree that it is liberals who use identity politics. Obama recently acknowledged this and admonished liberals to stop doing so.
Well, honest liberals at least.
If you can label and dismiss every disagreement as, "Only people that disagree with me politically...", you must win a lot of arguments unilaterally. Congrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Why would it?
Look man. I don't really care that you have TDS. And I know the futility of trying to get a liberal suffering under TDS to actually answer questions in order to show him how he's deranged.
I'm not a progressive liberal, so I do not need people with different political beliefs than me to change. You are welcome to eat meat, or sugar. I don't want you to stop smoking, I don't want to take away your guns. I do not want to force you to pay for abortions. I do not want to force you to refer to men as "she". You are welcome to my college campus to speak on any topic you like.
Trump has trolled you guys for nearly 4 years, and you're so wrapped up in your social justice warriorhood, you don't get it. He's clowning you. Stop trying to clone everyone into little liberal lemmings. People will resist looniness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Anyone can be convinced of anything.... Education, conditioning, brainwashing.... call it what you will.....Still doesn't prove anything though.
It proves the method used to convince is.....convincing. Why that truth is difficult for atheists escapes me.
Some education, conditioning, and brainwashing don't work. They aren't convincing. You are terrified that if you concede that Christianity is convincing, you will be conceding that it's true. But fear is never a good basis for an argument.
"Convinced" really is a shallow basis for a religious belief.
Conviction is not the basis for my belief, and I don't know why you would think it was. All I did was state an obvious, objective truth, "Christianity is convincing. It's relative success at convincing people is proof that it is eminently convincing."
Do you think this is incorrect?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that despising liberals whilst simultaneously basking in the comfort of a liberal society is somewhat contradictory, if not hypocritical.
I don't live in a liberal society. You're the one who thinks his liberal bubble is the world. Come November, you and the other bubbleboys will get another shock from the real world.
If brexit and Boris, were not enough for you, reality has more shockers in store. Keep holding that scrap of paper in your hand Mr. Chamberlain, facts don't care about your feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
See PGA? The fact that Zed thinks I must have travelled time to know about the thousands of copies found all over the world from different times shows he hasn't a clue about his chosen subject. Thanks for the post, you are always a wealth of useful information.
It is clear to me now why God revealed the bible the way He did, the slow revelation, the various newer found copies validating the older. The gradual building of verification from multiple translations, many times, and many cultures. The bible is validated much better that way than if He had just had us get it at once from the ancients.
You and I know that the resurrection is a historical fact. And though the bible's validation was enough for me, I now have personal experience of my risen Lord.
Up from the grave He arose!
With a mighty triumph over His foes!
He arose to victory from the dark domain,
And He lives forever with His saints to reign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well yeah, unless they do it for no reason. I'm not discarding that as a possibility by the way.
They who? Everyone knows it's liberals who employ identity politics, and everyone knows why they do. Everyone except Castin that is.
Created:
Posted in:
Why is that complicated?
Who uses identity politics?
Homo sapiens.
Actually, Homo neanderthalensis used identity politics too.
The bastards.
Nice dodge, but now you can't pretend you don't know why it's complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
For some reason this health crisis is being looked at through the lens of identity politics,...
For some reason???
Why is that complicated?
Who uses identity politics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.
Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record.
Exactly PGA. When ever an atheist says scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, I'm astounded at their lack of knowledge.
If scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, the thousands of manuscripts we've found from over several ancient time periods could not be as consistent as it is. Many authors were dead long before others scripted their copies, many were from different countries, cultures, and of different languages.
What do you say to someone who displays a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the topic on which he's pontificating?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
...the "all hospital heroes" deflection. it's as old as the "think of the children" deflection
But not as funny.
Created:
Posted in:
What is "gun control"? Has anyone ever heard a gun control supporter say exactly what gun control is?
Here are some obvious, common sense thoughts.
1. Criminal behavior cannot be controlled. It's why its called criminal behavior in the first place. So effectively, gun control advocates are talking about controlling the guns of law abiding citizens, not the guns of criminals.
2. Gun control advocates want laws to make guns harder to get. But those laws affect only legal means of getting guns. Illegal means are outside the law. So effectively, gun control advocates are talking about making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, not harder for criminals to get guns.
3. Gun control advocates say if we ban abortions, otherwise law abiding citizens would break the law and get abortions. Thus, they argue, a law banning abortions would increase the total number of abortions.
How does this argument NOT work for guns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
For some reason this health crisis is being looked at through the lens of identity politics,...
For some reason???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
All true Rod.
And though it is difficult to get atheists to see the difference, I never use this argument about numbers and truth. I'm talking about "convincibility." It is not an argument about the truth of Christianity, but it's effectiveness at convincing people.
And I use this argument only when an atheist says or implies that Christianity is irrational/unconvincing.
I have encountered the minority elitism argument before. It may sometimes be viable when it comes to truth, but it fails if the atheist claims that more convinced people means that an idea is less convincing. That is self contradictory.
But it's almost impossible to get them to see that the subject is "effectiveness at convincing", and not "truth".
And though it is difficult to get atheists to see the difference, I never use this argument about numbers and truth. I'm talking about "convincibility." It is not an argument about the truth of Christianity, but it's effectiveness at convincing people.
And I use this argument only when an atheist says or implies that Christianity is irrational/unconvincing.
I have encountered the minority elitism argument before. It may sometimes be viable when it comes to truth, but it fails if the atheist claims that more convinced people means that an idea is less convincing. That is self contradictory.
But it's almost impossible to get them to see that the subject is "effectiveness at convincing", and not "truth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
He sure tortures logic the same way as a valley person, and everything, and I do mean everything, is about him and his perspective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You need to let go of your dogma and think 3RU7AL.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
First, because two things are indistinguishable from each other BY US does not necessarily mean they are identical. It is an unwarranted logical leap to assume so.
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
You are confusing actions with our ability to chose them. For example, even if a particular action is caused, that did not necessarily negate our ability to chose it.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
There was no red pill, so you could not have chosen it. Was your choice of the blue pill hampered in any way? What was not free about your choice? Your argument has a false premise, and thus your conclusion is also false.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which then brings us back to...
Your dichotomy is false.
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
Just because thoughts may be uncaused by any previous experiences, does not necessarily make them random.
Your argument was built on an incorrect definition of "random". Random does not mean "uncaused by previous experiences". You are attempting to re-argue a point already debunked!
I just noticed too, that you're using the word "caused" differently in in your two premises.
But I will grant you that IF your dichotomy was true, your argument would be sound.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you are intentionally ignoring a critical detail.
Really? Intentionally?
That protesters and looters are separate groups.
Oh, I know that most of the protesters are not looters. I'm not saying they are the same people. I'm saying that they are all liberals.
There are people out protesting, fighting for their rights and freedoms. There are also looters out there trying to steal or destroy things.
Yes, and all of them share that leftist political ideology.
There is a little bit of overlap between the groups, but they are largely separate.
Separate people, but similar political ideology.
It is criminals who are looting things. They are not "trump's opposition".
Really. Trumps opposition cannot be criminals? How do you know the political positionof the looters? How about the people tearing down statues? Are they criminals, or the upstanding Trump opposition?
But you wouldn't believe that because fox news just wants you to think they're all criminals and terrorists so that you will immediately dismiss them.
And my dismissing them benefits fox news how? If you blame fox news, does that frees you from having to offer logical, rational debate?
What is more nazi-like? Trump, or his opposition lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campus? Don't answer. The question was rhetorical.
well i will answer anyway. It is trump. trump loves authoritarian leaders. He loves fear mongering about minorities and foreigners. He loves exalting uses of force on his opponents. These are all classic nazi traits.
That is worse than actually burning down buildings, looting businesses, and physically and violently forcing speakers on college campuses to be silent?
(Gentle Reader, do you see the derangement? "Loving authoritarian leaders" is worse than burning down buildings and physically attacking people with a different political view. This is what the left calls "tolerance". And they wonder why Trump will win in November.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep, will be another fun packed and amusing 4 years.
Do liberals usually cry and moan at fun packed and amusing things?
And apologies, I didn't realise you were deaf.....
No worries, I don't hold your IQ against you either.
If you could hear some of the dumb ass stuff that Donald comes out with you would be in stitches also.
Oh, we are all laughing. Only in November, some of you laughing now will realize that we were laughing AT you.
An un-pc President, and perpetually outraged liberal progressive snowflakes. It'll be like a 4 year Christmas holiday!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I said, "What you mean of course, is that it has not been "proven" TO YOU. To that I say, "So what?" Is any of that untrue?
All that this would prove, would be that 99% of humanity had been conditioned to accept theism as a creation hypothesis.
I think there is a relationship between the truth of a hypothesis, and how many people over time can be convinced to believe it.
I would suggest that ardent theists are the ones that tend to become entrenched and biased
You said....
And of course everyone always blames everyone else and everyone is righteous.
Look down, ....is there anything below your knees? Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Do you know why the Texas dome has a retractable roof?
So God can watch His favorite team play on Sundays from Heaven. And don't get me started on those cowgirls!
Created:
-->
@Nemiroff
Please explain how debt is bad if every successful private business of any scale is loaded with debt?
When did I say debt is bad? This is off topic, but I doubt debt is good because most countries have it.
Your worship of the free market (even only focusing on the successful ones) betrays your fear of debt.
Lol. I can see your belief in your dogma greatly trumps reality.
And your economics is so 101. You do realize 101 is just an introductory course?
When you can find a fact that contradicts what I said, you will be more convincing. You said the blue states were more economically successful. This is untrue. It isn't politics, its fact.
Maybe that's why blue states are so successful.
Blue states are successful because 101 is just an introductory course? Cause that is what your "that's" above seems to refer.
You want liberal policies to be successful because your dogma says they should be, you you bend, contort, and disregard reality. Do you know how many people were shot and killed in New York, Atlanta, and D.C. in the last few days?
Blue states were "successful" because they pack themselves with low wage minorities who will keep voting for them like sheep. And still their model was unsustainable. Wealth producing people are fleeing their states. November is coming.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So where would you prefer to live right now....The U.S.A. or China
How is this relevant? China has fewer liberals but the US has more rights. And further, I am an American, I like my home.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your first pass at it....
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= FREEWILLUNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOM
Your amended equation...
APPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOMAPPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY = PSEUDO RANDOM
I'm talking about randomness and unpredictability, not what seems random and unpredictable to people. It is accepted the some people assume randomness and unpredictability when it is not so. I thought this so obvious it did not need to be said.
Now I fail to see a reason for a disagreement between us. I haven't a clue, given what you've said, why you would think free will is nonexistent.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You and I are essentially the same...Just slightly different programming, resulting in slightly different biased data sequences, that's all.
OK Polly. I'm just glad most people aren't as nihilistic as you. The world would have remained in the dark age.
You will not be able to use it now, but remember for the future, your opinion is not fact or reality, no matter how clear to you it seems inside your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cowboysss
Yesssss!!
God's favorite team. How 'bout them boys!
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm sure he'd gladly join the nazi's or the communists if it would benefit him.
Yet it's Trump's opposition that is lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campuses! Weird huh?
no,...
No what? Cause you're about to pivot to something that makes your "no" irrational. Is it not Trumps opposition lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campus? To what does you "no" refer slick?
...it's trump's authoritarianism that causes him to attack peaceful protesters.
I guess those building burned themselves, and those stores self-looted
If your dogma trumps reality, (pun intended) you're liberal left.
...your attempts at humor are as sad as your misguided beliefs.
And one day you will have a logical reason for thinking so instead of basing it just on your feelings. You have said "no" at the observation that it is Trumps opposition that is lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campus, and you think your dogma doesn't trump reality?
What is more nazi-like? Trump, or his opposition lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campus? Don't answer. The question was rhetorical.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
..."Ethan is not a materialist. Your poor reading comprehension has caused you to stumble again."..
You have no idea what the word "materialist" means
How do you know? I mentioned that materialists were wrong and you stupidly thought I was advocating materialism. And when I point out your poor reading comprehension, you inexplicably conclude that I don't know what the word means.
My ego is not afraid of truth ergo I post it. Your ego fears truth.
OK genius. You keep posting your gibberish. But for the love of god, try to improve your dismal reading comprehension.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why are you insisting on a colloquial definition of RANDOM,...
I am not. I gave you the orthodox and classical definition of "random" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Please resist the urge to be dishonest.
...if not in defense of FREEWILL?
You are attempting to use an incorrect definition of "random" to invalidate free will. Before we van discuss free will, we must first dispense with your fallacious use of "random".
Are you accusing yourself of being "off-topic"?
Lol. It's like the only way you know to debate is by smarmy deflection. Stop dodging questions and address the points put to you.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard."
Unpredictability is implied in the definition of "random". Thus, your dichotomy is false. And you still have not told us what "pseudo random" is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It needs no interpretation if one is TDS free.
Trump said, "...can do something like that.." Something like what?
"knocks" out the virus inside the body.
Who wouldn't want something that knocks out the virus inside the body? How is it terrible to wonder about that?
He did not say to ingest disinfectant. He even said "with a doctor" under medical supervision. Everything Trump says is twisted by libtards using the most asinine interpretations, and the sane majority of the nation just laughs at their derangement.
Heard about the crime spree in several US cities? Trump told us about that coming. Libtards called him silly then too. November is coming. Liberals are dumb, and full of terrors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Deb's posts are clear inside Deb's head, just not outside. He thinks he's funny, but he's just incoherent. Unless you're supposed to "get" irrationality, nothing's wrong with you.
Just humor him and pretend that he's understandable. It's easier that way. He's harmless.
Created: