Total posts: 5,875
Yeah. Just saw where she asked for the debate link.
Created:
Posted in:
This is because people look at God as if He's a big old human in the sky, and think His emotions are like ours.
It makes a difference who you are.
Daddy likes mommie
Johnny likes mommie
Anyone think the "likes" are the same?
God's anger and jealousy is not like its human counter part. Why would one assume it was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Thank you. It is obvious you have a concept in your mind when you say God. One of your founding criteria is creation of the universe. Though it doesn't have to be.
I always say, the party that has to dodge questions cannot possibly have the better argument. But if we are talking God, and one side has no understanding of why they are using the word God, we are going to be talking past each other.
A thing doesn't have to be real for us to be able to agree on a definition. For example, a unicorn, fairies, or superman are all fictional but have clear definitions. I call this animal a unicorn because it has a bushy tail, a mane, equine features, and a spiral horn on its forehead. Those qualities make it a unicorn to me, and that is what I mean when I say "unicorn".
Now, what qualities make a being God to you? What qualifies it as God in your mind? What do you mean when you say God? If you can't answer these questions, you have no business using the word. You haven't a clue what it means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So?
Well, I had the impression you prefered to quote conservatives likeThatcher and Churchill. You're not noted as a big fan of left-wing intellectuals.
It is a bit of a stretch to call him left-wing. But the quote was took conservative know-how. I loved the blunt truth of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So?
Well, I had the impression you prefered to quote conservatives likeThatcher and Churchill. You're not noted as a big fan of left-wing intellectuals.
It is a bit of a stretch to call him left-wing. But the quote was took conservative know-how. I loved the blunt truth of it.
Created:
Posted in:
I am asking what you mean when you say "God"
I'll repeat this yet again because it seems you have yet to comprehend it.
You aren't being asked what other people refer to as God. We are asking what you mean. And it is obvious, you have no meaning. Mouthing words that have no meaning is gibberish.
There are hundreds of entities that have been referred to as "God" throughout history.
And no one is asking you about that. You can't even dodge the question sensibly.
If the person were a Christian, I would assume he referred to Christ as God, a Muslim to Allah, a Norwegian to Thor.
No one has asked you who "the person" was referring to, but who YOU are referring to. You don't know, yet you keep using a word which for you, has no meaning. Lol. It's funny. When you say "God", is your mind blank or is it full of nonsensical gibberish?
Whatever the case, the term God has been referred to in a number of ways.
You have not been asked the number of ways God has been referred to. When you can't or won't answer a question, it's best to stay quiet.
I don't think I can make this any clearer and hope not to have to repeat myself.
You can't say what the word "God" means to you when you use it. It is very clear. One can only repeat what one has said. You have failed to state what the word "God" means to you when you say it. That is why you can't repeat it.
Only the deranged or the dishonest deliberately use words whose meanings they do not know.
I'm sure that will come back to you some time soon. But, whats puzzling is you said this...
Dodge!!
I know, and can define, the words I use.
But, first you said this...What I believe is immaterial.
I'm asking you what YOU mean. How is what I believe material? Surely you can think for yourself?
So, should I care that you can define the words you use and that your argument is meaningless?
If my argument was meaningless, you would not be spouting gibberish. You use a word, yet have no idea what the word you use means.
So much for the logical atheist knocking the theistic argument out of the park. Scratch their surface folks, and you'll find that they and their arguments are vacuous.
How good is your argument if you have to dodge? Thanks goldy, you've been informative and entertaining.
Created:
Posted in:
Eagles v Jags: TOSS UP(2 struggling teams clashing in neutral ground)
Eagles. Correct
Ravens v Panthers
Ravens. Wrong
Broncos v Chiefs
Broncos. Wrong
Browns v Steelers (Of course)
Steelers. Correct
Seahawks v Lions
Seahawks . Correct
Bucs vs Bengals
Bengals. Correct
Jets v Bears (Bears no good this year)
Jets. Wrong
Redskins v Giants (Will be a good game)
Giants. Wrong
Colts v Raiders: (Who cares) not me
Colts. Correct
49ers v Cardinals
49ers. Wrong
Packers v Rams
Rams. Correct
Saints v Vikings (Viks will pull it out)
Vikings. Wrong
Patriots v Bills
Patriots. Correct
Created:
Created:
Would not an appropriate title have been, "Yeshuabought does not have the right to life."? Instead of a death threat?
Bsh1. You are the mod. Your politics and political correctness you can cram down our throats. A few right wing posters can't.
Created:
Not even close.Drake is clearly more popular right now than Beatles in their prime
While I agree that rap is a valid art form requiring talent, Drake is not as famous as the Beatles were in their prime. Sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not. That is intellectual dishonesty.
I'm sure you could come up with hundreds of sources with definitions for hundreds of different gods, just like me or anyone else.
Sure. But I am asking what you mean when you say "God". It is clear now that when you say "God", you haven't a clue what you mean.
You agreed that we needed a definition of "God". You don't have one, and will reject all others. Only the deranged or the dishonest deliberately use words whose meanings they do not know.
But, if you actually believe that you have "THE" definition of God, then that would indeed be intellectually dishonest.
What I believe is immaterial. YOU used the word. Now here you are dodging a question asking, "what do YOU mean when YOU use the word. You haven't clue.
When you can tell us what YOU mean when you say "God", we will all be closer to a definition. But I suspect you want a malleable definition so you can play semantics with it.
I know, and can define, the words I use.
Created:
Posted in:
All are the same.
We need not go further than this as it shows your ignorance of other religions.
I need know nothing about other religions. You are being asked for your definition of God. Do you have one?
We have supplied one. You didn't like it.
One is one of many. No one said anything about not liking it.
You rejected mopac's definition. You seem not to be able to supply one of your own.
Is it any wonder you can't figure out a definition?
Is it any wonder you're ignorant of other religions definitions?
Why is my knowledge of other religions definitions relevant here? Do you mean something when you say God? Do you know what that is?
The atheist is not talking about a singularity, but an incoherent multiplicity of "gods"
That's because there are a multiplicity of gods with a wide variety of definitions, not just one.
You are being asked for your definition. Surely you mean something when you say God. Do you know what that is?
Can't you just smell the intellectual honesty?
Yes, just not from you.
Not from you either. I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not.
That is intellectual dishonesty.
Created:
Posted in:
If the atheist is going to use the theist's meaning, then they must accept the theistic meaning.
Which theistic meaning? The Christian, Islamic, Greek, Roman...?
All are the same. But if you don't like the theistic meaning, supply your own. If you use a word, should not that word have meaning to you?
There are so many theistic meanings to God, you have to provide the correct one, which of course you nor anyone else would actually know.
Dishonest. We have supplied one. You didn't like it. When we say, "OK, supply your own", you mention a me "given".... given by whom? Surely you aren't telling us you are using a word whose meaning you do not know? Is it any wonder you can't figure out a definition?
So atheist, why do you call Him God?
That's the name given to all invisible super beings that have never been shown to exist.
What does "super" mean? Given by whom? Why did you adopt this meaning?
There you have it. The atheist is not talking about a singularity, but an incoherent multiplicity of "gods", and has no reason for using the word "god(s)" except that it is the word "given" to "super" beings by some unnamed group.
Now the atheist will castigate the theist for not being able to define a word he himself doesn't know the meaning of, cannot logically define, and has no logical reason for assigning.
Can't you just smell the intellectual honesty?
Created:
Posted in:
Ethang5:People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.— George Orwell
GO was a life-long socialist.
So?
Created:
Posted in:
The thing no one has addressed, is that God is singular. This is why He is called God. The atheist uses the word God with no idea of what they are saying. So I must ask. When you call a being "God", why do you give Him that name?
The atheist wants a definition of God. But a definition of what? We must know what the atheist means when he says "God". If the atheist is going to use the theist's meaning, then they must accept the theistic meaning. If they will supply their own meaning, then their expectations for this being must be reasonable and logical.
We have been talking past each other because the atheist is attempting to define a singular as a multiple.
When we say "God", we have defined a set consisting of a single member. So there are 2 sets, the set of "God", and the set containing "Everything Else". Notice this remains logical regardless of whether God exists or not.
We thus cannot define "God" using the same qualities we used for
"Everything Else". That is illogical as they are in different sets, and the reason they are in different sets is because they have different qualities.
God is singular. He is God. None of the qualities of Everything Else apply to Him.
So atheist, why do you call Him God?
Created:
Posted in:
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep."
― Navajo Proverb
Created:
For the life of me, I can't understand why he's so popular. Can't sing, looks like a penguin when dancing, and his lyrics are childish.
Guess for me it's called getting old.
Created:
Is it just me or is Drake a talentless hack?
Created:
Posted in:
I had my vote annulled because I did not specifically mention why I voted the way I did in each of the 5 (6) vote criteria. Had no problem with that till I saw several successful votes with no mention of each and every criteria.
What gives?
So I start checking. Certain people basically "trading" votes. Certain people suddenly getting 3 or 4 points in a debate that has been tied or close for days. Vote moderation uneven but slightly statistically in favor of certain people.
This ain't DDO with its ridiculous voting rules and voting cabals.
I think a cabal may be forming.
Created:
Posted in:
It was @keithprosser
You said, "this equation describes what a lot of humans think". Keith thinks otherwise, but behaves as if his personal thought on the matter is already true and established sans argument.
It is an anti-intellectual stance. A position that subjugates logic to dogma. One that prioritizes anti-theism over common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
That is why it is revered and honored around the world and no one knows you.
It is because it is taught by others and but not read by those others.
You aren't taught. Jealous much?
I don't have time for bitter people imagining nonsensical things
You could have fooled me.
A third grader could have fooled you.
Sod off if you can't cope with the pressure.
Lol. What pressure?
Or simply put me on ignore.
Why would I do that? You are entertainment. I love seeing the smart atheists fume each time you post one of your laughably silly conspiracy theories.
You want to take the trial from the script, but not the pardon.
That's right.
I know. That is illogical. You should not be proud of it.
I believe....
I don't really care for what gibberish you believe. I care what the bible says. And until you start posting sense, my opinion of what you think will remain the same.
This is a no fakery zone.
Created:
Posted in:
That is why it is revered and honored around the world and no one knows you.
I don't have time for bitter people imagining nonsensical things. You want to take the trial from the script, but not the pardon. Silly. Go cherry pick in your orchard.
Only logic is allowed here.
Created:
Posted in:
...which Joseph I am writing about.
You guys notice that for Stephen, there are two of everyone in the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
Basically, all you do is post the verse and then say it says something it doesn't say.
If Jesus or Barabbas were Roman prisoners, they could not have been offered to the Jews for release. Think man.
You have poor reading comprehension. In the sentence, "that had made insurrection with him," the "him" is Barabbas because Barabbas is the subject. But I guess you didn't learn grammar in high school.
I don't have to show you anything if it is in the text. The text says it was common custom. Do you have any evidence it wasn't?
Follow the text genius. That is where the story comes from. That is where you are to get your information. Stop being clueless.
Created:
Posted in:
You have the text. Read it.
I know it makes you angry to have your fakery exposed. But you will have to live with it. Even your fellow atheist has corrected you. Your loony imagination will just not fly.
You post nonsense, you will get called on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stop being dramatic. No one is being interrogated by you. No one is under any clock to answer you. You aren't that important.
You may address any post you like, but to answer as if the post was directed at you is silly. Telling me that "you are not asking any such thing" is ludicrous when no one claimed you were. The post was not directed to you.
Ok. Now let us see all your evidence .
It's in the text. You know the text where you're getting the story from in the first place? Remember that?
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
Eagles v Jags: TOSS UP(2 struggling teams clashing in neutral ground)
Eagles
Ravens v Panthers
Ravens
Broncos v Chiefs
Broncos
Browns v Steelers (Of course)
Steelers
Seahawks v Lions
Seahawks
Bucs vs Bengals
Bengals
Jets v Bears (Bears no good this year)
Jets
Redskins v Giants (Will be a good game)
Giants
Colts v Raiders: (Who cares) not me
Colts
49ers v Cardinals
49ers
Packers v Rams
Rams
Saints v Vikings (Viks will pull it out)
Vikings
Patriots v Bills
Patriots
Created:
Posted in:
Yes. You go and try to find out if there is a reality. Good lad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 specifically.One claims man was made before animals and the other claims that animals were made before man.
Untrue.
Nope. Your imagination remains unconvincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
For your convenience my argument is that the genesis account is self contradictory in that one account claims that animals were made before man and another account also in genesis claims that man was made before animals.
I've read Genesis. It does not say so. As I said, your imagination is uninteresting to me.
That is my argument.
That isn't an argument. It is a claim. It has no basis in fact. I remain uninterested.
You may address it or not but please stop changing the subject and resorting to ad hominem
It has been addressed. Your imagination, along with your persecution complex, should be told to the appropriate professional.
Created:
Posted in:
Does anyone know for sure whether bladerunner is Airmax? Does anyone know for sure that bladerunner is not Airmax? Anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
An ad hominem attack is one of the classical logical fallacies.
Thanks for the attempted lesson, but it has no relevance here. No one has put up an argument, or is supposed to. No one has attacked you. And no one seems to care what you think of it.
It occurs when one interlocutor targets the other rather than the argument made by that person.
No one is "targeting" you, unless you are referring to your imagination. You have not put up an argument. No one seems to care whether you have an argument or not. At least I don't. You appear to desire that I care. I don't.
If for example you tell someone to go tell their mommy or to wake up or that no one cares about them rather than addressing their argument directly.
If someone told me that, I would stop posting to them. You have no argument anyway, only imagination. If you think I am deliberately not addressing your "arguments", and I have told you that you have no arguments, and that if you did, they would be of zero interest to me, the only reason I can see for you continueing to post your cares to me is that you're dreaming.
This often happens when one has no good argument to present as a way of trying to "get out of the corner" to use boxing parlance.
I would call you deluded if you did have an argument, but as you don't, this is just your imagination. I don't care about your imagination. It certainly is not my responsibility to address. And no amount of confusion on your part will change that.
As a (sleeping) liberal, it is difficult for you to grasp that another person could have no interest in your thoughts. Believe it. When you have an argument, I may be interested.
So save the logic lessons, and the laughable idea that you could "trap" someone in a boxing ring without gloves, shoes, strength, or knowledge of boxing. Find someone who likes your weird obtuse sleep "debating" and flex your imagination there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We hear the Son say tothe Father, "your will, not mine."
We do. We also herehim beg and plead while sweating blood in stark fear at his predicament with his “father” to relieve him of this “cup”
Sure. He was human. That was normal.
And you call it a"failure"?
I do.
God sent Him to die. God let Him die. But God "failed"? Lol. God succeeded in His plan. Buy a clue.
He was beggedand pleaded with by his only relieve him of the terrifying barbaric ordeal buthis father failed him. He ignored him totally as if he didn’t even exist.
Or like it was the plan all along?
Because no sane personwants to be beaten, flogged, and tortured for hours.
That doesn’t answerthe question you clown.
It does. Jesus wanted the cup taken away because no one wants the be tortured.
If he understood the OT prophecy as you say, then whydid he even bother begging to be a reprieve? Your story makes no sense whatsoever.
He understood it, He did not want it. That is normal human nature. That you don't understand it only shows your poor understanding of human nature.
Oh, and He did notsweat blood. Read it slowly.
And you read thisverse slowly you clown.
Lol. When you get angry, your writing skill, already low, becomes atrocious.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as itwere great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Luke 22:44.
Biblical religious scholars <<<<< that is someone who knows the scriptures much better than you ever will, - have identified this condition as the rare hematohidrosis.
Lol. The same scholars you reject? The text says "as blood" meaning, "like blood". He did not sweat blood. Read it slowly.
It make perfect sense.
You say he understood the prophecy. Then heshouldn’t have been whinging and moaning and sweating blood in sheer stark fear if he knew thiswas his destiny all along.
Because you say so? You know nothing of human nature. The bible isn't senseless because you are clueless.
Learn your scriptures. they make no sense.
I know scripture. That is how I know Jesus sweated as if He was bleeding, not that He sweated blood.
Scripture makes no sense only to you, because you have no sense. The story will continue to be considered one of the greatest ever told. You will continue being confused and clueless.
Lol. I feel sorry for you.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not asking for anything of the sort.
The post was not addressed to you genius.
It is your fault that you don't have a clue as to what is going on in these gospels, not mine.
Lol. You don't even know what posts are addressed to you, but OK.
Keith has shown his reluctance to commit himself either way so just repeats his fall back mantra to the effect that - 'he wasn't there 2,000 years and neither was you or I so we will never know'.
Keith knows what facts are.
And you haven't answered my question :Who did Barabbas commit "insurrection " against if it wasn't the Roman Empire.
The Jewish state.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is about the failure of the "father"- Jesus' "father" to relive his only son Jesus - NOT BARABBAS, OR MOSES, OR BARNABAS - of "this cup". Something only "the father" could sanction.
So the Father tells us the cup is coming. The son tells us the cup is coming. We know the Son's purpose was to drink from this cup. We hear the Son say to the Father, "your will, not mine."
And you call it a "failure"? Lol. OK.
...then tell us all, why did he ask his "father" to relieve him from it all?
Because no sane person wants to be beaten, flogged, and tortured for hours.
Why did he BEG and "SWEAT BLOOD" in sheer fear of the consequences he faced.
Because no sane person wants to be beaten, flogged, and tortured for hours. Oh, and He did not sweat blood. Read it slowly.
Why did he even bother to beg his father 2/3 times to relieve him of this extreme and deadly burden, if he understood what it all was coming to?
Because he was human, and because no sane person wants to be beaten, flogged, and tortured for hours.
You see, again your gospel story doesn't make a single piece of sense.
It make perfect sense. That is one of the reasons it is so popular. You just have a poor sense of human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am awake now quite well rested thank you....
Good. Perhaps now you can identify someone who cares about your imaginations? Your mom maybe?
....but if your arguments hinge on my already accepting them before you have presented them
What arguments? Sleep still in your eyes? Take as much time as you need.
....then I'm not sure how convincing we can consider them.
Why would I care how convincing you (we?) consider them? You have to still be sleeping if you are still dreaming that your "consideration" is sought or desired. Wake up man.
(Someone who already believes doesn't need convincing after all).
Neither does someone who is awake.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah Keith, why do you keep skirting this "fact"?Not impossible, I agree, But you keep purposefully ignoring my point completely that these gospels are believed by Christians and it is from this standpoint they can to be challenged. You keep skirting this fact everytime I point it out.
Do you believe that the Jesus of the gospels ever existed? Yes or No?Yeah Keith. Stop being mealy-mouthed. Quit the slick doublespeak.
I told you that running to "it's all fantasy" after pretending the story is true to make your fake interpretation seem reasonable was unethical. If the story is untrue, your silly personal opinion of the subplots are also untrue. You can't have both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We can only conclude that he didn’t have a clue that this was how it was all supposed to end.
Or, if we aren't idiots, we would conclude no sane person wouldn't be hesitant at being flogged, beaten, and tortured for hours.
More than a thousand years earlier, it was predicted that Jesus would be betrayed, tortured, and crucified in the OT. Now here comes our local genius to tell us Jesus didn't know.
"We can only conclude"....the most stupid thing. Why? What is keeping you away from common sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not really sure what you mean by this or what point, if any, you intended.
No rush. When you are awake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I will keep your posts for now, but when you awake and find someone who cares, please begin to direct your imaginings to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Right, I'm to take argument advice from one who can't make an argument.
I could wish that you would offer an actual argument...
When you are older, you will better realize that things you don't know of can exist.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm shaking in my booties. Your belief being so important to me. Never mind that you claim not to be able to believe by choice.You are under no obligation to define contradictory but if you are unwilling or unable to do so then I will have no choice but believe that you do not know what the word means and as a result I have no choice but to reject any claim that you make concerning what is and is not contradictory.
What is it that makes liberals believe their personal belief is important to others?
Created:
Posted in:
In the absence of sufficient refutation my statement about the bible being self contradictory stands.
When you wake up, you will find your statement lying where it has always been.
Honestly ethang5 even Mopac has admitted that the bible contradicts itself.
Hold on, let me alert christandom. If he also admits you know something, will your head fill up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Our distance from DDO has made you forget that Ethan does not do the merry-go-round with you. You are a self-admitted ignorant. What do I care what muddled up ideas infect your mind?Kindly define the word contradiction.
When you find a contradiction that still exists when you wake up, I'll be interested. Till then, your imagination should remain your business.
Created: