Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So why are Semite children lowlife?
Who knows what motivates bigots? My guess is inherited stupidity.
Nope, no hate...
OK. I just find it interesting that if one listens to bigots, bigotry doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just for the record:Semite is a general term for people who speak a Semitic language, which includes both Jews and Arabs.
Reminds me of when racists try to explain the "general term" negro.
And as I stated previously, in a separate thread perhaps. I have no political allegiances.
But you obviously have political hatreds.
So, Donny marches for life and the U.S drones another Semite. Isn't that a tad hypocritical.
Only to lowlifes who morally equate unborn babies with terrorists.
When fetuses start blowing up markets and schools, come talk to me.
Created:
Posted in:
Bitterness will eat you up if you let it Hosea.
And if you keep insulting the integrity of the mods, don't be surprised they hold you in low esteem.
People are posting fine. The board has been rather nice without the 3 trolls infecting it.
Thanks to a great mod team.
Created:
Posted in:
The general public saw through Wang's fakery and dismissed him.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Once again, your political instincts seems to have been right.Trump Impeachment could end up dooming Warrens future in politics the most.
Created:
Posted in:
And here we are. Impeachment is over. What has changed? Trump is more popular, and democrats are seen as partisan hacks.
What a waste of the nation's time and money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
This sentence you've started spamming, doesn't make grammatical sense. (What works like a placebo?)
A: Prayer
Just another baseless assertion. You're out of arguments so like Hari, you're now spamming it.
I gotta give it to you though. You did try. You really suck at logic, especially keeping a logical train of thought, but you did try to engage and defend your point.
I want to encourage you. It may feel tiresome at first, but it will become better. And your ability to argue your points will get better. Your crippling bias hurts your ability to think clearly, but as you become a more normal poster, you will pick up supporters and friends, and that will help your feelings of being alone and ganged up on.
Don't gave in to the desire to always be the last to post. That is one of the reasons hari is now stuck on a dead board spamming himself.
Your claim that scientific studies prove prayer is ineffective is dead. Know when to get off a dead horse.
But overall, I've gotta say I've never seen you debate and defend like you did here. You even toned down the hate, and that made your arguments more effective.
For a first effort, its impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"I have a car that I really want to teach everyone about."
Created:
Posted in:
In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
This sentence you've started spamming, doesn't make grammatical sense. (What works like a placebo?)
Which does beg the question:
As usual, when beaten on a question, you immediately try to run to a new question.
Your original claim has been shown to be incorrect. You are now telling outright lies to Rosends, denying your earlier claims. (He will learn for himself how dishonest you are)
All you have is your irrational hatred Sal. You have no research, no logic, and no proof. You are free to believe that prayer doesn't work, but trying to pretend that this belief is based on anything other than your irrational bias is laughable
I mean; prayer working, ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that. - Salixes, Post #55
There is no hope of winning an argument that is based on irrefutable truth. - Salixes, Post #60
Prayer is a load of crap. - Salixes, Post #64
...whether or not prayer works is very subjective... - Salixes, now
The muffled sound you now here is of someone quietly but furiously trying to back peddle. Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Scientific experiments, real ones, not the ones you're making up as straw men,
I made no straw men. I need none.
...generally don't set out to prove a negative.
Proving prayer works is not a negative. Please, even if you can't, others are capable of arguments other than, "Does God exist?"
There are certainly ways to apply the scientific method to the efficacy of prayer, I just showed you one.
Lol. And then you listed all the ways it was lacking. Please Ludo, it's so silly I hesitate to discuss it like it's not retarded.
"Determining if this puppy is an escape artist...
Has nothing to do with prayer Einstein. But thanks, that was funny. Good luck on getting a reputable scientist to sign up for that.
Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one,...
Which is why I asked you guys if you could think up one. Puppies in a sack isn't it Ludo.
...every one that presumes a god exists is flawed in that it invites confirmation bias.
A valid scientific experiment would not assume anything. This has already been addressed. Please, give the, "does God exist?" drone a rest.
Really? This is the original post (isn't that what OP means?).
It also means Original Poster.
Where does it claim that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective?
...by default, you concede the fact that prayer does diddly squat. - Sal in post #6
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It cannot be done via the scientific method, and it doesn't matter if a God exists or not.
Why, exactly? And why doesn't it matter if God exists or not?
Because the experiment is not concerned with God at all. The experiment is only trying to establish if christian prayer is effective.
If you're testing if god is listening and answering prayers,
No, the test is if prayers are answered or not. Nothing else.
...any experiment that sets out to prove the Christian god is listening and answering prayers in any way assumes that god exists.
This is why we have scientific methodology. The experiment assumes nothing. It can only test if prayers are answered, not who answered. Even if the experiment showed that prayers were being answered, we would need further tests to prove it was God answering. You are starting to see the difficulty in proving that prayers are ineffective.
...which is why I sketched out an experiment that doesn't bother with "Does god exist."
Your experiment was faulty. It had no way to distinguish a yes response from pure chance. You said this yourself, so I saw no need to address it. I said the same thing in a previous post. I'm the one saying that prayer cannot be scientifically tested, remember?
How would you be able to tell whose prayer was answered if the puppy survives?
You wouldn't. That is one of the things I mentioned in my argument that experiments on prayer are nonsense!
More accurately, there is no proof that intercessory prayer is effective at changing outcomes.
No sir. That is a different argument. This threads OP claims that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective. This is untrue. In fact, it is impossible.
You need to either start your own thread on whether God exists, or address the topic of this thread. We would like to discuss something other than your obsession for once.
There is no way to do an experiment on prayer that would satisfy the requirements of scientific methodology. This is why no reputable scientist has ever done so.
I have not claimed prayer is effective, or that God exists. My claim is that experiments to prove prayer is ineffective are unscientific nonsense. I'm contradicting the claim of the OP, not trying to prove God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your parable is both untrue and unfair.Thus would I answer their questions
I would say you misunderstood his claim, but I know you're not dumb.
So that leaves sarcasm, humor, or dishonesty. I haven't a clue which of those 3 it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your parable is both untrue and unfair.Thus would I answer their questions
I would say you misunderstood his claim, but I know you're not dumb.
So that leaves sarcasm, humor, or dishonesty. I haven't a clue which of those 3 it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
@ludofl3x
@Salixes
No sir. You just spelled out my critiques of the experiment. It cannot be done via the scientific method, and it doesn't matter if a God exists or not. The flaw is in the methodology, not in who is being tested.Obviously the experiment has a design flaw, one which ethang's also has:
To apply scientific method to prayer you ought to be able to prove that a deity exists in the first place, not presume one does.
The scientific method assumes nothing. It doesn't have to. If the experiment is done correctly, the results will at least confirm the existence of God. But whether God exists or not is immaterial to the test and there are no assumptions beforehand.
Just like every atheist, you want to change this into a "Does God Exist" topic. Some of us have broader interests.
Also, any experiment must take Christian doctrine into account, or else the results cannot be used to support or contradict Christian claims about prayer.
First, the promises about prayer in the bible are not to everyone. So the unanswered prayer of people not under the promise cannot be used for any conclusions.
Second, the "whatever" the bible uses to say, "whatever you pray for will be granted..." is conditional. Those conditions can be found in the book of James.
Third, God is not a genie, we join His cause, become part of His plan, as such, a real Christian will not just pray for anything. His prayer will always line up with the priorities of God.
In short, the old atheist clunker about science having disproved the efficacy of prayer is nonsense, pushed by people with too little knowledge of science, and too much bias.
Created:
Posted in:
A huge battle is going on for Twitter. The fake news media has kept it hush-hush so far.
Dems are terrified of Trump going into the 2020 election with his Twitter account intact. So, seeing the anti-Trump moves Twitter was making, Trump “summoned” the Twitter CEO to the white house.
Jack Dorsey Sent an Email to Twitter Staff About Meeting Trump.
The president and the Twitter CEO met for 30 minutes at the White House. Here's what they talked about.
Jack Dorsey sat down for a 30-minute conversation with President Donald Trump today. They discussed Twitter's role in the public conversation and Trump's contention that the site has removed some of his followers out of anti-conservative bias. Before the meeting, Dorsey sent an email to all Twitter employees, explaining his decision to meet with the commander in chief, knowing that decision would be unpopular with many of them.
Make no mistake--Dorsey and Trump are not likely to be pals anytime soon. Although the meeting was private, an insider with direct knowledge of it told the Washington Post that most of the 30 minutes was spent on Trump's complaint about Twitter removing some of his followers, and followers of other conservative figures as well.
Dorsey explained that follower counts on Twitter tend to fluctuate as the site is constantly removing fraudulent accounts. He himself has lost followers as a result of that process, the Twitter CEO said.
Seeing that the Twitter CEO was suffering from TDS, Trump has moved to get rid of him and stop Twitter's anti conservative stance.
A battle of the billionaires may be starting at Twitter.
Hedge funder Paul Singer has taken in a stake in the social media company—and now wants to replace Jack Dorsey as Twitter CEO and grab four board seats.
He heads both Twitter and $36 billion Square, the digital payments company.
This arrangement is part of the reason that Singer’s firm Elliott Management is pushing for change. Another is Dorsey’s stated desire to move to Africa, according to Bloomberg. For now, the size of Elliott Management’s stake in Twitter isn’t known, and a Elliott Management spokesman declined to comment. Twitter also declined to comment.
Billionaire Republican buys major Twitter stake, may oust CEO amid GOP concerns of bias, reports say
A billionaire Republican megadonor has purchased a "sizable" stake in Twitter and "plans to push" to oust CEO Jack Dorsey among other changes, according to new reports, raising the prospect of a shocking election-year shakeup of the social media platform that conservatives have long accused of overt left-wing political bias.
Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. has already nominated four directors to Twitter's board, Bloomberg News reported, citing several sources familiar with the arrangement. The outlet noted that unlike other prominent tech CEOs, Dorsey didn't have voting control over Twitter because the company had just one class of stock; and he has long been a target for removal given Twitter's struggling user growth numbers and stock performance.
Singer, who opposed President Trump's campaign in 2016, has since changed his tune, raising the prospect that some of the changes to Twitter could make the platform a friendlier place for pro-Trump users.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Singer donated $24 million to Republican and right-leaning groups in the 2016 election.
Twitter has long rankled not only conservatives but also independent-minded commentators and left-of-center activists. In 2018, feminist Meghan Murphy slammed Twitter for the "dangerous" banning and silencing of users who didn't follow the platform's guidelines.
Murphy was banned after writing that "men aren't women," in defiance of Twitter's stated views on gender.
"I don't want to draw a line that ends up silencing people who have political ideas, or who are talking about ideologies, or who are challenging popular discourse that has been deemed offensive," Murphy told The Hill.
This story is still breaking. I'm hearing that some deep pocket liberals are moving to try and save the Twitter boss and block Trump. The plot thickens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Nah. Just wanted to point that out. The Gentle Readers know you're empty.
They are the ones who make your zero-reply threads possible no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Lame humor hides your vapidity much less than you think it does.
But as I only have to show you're empty, my work here is done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
So good you dodged them again. Lol.Yes, good questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But not as many as Obama did eh, Corbyn?We'll just drone a few more A-rabs.
You'd rather us drone those pesky Zionist instead huh? When did England become home to anti-semites?
The labour Party. Boris too Zionist for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hypothesis is just that.
"Hypothesis" is not "hypothetical."
As is your god.
As is your claim. I can defend the concept of my God. You've been dancing away from your illogical claim.
So neither I nor you can show a hypothetical god.
But it was only you claiming that a hypothetical god was a "fact of life". I don't need to "show" what I never claimed.
Therefore...
I didn't claim a green sky either. What illogical "therefore" can you dredge up from that?
...we have conclusively shown that a real god cannot be shown either..
The only thing "we've" shown is that both logic and honesty are rare characteristics in you.
Lets call it the Thangvictor Razor.
StupZedpidity is a better name. Lol. If you have to ditch logic to get in a dig, you're doing it wrong Z. Rest easy though. I'll school ya!
I'll burn you with facts, using your own words. You'll run and dodge. It'll be great fun.
How about human belief in actual deities? Is that a "fact of life" too?
Lol.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The link is the New York Times. The kings of fake news, currently being sued for libel by Trump in a court of law.
Created:
Posted in:
You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done) Do you now believe it can be done?
You again dodged the question above.
You said your statement was rhetorical, if it was, why are you still waiting for people to offer "proof"? Were you mistaken on the nature of your statement?
Anyone with half a brain can see that I blatantly and sarcastically asked the rhetorical (yes, it was rhetorical)question for anyone to supply some proof.
What else do you need to disprove God? We are waiting.
To me, the question was rhetorical. But to anyone who does believe in God, surely the (subject of) the question is viable and verifiable.
Lol!! So the question was rhetorical only to you? Viable and Verifiable are not the opposites of rhetorical. Getteth thee to a dictionary.
In which case, isn't it rather peculiar that we are up to 42 posts and not one piece of proof has been submitted for me to disprove?
Its not peculiar at all that you cannot disprove God. You've admitted this many times, and smarter people than you have tried and failed.
And, you and I know why it is a rhetorical question, now don't we?
Yes. Because when caught in your contradiction that you could NOW prove a negative, you had to lie that the question was rhetorical. But again, when shown that no one had to offer any "proof" if your question was rhetorical, you lied again ridiculously saying the question was rhetorical to you, but not to Christians.
Because we both know that there is absolutely no proof to submit, don't we?
Lol. You can't disprove God. You admit you can't disprove God, but that's because there is no proof of God? Do you need proof to disprove God?
It must be so frustrating for you that millions continue to believe, cherish, and worship God. Sundays must stick in your craw. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you could run America the way you saw fit, could you eliminate poverty?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Lol. I don't think you know what you're talking about.Pro abortion:Wanting abortion to be mandatory
Isn't pro-abortion the stance that a woman's unborn baby should die if she wants it to die?
This is the pro choice position,
And that choice is abortion right? Let's not play footsies with words.
How is it not hypocrisy for one to demand that whether someone else lives or dies be determined by how you feel?
Because pro choicers tend to believe at least one of the two thesis:
1) The unborn is not a human for some reason.
Nonsense. We can be arrested even for cruelty to animals. We can't kill living things just because they aren't human. This doesn't save them from the charge of hypocrisy.
2) The unborn's death, since it would be painless is not as bad as the woman being in pregnancy pain for 9 months against her will.
More nonsense. Is painless murder OK? And how can a fetus be in a woman against her will? Was she raped? Inseminated without her knowledge? This doesn't save them from the charge of hypocrisy.
Pro abortion:Wanting abortion to be mandatory.
Lol. This is exactly the same thing as being pro-death isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Really?Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty.
What is the cause of poverty in non-capitalist countries? Was there poverty before there was capitalism?
HB, have you attended university?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
...we're all selectively moral when push comes to shove.
No sir. You tell yourself this because you're ashamed of your morality. The only person you're sure is selectively moral when push comes to shove, is you.
The only nihilist here is you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
LSD and other psychedelics are hallucinogens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is an actual deity?
You tell me. You said that belief in hypothetical deities was a fact of life.
I couldn't figure if you meant that people other than you believe in deities you think are hypothetical, or that people believe in deities they think are hypothetical.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who believed in a deity they believed was hypothetical Have you?
Can you show me one?
Not until you show me a hypothetical deity. You said it, and I've asked 3 times now, and your dodging is bad enough, but to dodge my questions and then expect answers from me is delusional.
You're still operating under that liberal confusion that for a theist to talk to you is a treat. You'll learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I knew you'd like it Doc! 😊
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
But yet you dodged every question in his post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And if you grow and improve, I'll have no complaint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You have not addressed this.
You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done)
Do you now believe it can be done?
You said your statement was rhetorical, if it was, why are you still waiting for people to offer "proof"? Were you mistaken on the nature of your statement?
What else do you need to disprove God? We are waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You still have not addresses how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Does it make a difference in harmfulness when those insults are directed at women BY women?There is no derogatory term exclusive to the male sex that's anywhere near as harmful as those directed towards women.
Look, "skank" and "bitch" have the capacity to be cruel beyond imagination.
Which hurts a woman more, being called a skank by another woman, or being called so by a man?
...the property of a man who holds her in utter contempt.
Actually, the words have no connotation of the woman being the property of a man, or that it is a man holding her in contempt.
A lot of young(ish) girls nowadays just don't care about whether that thing happening to dangle from our legs is a penis or a vagina. They call women skanks and bitches too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It depends on the individual's definition of "pro abortion".
Can you give me examples of 2 different definitions of pro-abortion?
I was calling Trump a hypocrite if he was responsible for abortions yet is pro life.
Would you call someone a hypocrite if he was responsible for births yet is pro abortion?
If you had births yet were pro choice, that's not hypocrisy.
Seems like a double standard to me.
If they didn't want people having kids and had them, it would be hypocrisy.
Isn't pro-abortion the stance that a woman's unborn baby should die if she wants it to die?
And pro-life the stance that a woman's unborn baby should not die even if she wants it to die?
How is it not hypocrisy for one to demand that whether someone else lives or dies be determined by how you feel?
So a pro-abortionist can have a child when she wants, and kill the child when she wants, with no hypocrisy, but with a pro-lifer, the same decisions are somehow hypocritical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Hi Sal!
Only God is capable of making a more rounded person according to your doctrines.
Then you again have my doctrine wrong. God has given us all the ability to grow and improve. It's in our control.
You only have to want to. Glad you posted, and I'm pretty sure the mods are too.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Anyone can say anything. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in freedom of consequences.
A jerk is free to mouth off to Mrs. Ethan, but the consequence of several broken teeth are also free.
No word should be uttered with the intent to hurt, demean, or embarrass another person. But if you do, accept your consequences.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
How would I deny them that?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s a false equivalency.
It's not even an equivalency, but OK.
If calling the N word is bad in general, then no one should be saying.
Should not a person's intent matter to whether saying it is good or bad?
Only I did not say black people can say it. I said anyone can say anything, but that it is not always OK to say anything because of history, perception, and intent.Saying that black people can say it just because they’re black is inherently racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Trump dodged the question. Therefore, I think he did it.
All I can say is, thank God you're not a judge.
I was calling Trump a hypocrite if he was responsible for abortions yet is pro life.
Would you call someone a hypocrite if he was responsible for births yet is pro abortion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Trump dodged the question. Therefore, I think he did it.
All I can say is, thank God you're not a judge.
I was calling Trump a hypocrite if he was responsible for abortions yet is pro life.
Would you call someone a hypocrite if he was responsible for births yet is pro abortion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Lol! Unlike liberals, I convict people on facts, not baseless speculation and allegations.
And check the thread you're in. You might be confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
No and no. For the same reason I would not ban sticking a sharp fork into your eye. There is no law against stupidity.
If a person wants to fill their lungs with smoke and alter their brain chemistry with hallucinogens, no law can stop them.
I would not pay for treatment though, and penalties for crimes performed under the influence would be stiff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
the phrase fact of life (something that often happens and cannot be avoided)
OK. So I asked,
How about human belief in actual deities? Is that a fact of life too?
Seems like a simple yes or no question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But you do have rituals. Not all rituals are religious. You know this....honestly, I never attend church weddings, funerals or baptisms.
Since I do not see talking to atheists as a prize, until you get honest, I will not play your game.
Created:
Posted in:
So is there any better proof of appropriate moderation?
You make an average of 10 clunky threads a day. Moderation temporarily stops your ability to make new threads, and you make not a single post in 24 hours!
It seems like you don't want dialogue. You don't want interplay. You want to preach. That's all.
Show us and moderation that you don't only view the site as a bullhorn for your spite. Have a conversation with someone, engage in an already running conversation with other members.
Believe it or not, it will help you, make you a more well rounded person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Dig that!
What I like is that your talent can be used to convey the wondrous mystery that is faith in God. Many people have talent, but human talent bent to the purpose of God is a wonderful thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Now, now DD. Humor looks better on you than math snobbery.
Created: