Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Do you have a different browser? Test it with that.
Created:
Posted in:
And the sanctuary city movement.
All of a sudden, states are writing laws into their state constitutions making sanctuary cities illegal by state law.
Wait till we have elections for mayors of these cities.
Idiots will be biting the dust big time.
Created:
Posted in:
When elected, Trudie of Canada took it upon himself to teach Trump about tolerance and human dignity.
The the pictures of him in blackface showed up, and he was forced to apologize on air like the hypocrite he is.
The Canadian government just released the worse economic numbers for Canada in 10 months.
Then Germany's Merkel tried to school Trump on immigration and populism. Telling him how her policies of "inclusion" were better than Trumps policy of common sense.
Today she has lost control of her party, which is struggling at the polls, is about to lose her chancellorship, and is reversing the stupid policies she enacted that allowed primitive morons into Germany by the boatload. And the German public has turned against her.
The Chicago police chief who refused to attend a meeting by Trump and said Trump was not welcome in Chicago?
Has been sacked. Booted out weeks before he was to retire. And the Smollet debacle is still threatening to expose crimes under his tenure.
The Venezuelan president who castigated trump?
Overthrown and ousted.
The French President Macron, who touted his superior governing style of governance when Trump visited France?
Wrestling with massive public protests, and a precipitous slide in the polls. Facing an advancing right wing movement, and having soldiers die in Africa over his stupid policies.
Denmark and Sweden, sticking to their inane policy of importing islamists into their countries, claiming they would not fall to "Trump-like populism"...
Have now reversed the age old EU policy of free movement inside the EU, after crimes like rape and terrorism skyrocketed in their once peaceful countries, just as Trump predicted.
There are many other cases where Trump has been proven right, and his opponents have been bitch-slapped by karma.
From the Philippines, Cuba, Brazil, Poland, Israel, Chile, Euquador, Tunisia, etc. They keep biting the dust. But because liberal never learn, and thus never grow, they just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
The next to bite the dust? Democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It may be something that triggers a bug in site code, but it obviously is more than just the site.
Like I said, if you use a word processor to make your posts, something like that can happen.
What browser are you using? Do you create your posts in Microsoft Word?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@SirAnonymous
Nope. If its a bug in the sites code, wouldn't it happen more often and to more people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Hmmm.
It has never happened to me. Let me try it.
The poodle goes, "Yap, yap,yap!!"
There is the empty line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Really? I've only seen it with Alec.
It's actually HTML code meant to tell your browser (or word processor) that there is a paragraph break at that point.
It may be that Alec is typing his posts on a word processor before pasting them to the forum? In some processors, you can have the underlying HTML code show in the document.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't look at the bible! Don't look! Doooon't!There doesn't appear to be a single, unified, coherent "Christian description of god".
However, I happen to agree about 99.999% with Mopac's (Eastern Orthodox Christian) description of god.
That incidentally, is consistent with the bible's description of God.
Each person I've encountered that claims to be a Christian, has their own, personal, unique and often peculiar "description of god".
Each iteration of the Supreme Court I've encountered that claims to be a American, has had their own, personal, unique and often peculiar "description of the country"
Which they, for some strange reason, seem to hate making EXPLICIT.
Don't look at the constitution! Don't look! Doooon't!
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
I´m pro life.
No, you just call yourself pro life.
I´m against the death penalty because I prefer to make the murderer donate blood as much as feasible while being in jail for life, saving more lives.
Then you aren't for freedom.
I´m pretty sure open borders saves lives because of the hundreds of thousands of people that die due to borders. Let them get jobs.
Electrified fences and other security measures also cause death. Always open front doors and free teenaged daughters would also save lives.
Euthanasia is a choice. If someone wants to do it, let them do it.
Euthanasia is a choice for death.
Weed is a choice.
Weed is a choice for death.
It´s less about life vs death as it is life vs freedom.
Freedom is impossible without life. Yours is a fake dichotomy.
As a libertarian, I value freedom for everyone.
Even the inmate forced to give his blood for years?
If someone wants to kill themselves, or wants to smoke weed, lets let them do it. It´s their body.
I have not said they should not do it, I have only noted that those are choices for death.
And though you also call yourself liberterian, your positions are identical to liberal. I pay attention to what people are, not what they call themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I don't see how.
Maybe you need glasses. It is consistent with personhood not being solely in brain structure. It also argues for redundancy in the brain. But its only your fear of God causing you to reject the obvious.
The brain's redundancy allows other parts to take over when one part is damaged.
Person hood is not a trait like math ability. You are saying a complete copy of "personhood" is stored in the brain. You have no evidence of this, or the ability to tell us what duplicates, manages, and activates, these "copies"
Also, when we say that personhood is intact after a brain injury, we don't mean it is entirely unaffected.
Again you defend against what I didn't say! Personhood is intact enough that the "person" persists and is recognizable even after the massive brain structure change.
Ok, so we agree that a brain is necessary for personhood.
No. I did not say that. You are doing your cartoon cut-out argument against a Christian trying to use consciousness as an argument for God. Pre-fab arguments don't work against me very well.
I agree that a brain is necessary for human to human personhood interface. Like my computer analogy, an interface is neither the computer or the program. I think people tend to mistake the interface for the program.
Sure, there may be component outside the brain, too.
I did not say or imply that there may be a component outside the brain. That is just your paint-by-the-numbers pre-fab argument again responding to what you anticipate I'm going to argue.
There is no other "component" outside a computer needed to run a program, yet the program is not the computer's processor.
Without an interface, we cannot detect or interact with a program. But the program remains an independent creation, independant of the processor.
...we know that the brain is highly redundant.
We know that the brain is redundant with traits, like the ability to speak or gregariousness. We do not know if the brain is redundant for personhood, which is not a trait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
OK. You're currently in the smart phase. ; )
What is that <br> in your posts, are you posting in HTML?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Lol. Brilliant.Move along, sir. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I think 3RU7AL is telling you what he believes so that you can correct your beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
Yet you keep announcing you've "won", and keep stalking me? Are you sure its inconsequential? You don't act like it is to you.
And you dodged my question again brave loser. Did my question frighten you?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Right, also regarding your position on "the original intent of the author"...
It isn't a "position" jed. It simple obvious fact to everyone without an agenda driven bias. His intent is in his work!
It's funny how you seem to think you know the INTENT behind everybody else's statements BETTER than "the original authors".
How did I gave you that impression? I have been the one arguing for looking at the authors usage and context, you have been wanting to choose your personal definitions. Pretense like that is dishonest.
If you're speaking to the actual, original author, it would seem prudent to simply ask them what their intent was.
Or you could read their work with your brain on, looking at context and usage instead of relying on a dictionary from where you choose your "preferred" definitions of the words he used.
If an author writes a 600 page work and you still have to ask him what he meant, either 1. The author isn't very good at communicating ideas, 2. You have poor reading comprehension, or 3. Written language is a poor tool for communicating ideas.
In the case of you and the bible, 1 and 3 can be dismissed.
No need to guess.
No one is guessing but YOU. The rest of us normal people without agendas are getting what the author meant from his context and usage. The exact way language is supposed to work.
You seem to think meaning of words in a work of literature depends on the one reading the work and not the author of the work. That is curiously illiterate.
And what about authors of great literature who are now dead and cannot be asked? Should we throw out their now worthless works because we cannot know what they meant?
Have you ever read a work of literature and known what the author meant? Ever? Have you ever even read a work of literature? Your position here is laughable. But this is what we get from the generation that doesn't read.
Liberals who believe that whatever they think, is what reality is. So the author writes "the car was blue, the same color of her birthstone", your "preferred" definition of "blue" is "sad". Therefore you insist the author wrote that the car was sad. And since cars don't get sad, that is a contradiction! Just time wasting stupidity.
Life is too sweet and too short to spend it on people being deliberately stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
A lobotomy severs the connection between the two hemispheres of the brain. Half the brain is not physically removed, but much of it is no longer available for use.A lobotomy only severs connections to the prefrontal cortex, it does not actually remove part of the brain.
That is not evidence for personhood lying outside the brain, however,
That is not what I said. I said, "Doesn't that argue against the idea that personhood is only in the physical structure of the brain?"
And it certainly does.
...only of the brain's ability to adapt.
People wake up from the operation with their personhood intact. When did the brain adapt?
For irrefutable evidence of personhood outside the brain, you would need to show me someone who retains personhood with no brain at all.
That is illogical. You are opposing something I didn't say. I said, again, that maybe personhood may not be only in the physical structure of the brain.
I did not say personhood was independent of the brain. But there is a way to look at personhood that keeps the physical brain necessary, AND, still be true that personhood is separate from the brain.
A program cannot run without a computer processor, but still a program is not the computer processor.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I still cannot bring myself to comment on a position this ridiculously stupid. Sorry.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So whether what God wrote is true or not depends on whether two people disagree on its interpretation?
I cannot bring myself to comment on a position so ridiculously stupid as this. Sorry.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
in other words, YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.
You are free to be stupid if you want. If language was everyone picking their "preferred" definitions, it would be a poor communication tool.
Context and usage. That is how educated people read literature. There is no "principle" on how to read literature goober.not based on any identifiable PRINCIPLES.
"context-and-usage" = "purely subjective opinion" = "personal-taste".
And yet for years the writers of literature have managed to transmit complex ideas to others using written language. Coincidence? Luck?
Nobody is seriously suggesting that those stories are anything other than PURE FICTION.
And yet Stephen King uses all the tools of literature in his books of fiction. Or are you contending there are no metaphors or figures of speech in fiction?
this god was so wise, I'm sure it would have specified "apparent evil" instead of just "evil
Why is amoral evil such a difficulty for you? Do you think a hurricane is moral evil? I did not say "apparent evil". Where did you get it?
One of the first things I asked you was if you would kindly provide your personally preferred definition of "evil".
And I told you that was not how literature is read. Authors decide what the words in their works mean. You are an idiot if you think readers bring their own "preferred" definitions to works of literature.
If you don't understand the verse exactly the same way I understand the verse, your brain must be malfunctioning.
Or you're being a deliberate public idiot to further your agenda. Either or.
You are actually going full stupid, with caps and all, over what even little children do naturally.
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.
Red, and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight!
I've taught this song to countless kids, none of them have ever been confused about what the colors meant. But you would. Cause you'd look up the definition of say, "red" and declare that it cannot mean human kid.
You can be stupid on your own. You don't need me. I'm out.
(Oh, and that doesn't mean I'm outside or unconscious)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
There are experiments where a person undergoes a lobotomy and retains his personhood with half his brain gone!
Doesn't that argue against the idea that personhood is only in the physical structure of the brain?
Consider this. What directs the growth of dendrites? How does your brain know which neurons to connect to? What maps out those circuits?
No matter how you approach it, materialism seems to be illogical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Barney
Whatever happened to this good idea?
To difficult coding-wise? I've seen some pretty impressive coding on the site, so I don't doubt you can do it.
Maybe its your time constraints. I can understand that. But I just wanted to know where your mind had settled about the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
@disgusting
Don't you get tired of everyone ignoring you? Or calling you a trollish moron?
Go win "again" loser.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
On the context and usage.Based on what?
And yet you can't seem to provide an alternative definition.
Because word meanings in literature is gotten from context and usage, not personal taste. Do you need a dictionary when you read Stephen King?
Why do you need one now?
I'm going to guess you're in favor of definition 2?
So you know words can have more than one meaning? How you've grown!
Now, we are looking at a work of literature from a human mind, I do not "provide" definitions, the author has already provided one.
Read it with your brain on.
Created:
Do you have "general parameters" that might apply to the novel War and Peace? The Old Man And the Sea? The American Revolution?You don't even have any general parameters that might apply to most cases?
I'm not dumb enough to fall for the fake requirements you want to place on only the bible.
Certainly different words mean different things to different people in different places.
It isn't a buffet Jethro. The words mean what the author intended, and that meaning is gotten from context. This is true so all literature.
Have you asked them if it looked like something a loving god would do?
No one I know has ever been at war with God. But it does seem that God would be right to clobber any moron who decided to resist Him by force. God is also Justice.
No amount of evidence justifies 100% confidence.
Faith in His Glorious Majesty, King Jesus Christ does. This is an ad hoc claim of skeptics who think because they don't know, no bad me else does either. I have no reason to believe it.
Therefore, nobody has faith in abiogenesis.
I'm not dumb enough or inexperienced enough to believe that.
So, "you know it when you see it"?
I know it when I read it. Just like you do when you read all works other than the bible.
And, "if you don't know then you're an idiot"?
When you pretend you cannot know for the bible, but can know easily for all other works of literature, then yes, you're an idiot.
If you can't explain how you clearly and consistently determine which passages can be taken literally, then you are using a SUBJECTIVE STANDARD.
Stop being a fool. There is no algorithm for language. There is no "standard" for when passages can be taken literally. That is why only the human mind can do it.
Expecting a set standard is fake stupidity. There isn't one, and to prove I'm right, give me the set standard you use to figure when passages in King Lear are literal.
I find or write a book....
Only there is just one book with the record of the bible...
...with a bunch of conflicting statements and stories,
That you can never show...
...and then I convince people that it's really old and complicated and only I know the "true meaning"
The most published, best selling book in history has only one person who knows the true meaning? Do you listen to yourself?
...and if they have any questions about how any of this stuff applies to their real-life-decisions, they need to ask me.
We haven't discussed application, but your agenda requires you to slot that in right?
That's why the Catholics were so afraid of making the scriptures available in the-common-tongue
Red herring. Scripture was available 2,000 years ago, and there are records of Jesus freely reading it in the temple publicly.
OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure.
The mind-reader fallacy again.
I read your comment jed. You want no exination of the words meanings. You just want your agenda driven interpretation accepted without context or scrutiny.
You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil".
The mind-reader fallacy again. Please tell me more about what I want.
I told you what you did not want. And I knew because you have consistently refused to consider the context.
I would be absolutely tickled pink if you could explain why "peace" was "contrasted" with "evil"
I told you. Because "evil" here is not immorality, but unwanted things from a human point of view.
Like when I tell my daughter, "I do things you think are cool, and I do things you think are evil..."
...and how that would actually make your hypothetical god "not-the-creator-of-evil".
Moral evil is not a creation. But really, you are the one saying this evil means moral evil. You have not shown it to be. Thus, I don't have to show how that would make my god "not-the-creator-of-moral-evil".
Nice at the attempt at switching the BoP.
Words have meaning jethro. Our debate is about the meaning. You keep simply saying "evil" as if the word has only one meaning.
Please explain your hypothesis.
Meaning comes from context. You may hate that, but that is language for ya. No amount of semantic trickery changes that.
What did the author mean? Not which definition do you "prefer". Read it like you read all other works of literature, like you have a functioning brain that you have turned on.
Created:
If by "compelling" you mean, "not one shred of evidence", then sure.That's more of a compelling hypothesis.
But I'm sure I needn't remind you that science accepts hypotheses with evidence, not ones with zero evidence people find personally "compelling".
Which is not the same as 100% blindfaithconfidence.
Christian faith is not blind. But belief in a hypothesis that has zero evidence could be called blind faith. Abiogenesis qualifies.
Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.
I turn on my brain when I read it. I notice that atheists never have this question about the great secular works of literature.
But when its the bible, suddenly they become reading idiots, only able to read the bible like retarded 3 year olds.
There is another way we know which holy scriptures can be taken literally. But you're not ready for that yet.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.
This is another lie you wish to substitute for our position. The word of God is not open to YOUR interpretation. The bible interprets itself.
If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.
The word evil, as do many words, have different meanings. You want to pretend it has only one. The meaning of words are not assigned by preference, it is gleaned from its usage in context.
All literature is this way, but when it comes to the bible, you dolts pretend this is some unusual, shady thing.
OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
For your agenda driven bias, sure. You do not want to know why "peace" was used to contrast "evil". You do not want to consider that contrasting "evil" with "peace" could mean that "evil" is being used in a non-typical way.
And you certainly do not want to justify the meaning you apply to the word "evil", you simply want your interpretation accepted without question or any justification from you.
If your argument was as strong as you pretend, you wouldn't be so intellectually rigid and so afraid of examination.
All these years and all the mountains of text you guys spam, how many people have you convinced? People see through your fakery.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe it's practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech.
Then some of your claims of contradiction are blinding stupidity.
It's people who claim that the thing is the infallible, objective, 100% true literal word of god that are ignoring the factual incoherence.
Foul on the play! You are trying to sneak a lie in. No one said literal. If the bible is practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech, then it should sometimes not be taken literally.
Metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech are not necessarily untruth. They are simple tools of language. There is nothing weird or dishonest about the bible using them.
The bible uses language to transmit ideas. It uses the common and accepted tools of language to do that.
If you're saying it just a bunch of stories that may have accumulated some inaccuracies over the years, and shouldn't really be taken 100% literally,
Like all good literature, some of it is literal and some of it is not. But atheist critics usually insist on reading the bible as hyper literalists. No sensible Christian would say that the bible should be taken 100% literally.
...then I'm all for it.
I couldn't care less for what you're for or against. But if you're going to claim a contradiction, it needs to be more than silly word play and agenda driven interpretation.
With me, you will have to show it.
Created:
If I said what this dumb comment deserves, I would risk being banned, so I'll let it's disingenuousness speak for itself.I thought The "YHWH" only spoke in unambiguous universal and objective terms.
If god tells you, in its infallible missive, that it causes evil, then, that's it, right? It must be considered a fact, right?
See your underlined word "it"? What does it refer to?
It seems pretty simple. When there is peace, it's because god made it. When there is evil, it's because god made it. Omnipotence fits perfectly.
Everyone if free to interpret the bible however they like. Though I doubt you have a clue how "evil" is made, or why its contrasted with peace instead of good.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Love and evil cover many concepts, we are not talking about words, but of meanings.Are you suggesting that love and evil are purely subjective terms?
You atheists pretend that words in the bible can only have one meaning, so you try to pretend our disagreement is about words. It isn't. Its about meaning.
I love my daughter.
I love my wife.
Do you think the word "love" there means the same thing? A pervert attempting to claim I abused my daughter would say so.
In a way, that is what atheist do. They attempt to restrict the meaning of the word to fit their agenda.
That is why it is almost impossible to get a bible critic to talk about the reasoning behind his claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I dislike the Muslim law that requires a petty thief to be dismembered, but like the Christian law that says a petty thief should recompense the victim. Is that hypocritical?
yes, yes it is.
I disagree. Why? Because it is an idiot who is for or against a law simply because it originates from a religious source. It should matter what the law actually says.
If you are against being ruled by religious law, then you should be against it. You shouldn't object to one religion but want another religion to rule people.
I don't object to religions, I object to laws. If a law is good, it doesn't matter where it from. And if a law is bad, it's source doesn't matter, its bad.
Just being blindly against religion cause people to throw out all the good that can be found therein. Our law calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Anyway, read the US constitution. Many of our founding laws have religious sources, like all men being created equal. Should we throw that out?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Good job dodging the question.
You asked no question. You assumed a contradiction.
Are these words true? The actual words-on-the-page?
Yes.
Do you believe that love is compatible with evil?
Depends on what way love and evil are being used. When my daughter was 15, she thought my barring her from a university party was evil. Her mom thought it was love.
I'm willing to accept your personal, universal and objective definitions of the terms "evil" and "love".
The word "evil" on the verse is from our perspective. As in God creates situations we would call "evil", like natural calamities. It is not talking about moral evil, note that "evil" is paired with "peace", not "good".
But of course, you're an atheist. So the bible cannot use metaphor, similes, or figure of speech. Words like "evil" can have only one meaning. No attention should be given to the fact that the text is translated from another language, or that meanings of words could have changed in the hundreds of years since the original translation.
That would be in context and reasonable, and we know bible critics don't like context or reasonableness.
Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Doesn't it matter what the law being proposed says?But when a right wing politicians talks about instituting religious laws that happen to be chrisitian, they don't care at all. That is massive hypocrisy.
I dislike the Muslim law that requires a petty thief to be dismembered, but like the Christian law that says a petty thief should recompense the victim. Is that hypocritical?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What did you expect me to do with that hot mess? Were there facts hidden in that nonsense?When the facts don't support your delusion, IGNORE THE FACTS.
Light - Darkness
Peace - Evil
Did God create darkness? Or is darkness a necessary consequence of creating light?
Notice that the verse didn't say Good - Evil, it said Peace - Evil. Perhaps non-peacful situations, like storms, can be called evil from our perspective.
Could this non-peace (evil) be a necessary consequence of peace? Like the light/darkness dichotomy it is paired with?
But how does any of this contradict God being love? You don't say, but expect us to assume it as you have. Why?
But allow me to use your infantile logic.
*America is the land of the free...
*America has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of any country...
Voila! Instant "contradiction" for the hopelessly biased and intellectually challenged.
Someone failed literature and writing classes.
Created:
Posted in:
Pence is a lot less theocratic than most of our founding fathers, yet America has never been a theocracy.
Can you show us the logic you use to say America would become a theocracy if a conservative Christian was president?
Can you even distinguish your paranoid liberal bias from reality?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wall-o-text.
Stephen's done it already.
Yawn.
TL:DNR
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
@RationalMadman
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
I am surprised beyond measure at how good your poetry is!
Who would have thought it? I can't hold the truth, very classy poetry gentlemen.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Sorry, I'm not a moron bigot, so I'm a little fuzzy on current racist jargon.
How about giving us a list of all the derogatory terms currently in vogue by the coolest racists?
Everyone would be so impressed.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sorry, but I hardly ever click links. And since I don't know what your link is, and did not ask for it, I passed.
What is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We wouldn't have to worry about it at all if we let then stay in their horrible countries.The only peaceful Muslims are the ones that do not practice the religion's doctrine from the Koran.
Why do we need primitive morons who think women are cattle and people should be dismembered for petty theft?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure you do. You have blind faith in the status quo.I accept the status quo and have no time for blind faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hey Greyparrot, you aren't even pretending to hide your blatant racism today.
Why are you so racist against Mexicans?
Created:
@PressF
Wait... so you're asking Christen for an example of a contradiction in the bible,...
Yes. I can do that. Christen says there are contradictions in the bible. I contend there are none. Both our claims cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. I have an interest in showing his claim wrong.
...yet when I ask you to provide a non-biblical example of God appearing in a specific location (which you have claimed that there are thousands)...
I did not positively claim this. You asked and I answered. Non-biblical examples of God appearing in a specific location do not affect my claim at all. And both those examples and my claim could be true, they are not mutually exclusive. I have no interest in proving that claim true as my claim could be true even if non-biblical appearances of God were false.
Read what I said. If I allow you to derail me simply by answering a question, I would be no better than a noob. I don't care if you believe or disbelieve non-biblical examples of God appearing in a specific location, and thus have no interest in giving you examples of something that isn't part of my argument, or pertinent to it.
or to explain this: ...you refuse to do so.
Untrue. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one. You then asked that I explain my explanation. How far regressed, in your mind, would I have to go before it would be OK for me to decline your requests for explanations of explanations?
Why should he provide examples for his claim when you refuse to do the same for yours?
That choice is his and has nothing to do with you. I answered every question of yours. I offered explanations. If you aren't satisfied, I couldn't care less.
My purpose is to answer correctly and truthfully, my purpose isn't to satisfy you personally.
This is just a heads up. If you dodge my questions in this post, your questions will be ignored. The advice of my experience to repeat is proving to have been right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And they have no clue they are exposing their blatant racism with that bit of science ignorant stupidity.
I bet you most liberals missed Biden's flub on "black kids" being the opposite of smart kids, until the non-fake press pointed it out. They suffer from the same bias.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.
Agreed, but mistaking what one has as proof is not delusion, it's just a mistake.
Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.
Would you call your belief in abiogenesis a delusion? Why not?
Created: