Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Israel is a limited democracy.
So is America. The point was that Israel is a democracy. The only one in the region.
Its non-Jewish goyim are treated more as second-class citizens.
Untrue. All Israeli citizens have the same rights.
Meanwhile, Palestinians in occupied territories have virtually no rights or freedoms under the Israeli government. They aren't even provided citizenship.
They don't want Israeli citizenship, they want Israel obliterated. Those Palestinians who wanted Israeli citizenship, have it.
Yeah Palestine doesn't have a fixed government, that's what happens when they're denied a government and must instead form resistance groups to the (oppressive) government that is there.
Untrue. They have had a government for more than 15 years. The problem in not that they have no government, but that they have a predator government, more bent on killing and death than on the welfare of its citizens.
Israel is constantly stealing land from Palestinians...
Israel cannot steal its own land.
...and settling in their territory, do you expect the Palestinians not to react one bit?
I expect the Palestinians not to become murderous thugs. They aren't the only people in the world with that particular grevience, how come virtually every terrorist in the world is jihadist?
The Israelis came as invaders and have constantly settled past the territory they were allowed.
Israel needs no permission from anyone inside their own country.
Of course Palestinians are going to retaliate.
Ok, then its war. Fight and quit butthurting over it.
Of course, they could sit down and negotiate like human beings, but their death-cult religion won't let them.
There isn't irrational hatred for Israel.
Among Islamist there is.
There's a blind support for Israel.
Where?
They've hijacked the American government through lobbyism and corruption.
Pure antisemitism.
We spend billions on aid to them for what reason?
They are the only democracy in the region. They feed us intelligence that saves lives, we share a history, many of our greatest citizens originally hailed from there, they are a strategic asset, they contributed to world technological advancement.
For them to attack the USS Liberty or engage in the Lavon Affair?
Those were years ago when the US had not spent billions. Do you know the US also has its share of shameful behavior towards Israel?
Really, the only reason Israel hasn't been obliterated is because of America and its allies supporting it.
Very untrue. Israel has been mass attacked by the countries surrounding it 3 times, each time, Israel soundly defeated them without the help of the US.
The truth is rather that the only reason Palestine hasn't been obliterated is because of America and its allies restraining Israel.
Its time to take the muzzle off.
Created:
You’re right. There will never be closure on this issue. It’s like trench warfare: completely static, with neither side willing to budge.
Budge on what? Logic? This is not a negotiation. Truth is not arrived at by consensus.
Here was my first post in this thread to Fallaneze.
You are letting yourself be fooled by an illusion.
For very many people, the question does get settled. But new people are always coming into the system.
Closure happens to individuals, not to groups. Your implication is that anything short of total and instantaneous closure is not closure."
Very many people find closure and truly know the answer. Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
Neither he, nor anyone else who responded to me addressed my question.
Now here you are, equating "closure" to your personal satisfaction of how well your questions are answered.
So, again, Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You you stated that God created you. I take this to mean that you believe what Genesis 1:27 states, that man was directly created by God. This, evolution would be a counter to creationism as stated in the bible.
It cannot be. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began. Google it and see.
See Urey-Miller Experiment:
Miller Urey was a failed experiment. It produced no evidence for abiogenesis and every subsequent experiment to date has failed.
Miller Urey was faulty, and later "corrected" experiments failed. In fact, Miller Urey proved again that life only comes from life. Your knowledge on abiogenesis needs serious updating.
Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
There are, however, many problems with their methodology. According to Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:
If you are not the sort of person who will reject science because the scientist is Christian, read this.
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
So you are making another claim, that God is omnipotent. If that were the case, then how would you explain the omnipotence paradox?
You keep jumping. My claim was it is logical. Deal with that first. Given the definition of omnipotent, Is it logical for there to be 2 omnipotent entities?
And the omnipotence paradox is explained by the fact that the world is full of poor thinkers and people with low IQ.
You believe that the bible is credible enough that you directly took quotes out of it to answer two of my questions, ergo, you believe that the quotes are true in and of themselves.
I believe the quotes are true. Please stop providing beliefs for me and ignoring things I've said that contradict your provided belief. "In and of themselves" is your substituted lie that ignores my stated reasons for why the bible is credible.
You stated that it was credible (that the content inside it is true enough to quote directly)
No sir. The contents inside it is credible enough to quote directly. YOU asked about credibility. Now you want my answer to be about truth. Why did you not ask how was the bible true?
..because many people believed it over centuries. This is an ad populum fallacy.
Only if you change "credible" to "true". Please stop the fake semantic ploys. Legal courts use wetness testimonies everyday to show credibility. I answered the question you asked. If you wanted to know why the bible was true, you should have asked that.
Just because many people believe a source does not make it matter-of-fact.
Lol. Trying to hide the silly semantical game you're playing, so you use the weird term, "matter-of-fact" here. You could not say, "...does not make it true", for that would expose your fakery.
Many people believing a source makes it more credible. That is a fact your word play cannot defeat.
How much experience do you have in having discussions with me? Very little.
Everyone likes to think they are unique, but you are pretty run-the-mill. I can almost predict your questions and responses. Do you know how many times I've had to educate some yokel about the debunked Miller/Urey experiments?
If you think repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless, don’t repeat things for the sake of doing so.
My point exactly.
OK. And I will repeat things when my experience advises. Why you can't see that that this is not for the sake of doing so, is not my problem.
Either way, why I repeat things will be my choice, regardless of what you think.
Learn religions.com
Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions.
I find it funny how both you and Athias were adamantly insisting that 3RU7AL substantiate his claims, yet when I ask you two to do the same, you both refuse to do so.
We substantiated. We just refused to do it the way you wanted.
You jump as soon as a question is answered, never acknowledging that your comments leading to the question were wrong.
This is not an interrogation or me seeking validation from you, and what you find funny is immaterial.
You have asked all your questions and have not been able to show illogic or inconsistency, so now you will make some vague claim that I refuse to substantiate my claims. Yet I answered every question you asked.
The topic of the thread and spirituality have been forgotten by you as you meander with never ending questions who’s answers you pretend are positive claims that need to be immediately substantiated, while the original claim prompting your question is ignored and forgotten.
You wanted Athias and I to play your little atheist game of being the validator and we being the supplicants seeking your approval.
We didn't. Sorry. This is the real world.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Abiogenesis and Evolution directly counter the notion of creationism. How is creationism more credible than those I just presented?
Evolution says nothing about how life starts. Evolution is concerned only with change after life begins. As for abiogenesis, there is not a single piece of evidence for it in existence.
But I told you my views. If you think something else is credible, that is your business.
You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.
Nonsense. You asked if there were, I said there were. You can look it up, but I am under no obligation to offer it to you. It is not part of my argument and matters not one bit to me.
You made a claim that there is only one God. What is your proof?
Logic. God is omnipotent. Another omnipotent being cannot exist.
It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples.
Like most liberal atheists, you are confused and thinking I am seeking validation from you, or that you are somehow vetting me. My answer was enough for me. Accept or reject it.
How can you take the passages of the bible at face value?
I do not take them at face value. You asked how is the bible credible and I told you.
Repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless.
I repeated because my experience informed me it was needed. If you think repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless, don't repeat things for the sake of doing so.
Agnostic. Big Difference
Not in reality. It's a difference without distinction.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
He's trolling Speed, but doesn't seem to like being trolled as much.
Created:
Posted in:
Heaven has several meanings bully.
How do you know it means God's home here?
Oh, that's right, for atheists, words in the bible can only have one meaning.
Carry on. Your contradiction doesn't work unless you pretend to be silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then why do you dodge my questions Hosea? Dodging questions is a hallmark of a person with a failed argument.And because of that relentless indoctrination you fail EVERY TIME to defend your own statements...
Your goalposts ooze from one thing to another as I prove you wrong.
Here, at first you say, Jesus didn't say "don't touch me". But so what? How is that a contradiction? You can't say. But you insist its a contradiction.
Was Jesus supposed to say "don't touch me"? Why? What does it mean that He didn't? You dodge.
I have not failed at showing that you are an illogical liar. You have deliberately posted false verses, and have not corrected the lie when exposed.
You do not address rebuttals, you just stupidly repeat your debunked claim.
You actually think you should be able to just post verses and then call them contradictory without challenge.
Surprise!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The politics and current events boards will be redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
Apart from Jesus who else ascended to heaven?
What heaven? The one the stars sit in, or the home of God?
“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven”
Did Elijah go up into the sky, or did he go into God's home?
Is someone assuming again?
Christians do, after all, believe that the baptist was Elijah reincarnated, don't they?
No, they don't. Reincarnation is not biblical. Your ignorance has misled you again.
But of course this only highlights even more contradictions when we read what the scriptures themselves have to say about the situation .
Elijah has a meaning. Different people can have the same name. God often names people after their mission, so people with similar missions can have the same name.
Jesus was called Immanuel, for example.
John the baptist was prophesied to come to prepare the way for Jesus, in that role, he was like Elijah, and thus likened to Elijah.
But for you, to keep your lame contradiction claim afloat, words can have only one meaning, different people cannot have the same name, everything must be read hyper literally.
Stephen Curry is the New Michael Jordan.
Our genius sees a contradiction.
Lol.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Lol. What did you report? That I quoted you?
And to whom did you report it? The "nigger" mod?
After tax it was more than ten bucks
You paid tax on a sordid romp behind a sleazy truck stop with what you call a trans "nigger" chick?
Tell us another one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It can be a good thing if it is done correctly. But I knew liberals would not argue with that point.
It was good in America before 1952.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
How do you know he created you?
Only God can create life.
Any supporting evidence for this?
I generally do not waste my time on silly questions. So asking me for evidence for things like the sun being hot, only women giving birth, 2+3=5, and God being the only creator of life, will get dismissed without ceremony.
Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.
For example?
Look it up yourself. Why should I provide you non-biblical records of God appearing anywhere?
Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity.
OK. But please keep in mind that is your qualification, not mine.
if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Still your qualification, not mine. I know who I believe.
What is your qualification for the "Judeo-Christian" God?
Post #329 of this thread:
"As there is only one God, He needs no qualification."
Pay attention and we won't need to waste time like this again.
How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
Can you please elaborate on this?
No. I was clear enough.
Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.
This is an ad-populum fallacy [1].
No, it isn't. The ad-populum fallacy is an argument that states a belief is TRUE because many believe it is.
That was not what you asked. You asked, "How was the Bible CREDIBLE?" Billions of people testifying over hundreds of years that the bible is credible does lend it credibility.
See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
I got the point already. No need to repeat this.
My experience says it needed repeating.
Remember that when you get the temptation to run and dodge.
I'm not that type of person ;)
Aren't you an atheist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's only good under some situations.
But the loony left thinks it is intrinsically good.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
No need for anger you self-hating racist. I didn't make the rules. You should have made sure you had an N-Word pass before you used the word.
You shouldn't be behind truck stops anyway, those places are famous as hangouts for trans hookers, so its doubtful you met Speeds mom there anyway.
Who is your IQ "exceptional" to? You're bragging about shagging trans "niggers" behind truck stops for less than 10 bucks.
Your exceptional IQ is supposed to mean something isn't it?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Only God can create life. Plus, He said so.How do you know he created you?
Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.
Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity.
OK. But please keep in mind that is your qualification, not mine.
if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Still your qualification, not mine. I know who I believe.
How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.
See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
Good job
Thanks. Remember that when you get the temptation to run and dodge.
Created:
Posted in:
A registered democrat who worked for democrats and colluded with Shifty Shiff before making his "whistleblower" claim.The alleged whistleblower is a dude named Eric Ciaramella
And his attorney, in the past, tweeted derogatory remarks about Trump.
And CNN has hired his attorney as a political contributor.
We've got the deep state by the tail, and we will root/flush/drain them out.
The CIA, the FBI, the DOJ, and the State Department. All dishonest traitors.
If there are enough non-stupid Americans to help Trump win in 2020, the purge will begin soon after. We will take back our government and country back from liberal morons who want to see America become a socialist third world banana republic.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Of course. He's gay, so you know, he can have no human faults. And if he did, it would be homophobic to mention them.It also doesn't help that the media has been non stop fawning over pete...
I'm homophobic right now for bringing it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Walrus
How many technological advances have Americans behind them? Almost all.
Medical advances in the last 200 years? Ditto.
The most robust economy? The most diverse culture? The most free society?
America.
What's your definition of stupid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Says who?
The Bible itself.
YOU, again? yet another rewrite.
Have you won many debates by being silly? Read your bible with your brain on.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The "behind a truck" stop part still disqualifies you.
But there is a special exemption for really low IQ whites. I suspect you may qualify under that.
But I've seen you, and you look as if one of your grandparents caught a little jungle fever themselves. The low IQ exemption is given only to pure bred whites, so sorry, you will have to be tested.
Till then you will be considered just another self-hating racist. Sorry man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
They haven't.Seriously, didn't these left wing cretins learn nothing from 2016 and Clinton's " basket of deplorable's" insult?
The BBC did the same thing in the UK. They reported so negatively and so falsely on brexit that the Parliament was unable to come together for an exit deal.
They split the country, made people think brexiters were some other nationality, and made them doubt the first referendum.
The media profits off of agitation, controversy, and strife. So they encourage such in societies. Its time to reel them in.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
How does God affect you?
He created me. An easier question would be, "How does God NOT affect me.
Has God ever chosen to specifically appear in any physical location before (outside of the bible)?
To my knowledge, God has never chosen to specifically appear inside of a bible.
(That was a really weird question)
If the Judeo-Christian god...
Please, I said nothing about any Judeo-Christian god. As there is only one God, He needs no qualification.
...was known all around the world for thousands of years, then how come the vast majority of the world worshipped other deities?
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 - And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Has He ever done this outside of the bible?
Yes. Rom 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
A 3 dollar ho behind a truck stop doesn't count.I have an N word pass because I have fucked black chicks...
Created:
Posted in:
The "media" can't report on the specific accusations if there are no specific accusations.
That's not "bias" it's simple logic.
Unless its the media itself making the accusations against Trump.
They accuse Trump, then say they have to investigate accusations.
They fail to accuse Biden, then say we can't investigate cause there were no accusations!
Fake. All of them.
Created:
Posted in:
Please don't be stupid. Two groups of women set out that morning to put spices on the body. Jesus' mother was in one of the groups.Stop it! Again you are re writing the scripture attempting to edit in something that isn't even there.
The first group arrives and does not see Jesus, and they leave terrified that the body of Jesus has been stolen. Mary remains. Jesus appears. She is the one Jesus tells not to touch Him.
The second group arrives and finds the tomb empty. Both Mary and Jesus have left the gravesite. Coming out of the tomb, they meet angels who tells them Jesus has risen. They run back to tell the disciples at the house, Jesus meets them on the way. They are overjoyed.
Where is the contradiction?
Every time you attempt your rewrite it...
There is no rewrite Jed. Just you trying to force stupidity into the verses.
Look this was the same Mary Magdalene that Jesus told not to touch him
Lol. No it wasn't Pedro. There were 3 Mary's in Jesus' posse. Mary His mother, Mary magdaline, and Mary Salome ( the sister of Martha) Your ignorance has misled you again.
You are a complete and utter liar who simply cannot defend your corner against these blatant and obvious contradictions.
What lie have I told? If I am lying, why are you dodging questions?
You are ignorant of what you speak. Mary Magdaline was not among the women Jesus met on the road coming home.
This is what happens when you take your info off an atheist website instead of from the bible.
John doesn't contradict Matthew. John is one of the disciples Mary comes back to tell that the body of Jesus is missing. Matthew was not around then, so does not include the Mary meeting Jesus story whereas John does. It isn't a contradiction at all.
Don't get so worked up. The bible is not a secret book. Anyone can look it up.
But it appears your so called contradiction has morphed from Jesus saying Dont touch me, to Mary Magdalene.
For the fourth time, what exactly do you think is the contradiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hey man. Glad you're still around. Happy Turkey Day!
Created:
Poodles are winners.
Lol.
Created:
I discern what I respond to...
So do most people, which is why you have to run around yapping at heels.
Created:
Posted in:
No it was not. The women had just fled from the tomb when they came across Jesus who had greeted them mid flight.
This was the second group. How long had they been running? How far was their house from the tomb? Jesus had met the 1st group, the second group arrived later and did not see Jesus or the 1st group. Then they meet Jesus on their way back. Yes it was later Shemp. Or do I need to give you the definition of "later"?
It wasn't even hours after and certainly not days after.
So what? It was later. If Jesus says at a certain time, don't delay me because I have not yet ascended, and does not say so at a later time, isn't it reasonable to think He had now ascended, instead of pretending there is a contradiction?
There was no mention or protest from him about not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his father IN HEAVEN!!!
How do you know He had not? If this was at a later time, is it not more reasonable to believe He made no objections because He had now ascended?
You are, in your desperation, clutching at straws and trying to invent things that are not even written into the scripture.
Like what? It is true this was at a later time. I am taking exactly what is written in scripture. How long does an ascension take? How long should it have been before you would not find a contradiction?
You are angry that I am exposing the illogic in your claim. The two instances are at different times. You don't know how much later the 2nd instance was. But it was later.
Do you know the difference between your assumptions and reality?
I do, but you don't.
No, I do. That's why I'm able to bust you now on your assumption.
The reality is what is the REALITY of what written in the scripture and not what ISN'T written in the scripture.
You are complaining of what is NOT written genius...
"There was no mention or protest from him..."
And this was at a different time, why should there have been any protest from Jesus? How long after would you find acceptable?
If anyone is assuming anything it is you. as as can been seen, the scripture doesn't say the women met at another time
It was at another time Cletus! Jesus had left the tomb. The 1st group of women had left the tomb, the second group of women had left the tomb, and no telling how much later they met Jesus.
In those days, there were no cabs, people walked, and the fact that they started out before the sun rose, meant the distance was considerable. Stop being stupid to keep your lame claim afloat.
..or that they met the Christ after he had acceded to his father in heaven,
The fact that He made no protest indicates that He had chester!
but you want it to say that so attempting to make your assumptions REALITY!
You're the one assuming He hadn't so as to claim a contradiction.
You keep failing to explain the blatant discrepancies that I am highlighting...
You keep failing to show any. And I keep proving you wrong. You can claim I've failed, but the facts are there.
...and instead are choosing to re invent things that didn't happen and rewrite events
There is no discrepancy Shemp. Jesus met the two groups at different times. You want to assume Jesus had still not ascended. Why? Because you have to assume this to be able to claim a discrepancy.
By this being later, and Jesus saying nothing about being touched, I deduce that He has already ascended.
What have I rewritten? Why do you think Jesus had not yet ascended by the time He meets the 2nd group of women?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What "transcendent questions" specifically are you vaguely hinting at?
I wasn't hinting at anything. That was the definition of spirituality.
Sure, it might be "the force" or "angels" or "ghosts" or "auras" or any number of vague metaphors.
So, you have a problem with the word. What is it to me?
The same principle applies regardless.
What principle would that be? The debunked one of unobservable being nonexistent?
If they aren't independently verifiable
What does "independantly" mean here?
logically necessary,
What does "necessary" mean here?
...then they are, by definition, imaginary.
Whose definition? You are welcome to your illogic. I won't stop you.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional
Thanks for the straw-man.
You did define spiritual as worship of entities.
What I've done is examined the definition if "imaginary" and contrasted it with the definition of "exist".
No sir. You slapped the word imaginary on a thing and then pretended that made it nonexistent.
Please explain what you believe are the key distinctions between "religion" and "spirituality".
I already gave you the definition of spirituality. Religion is the set codes of conduct for worshipping a deity.
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Your general poor thinking and bias has crippled you. Here is what you're doing.
I say, 3+5=8
You say, 6+5=8
You think because your logic claim follows the same structure, it is the same argument. It isn't. Logic is more that just the structure, it is also the data inserted into the structure.
If you think unobserved things are nonexistent because they are unobserved, you make a logical fallacy.
There is a common saying for this logical fallacy. "What I can't see can't hurt me." I find this poor thinking fallacy typical of atheists who think they "know" science.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
He's done that before so you're right, I shouldn't be surprised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You did exactly what I predicted you'd do. You dodged my questions.Yes. You are doing exactly what I predicted you would do...
rearranging and re writing the whole scripture.
I rearranged and rewrote nothing. You're just confused because my questions show you to be a fake and a fraud.
Both Matthew, Luke, and Mark all say the same thing, the women told the others only AFTER they arrived back at home.
MUST DO BETTER!!!!
Why? I'm beating you already. You're dodging like a scared little girl.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Since this was at a later time, how do you know He had not?There was absolutely no complaint or protest from by Jesus about being touched BEFORE acceding to his father...
You don't know. You simply assume, and then pretend your assumption is fact.
Do you know the difference between your assumptions and reality?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That which can be observed is therefore observable.
OK. I can live with that.
But....
"That which cannot be observed is therefore nonexistent."
Doesn't get the approval of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I've known EV (etrnlVw) for years and I know he doesn't mock or abuse. Not only would Paul gain more knowledge from him than you, he would have a more enjoyable time of it.
I don't think anyone was mocking, therefore no one was back peddling.
The only one who seems to have a problem is you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes.Seriously?
Should we have done the militant anti-theist thing?
"There is no god!! All gods are man made!! All spirituality is delusion!! You can't prove God exists!! You are stupid!! You have been brainwashed!!" (Insert any other lame anti-theist drone here)
Paul said what he wanted to do. We afforded him that right. Unlike liberal atheists, we don't believe everyone must do what we like.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
God exists everywhere, inside and "outside" the observable universe.God exists outside of the observable universe.
Unless you are able to observe what is beyond the observable universe, you will not be able to observe god.
God also exists inside the observable universe too. And is able to affect me, though I cannot observe Him.
If so, then where?
God is like an electron in an electron cloud. He does not have a specific physical locus unless He chooses to physically manifest in one.
If not, then he is unobservable.
You seem to be using "observable" as "real". That is an incorrect usage of the word. Many real things are not observable, and for a long time, many things observable now were not observable.
Your actual argument is that God does not exist and is therefore unobservable. So I will not allow you to hide behind a misuse of the term, "observable".
Even the bible agrees that God is not observable, but it is a logical leap to go from that to God not existing.
Has God made Himself known to us in any way outside of the bible?
That should be obvious. God was known for thousands of years all over the world before there was a bible. The bible itself is only an indication that God made Himself known.
Which supports my point that though we cannot observe God, He can observe us and affect the world in which we live.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.
Please substantiate your claim.I'm willing to entertain any definition of "spirituality" you personally prefer
Spirituality is about a person's relationship with the transcendent questions that confront one as a human being. This may or may not involve relationships with God, this is why even atheists can be spiritual.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional.
But your definition of spirituality is actually the definition of religion. Even the bible distinguishes the difference between religion and spirituality.
Some spirituality can be delusional of course, but to say that "all spirituality" is delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.
..entities that are not scientifically observable = delusional
This is clearly Illogical. Everything outside our ability to observe cannot be delusions.
Technology changes, when technology advances to a point where something previously unobservable becomes observable, does that thing suddenly stop being a delusion?
You have tailored you "definition" to fit your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
These things should be so obvious they need not even be stated, but with any discussion of voting based on political affiliation... it has to be said.
This is sad and should not be the case... but here we are.
Which is precisely why we cannot remove all restrictions.
Created:
Posted in:
The only two changes we need are...
1. Make voting easier.
(With weighted votes that reduce the need for huge RFD's
2. Reduce barriers that prevent voting from being easy (i.e., voting moderation, RFD requirements, etc.).
Common sense tells us that without restrictions on voting, the system would quickly become unusable.
Created:
The loon doesn't know his "embarrass the bible" schtick doesn't work with atheists. Lol
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
OCD is a sad thing to witness.
Created:
Posted in:
Because....The query at the time was why did this risen so called "god" refuse the affection one person to touch him yet encouraged another to do the opposite?
[He had] not yet ascended to [His] Father
The reason is given in the verse jedthro!
There is not a single mention here about not touching him because he hasn't yet ascended to his father.
This was at a different time genius!
So you ignore the reason given INSIDE the verse of why Jesus says "don't touch me" and smarmily imply its a gender issue, and then pick a later time and assume He still has not yet ascended.
Why does your brain go off when you open a bible?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok, let’s start over with the main question:
Does god exist?
Did you even read my post?
If you want to start yet another lame thread about Does God Exist, do it on the religion board.
The main question in this thread had nothing to do with God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@PressF4Respect
Athias was right, this is sophistry.
A claim was made, when the claim maker was asked to substantiate his claim, he ridiculously replied that asking him to support his claim meant we must believe something counter to his claim! And anything counter to his claim is on its face, illogical. He then said all claimants must support their claims!
All this while, his claim has sat unsupported.
First, we could believe the same thing, but disagree on the reason given for why it is correct. Thus a request to substantiate (say bigfoot) does not necessarily mean the one requesting support disbelieves bigfoot.
All of that is moot anyway, as your burden to provide proof of your claim has nothing to do with our beliefs about the subject of your claim.
So, the bottom line. Do you still support your claim?
"All spirituality is delusional."
If you still do, can you substantiate it?
Until you do, neither Athias or I have to support any claim or counter claim, and certainly not until we make a claim or counter claim.
Also, neither of us have claimed or implied that you are wrong, we are simply asking for why you think you are right.
If you cannot logically support your claim, we can throw it out as unsubstantiated rubbish.
@Press4
You assume because you don't know, nobody knows. Speak only for yourself.
If you consider that the Christian views God as a living, conscious, person, instead of thinking of Him as a "force" or "law" of nature, you would understand the Christian position much better.
So on our own, we cannot perceive God, but that in no way means God cannot make Himself known to us.
But more and more you will find Christians reluctant to get dragged into a "Does God Exist?" debate on every thread, because we sometimes we want to debate other things.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
They are attempting the same thing with you.It's clear that they're strawmanning you--or at the very least, attempting to strawman you.
But we must first make the claim before you start attacking it!In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
The only one who has made a claim is you. Now, instead of defending the claim you did make, you want us to defend a claim we did not make. Only noobs would fall for that ploy.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
And when we make exceptions for certain claims, you may have a point.
Created: