Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on March 20, 2016, 08:46:29 AM
-
deleted
-
The fundie/Biblical literalists Christians just love to tell the rest of us that they have the 'truth', but can't provide the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to substantiate their claim.
Again an ignorant statement because you do not know what Christians claim to be the truth.
Here is a clue for you:-
King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So Christ is the evidence to substantiate the claim. The truth is you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
The fact that millions of people claim to be Christians doesn't make the religion true, a statement which has been made many times to try to convince non believers. No doubt people of other religions believe their faiths are true too, whilst yet again not being able to verify their beliefs are factual.
Like saying " Because God claims to be God doesn't make it true."
What makes a person a Christian and what do they claim which would not make the religion true or do you mean real?
I have come to the conclusion the 'truth' is exclusive to the person concerned, however far fetched it might be to other people. It is fine for people to believe what they wish to believe, with the proviso that they don't force it down the throats of others in the real world, and don't use it as an excuse for bigotry and abuse.
Aren't you doing that very thing with believers here. Ramming down their throats your none belief whilst making statements which show no knowledge of their actual beliefs. Are you not bigoted against God and don't you abuse believers by claiming their faith to have no substance when all around the world people are being cured everyday by Gods power both in prayer and the laying on of hands claiming the very promises of God.
-
So Christ is the evidence to substantiate the claim.
Christ is a character in an old book who may or may not have been based on a real person. It is not evidence of anything other than somebody wrote the stories.
I suggest looking up the word evidence...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
-
Christ is a character in an old book who may or may not have been based on a real person. It is not evidence of anything other than somebody wrote the stories.
I suggest looking up the word evidence...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Explain the evidence of God, in truth through his word to the believer.
You see how you perceive evidence? Isn't the things about science and theory received on faith by you.
There is absolutely no way categorically you can produce evidence for the things believed about space, the universe and even our milkyway. But you believe them to be truth. The big bang theory is useless in that it cannot tell you what existed before it and therefore how it came into existence. Till you can produce your evidence to believe what you do, you must accept that our evidence known and believed only by us, is acceptable too.
-
Explain the evidence of God, in truth through his word to the believer.
Some people made up a story and others believe it.
You see how you perceive evidence? Isn't the things about science and theory received on faith by you.
There is absolutely no way categorically you can produce evidence for the things believed about space, the universe and even our milkyway. But you believe them to be truth.
The evidence for the conclusions of science are a matter of public record; experiments and observations performed, hypotheses produced and tested; test hypotheses becoming theories. Very often followed by technology based on them such as you are using.
The big bang theory is useless in that it cannot tell you what existed before it and therefore how it came into existence. Till you can produce your evidence to believe what you do, you must accept that our evidence known and believed only by us, is acceptable too.
The big bang theory is about the universe expanding from a hot dense phase about 14 billion years ago. It makes no pretence at being anything else.
Us not knowing what happened before (or even if 'before' is a sensible concept), does not render it 'useless' nor does it lend credence to your favourite myths.
-
Some people made up a story and others believe it.
In that being the case, then why don't you? Not an answer really. I guess the thing is what is fiction and what is reality.
We both know when it comes to the bible there is no way to find out but to do as it tells us. Have you done it? Well then you are no in a position to claim it just as story.
The evidence for the conclusions of science are a matter of public record; experiments and observations performed, hypotheses produced and tested; test hypotheses becoming theories. Very often followed by technology based on them such as you are using.
Man made words, man made reasoning, man made defifinitions... getting the picture now?
Still not evidence and theories remain theories in the face of no solid evidence.
The big bang theory is about the universe expanding from a hot dense phase about 14 billion years ago. It makes no pretence at being anything else.
Hot dense phase of what? No proof you see even the scientist claim they know nothing of what existed before the big bang. So where did you learn the HOT DENSE PHASE from?
Us not knowing what happened before (or even if 'before' is a sensible concept), does not render it 'useless' nor does it lend credence to your favourite myths.
It still renders it more of a myth and not factual than the bible. Jesus Christ tells us to obey his words and we will know if his words are his or come from God. You need more faith to believe in a big bang than Christians do to believe Gods word.
-
...... theories remain theories in the face of no solid evidence.
...actually theories remain theories even with solid evidence.
Truth us that you know so little about science as demonstrated by your replies on the subject!
-
“An ant eater in Noah’s Ark Complaints Department: “You only brought two ants!” – AMB
Pinched from The Freethinker........ says it all really.
-
The fundie/Biblical literalists Christians just love to tell the rest of us that they have the 'truth', but can't provide the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to substantiate their claim. The fact that millions of people claim to be Christians doesn't make the religion true,
It's funny then that a fall in Church attendance proves that there is no God :D
-
Again an ignorant statement because you do not know what Christians claim to be the truth.
Here is a clue for you:-
King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So Christ is the evidence to substantiate the claim. The truth is you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
Like saying " Because God claims to be God doesn't make it true."
What makes a person a Christian and what do they claim which would not make the religion true or do you mean real?
Aren't you doing that very thing with believers here. Ramming down their throats your none belief whilst making statements which show no knowledge of their actual beliefs. Are you not bigoted against God and don't you abuse believers by claiming their faith to have no substance when all around the world people are being cured everyday by Gods power both in prayer and the laying on of hands claiming the very promises of God.
I am definitely bigoted against evil, which the god character in that not so good book appears to be!
-
Sassy, I find trying to disentangle your barely literate ramblings rather tedious but this stood out:-
...even the scientist claim they know nothing of what existed before the big bang.
So what?
The existence of an unknown does not indicate that any old 'just so' story or myth is the answer.
The idea that pointing out gaps in our knowledge supports their case, really is one of the silliest theist beliefs.
-
Sassy, I find trying to disentangle your barely literate ramblings rather tedious but this stood out:-
So what?
The existence of an unknown does not indicate that any old 'just so' story or myth is the answer.
The idea that pointing out gaps in our knowledge supports their case, really is one of the silliest theist beliefs.
Agreed
-
The idea that pointing out gaps in our knowledge supports their case, really is one of the silliest theist beliefs.
Happily, science is relentlessly removing the gaps, and finally there will be nothing left to cling to ... so religious claims will sink into oblivion!
-
Happily, science is relentlessly removing the gaps, and finally there will be nothing left to cling to ... so religious claims will sink into oblivion!
Oh I don't know, people like Sass may always want to hold onto fantasies!
-
Oh I don't know, people like Sass may always want to hold onto fantasies!
I suppose so! Anything rather than face the fact that death is the end of us. :)
-
...actually theories remain theories even with solid evidence.
Truth us that you know so little about science as demonstrated by your replies on the subject!
What your answer clearly shows is that you did not read the posts of that conversation.
Your ignorance is almost deafening....
-
Sassy, I find trying to disentangle your barely literate ramblings rather tedious but this stood out:-
So what?
The existence of an unknown does not indicate that any old 'just so' story or myth is the answer.
The idea that pointing out gaps in our knowledge supports their case, really is one of the silliest theist beliefs.
Don't blame everyone else for your own failings when it comes to understanding the bible.
Fact is you think insult covers the fact everyone knows that it is your own lack of knowledge which renders you ignorant and unable to answer, not anything written by any Christian poster.
When you understand what we are discussing come back by all means. But don't waste our time replying with BS
-
Again an ignorant statement because you do not know what Christians claim to be the truth.
Here is a clue for you:-
King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So Christ is the evidence to substantiate the claim. The truth is you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
Like saying " Because God claims to be God doesn't make it true."
What makes a person a Christian and what do they claim which would not make the religion true or do you mean real?
Aren't you doing that very thing with believers here. Ramming down their throats your none belief whilst making statements which show no knowledge of their actual beliefs. Are you not bigoted against God and don't you abuse believers by claiming their faith to have no substance when all around the world people are being cured everyday by Gods power both in prayer and the laying on of hands claiming the very promises of God.
Sass, let's have the proof, a link of any kind to a realistic source, i.e. no godhead organisations ideas about truth.
ippy
-
In that being the case, then why don't you? Not an answer really. I guess the thing is what is fiction and what is reality.
We both know when it comes to the bible there is no way to find out but to do as it tells us. Have you done it? Well then you are no in a position to claim it just as story.
Man made words, man made reasoning, man made defifinitions... getting the picture now?
Still not evidence and theories remain theories in the face of no solid evidence.
Hot dense phase of what? No proof you see even the scientist claim they know nothing of what existed before the big bang. So where did you learn the HOT DENSE PHASE from?
It still renders it more of a myth and not factual than the bible. Jesus Christ tells us to obey his words and we will know if his words are his or come from God. You need more faith to believe in a big bang than Christians do to believe Gods word.
Sass, your posts would be a lot better if you were to preface them with a scattering of, I believes, then they couldn't be faulted, you're entitled to believe whatever you like, but believing shouldn't be confused with saying you know something to be the truth, assertions don't count for anything, they really don't count.
ippy
-
What your answer clearly shows is that you did not read the posts of that conversation.
Your ignorance is almost deafening....
Talking to yourself again, Sass. ;D
-
Don't blame everyone else for your own failings when it comes to understanding the bible.
Fact is you think insult covers the fact everyone knows that it is your own lack of knowledge which renders you ignorant and unable to answer, not anything written by any Christian poster.
When you understand what we are discussing come back by all means. But don't waste our time replying with BS
Take your own advice. ;D
-
What your answer clearly shows is that you did not read the posts of that conversation.
Your ignorance is almost deafening....
Well if mine is 'almost', yours is absolutely doorpost-like!
-
Don't blame everyone else for your own failings when it comes to understanding the bible.
Fact is you think insult covers the fact everyone knows that it is your own lack of knowledge which renders you ignorant and unable to answer, not anything written by any Christian poster.
When you understand what we are discussing come back by all means. But don't waste our time replying with BS
What monstrous, ignorant conceit! What gives you the right to assume that your own interpretation of the Bible is correct and anything else is wrong? For heavens' sake try to be a little more humble, and not so puffed-up with yourself.
-
“An ant eater in Noah’s Ark Complaints Department: “You only brought two ants!” – AMB
Pinched from The Freethinker........ says it all really.
The whole Noah's Ark story is blown wide open when we think about the implications of the following question:
"why is there still syphilis?"
-
This rebirth thread is just an old cartoon floo does, over and over and over, year after year. She has no credibility when writing about truth.
kind of,
Firstly, you are as arrogant as that godless atheist Shaker. Just about puked when I read your complaint of barley being able to disentangle. That stinks so much of Shaker my eyes started to water and my skin became itchy.
However, I do thank you for making me laugh. Your remark on the unknown not indication a myth or an old story is the answer.
Well kind of, the Dickster does have a myth about that and he loves to preach it. Want to to hear? Here we go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4
-
Sassy, how about you stop saying everyone else is ignorant and actually listen to what is being said for a change.
-
Again an ignorant statement because you do not know what Christians claim to be the truth.
Here is a clue for you:-
King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Written by some Greek bloke 60-90 years after the death of Jesus.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Written by some Greek bloke some 60-90 years after the death of his protagonist, who he had never seen let alone met.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Written by some Greek bloke 60-90 years after his hero passed away, who obviously liked to tell a story and created a unique theosophy over the time it took him to create his main character.
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Again it has to be pointed out that this Greek bloke had never seen Jesus let alone met him and was writing his stuff a good 60-90 years after his Christ walked the earth. So all he could do was put words into his characters mouth, make up shit that sounds good and have Jesus say them.
So Christ is the evidence to substantiate the claim. The truth is you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
We have no proof that Jesus said any of the shit yon Greek bloke says he does. The Greek bloke wasn't there to hear any of it.
All we have is what is known as Hearsay!!
-
I post on a couple of other forums where the Biblical literalists are so crazy, they must live on a planet far away from the real world. :o
-
In the past I have been accused of 'being on another planet'. Wish I could go there now, nothing wrong with a bit of escapism. My planet wasn't all about religion but each to their own.
-
I post on a couple of other forums where the Biblical literalists are so crazy, they must live on a planet far away from the real world. :o
If you did somehow exist on a planet far away from this "real world" you would realise just how hostile the nature of this universe is, and how oblivious we are to the terrifying nature of true reality.
-
If you did somehow exist on a planet far away from this "real world" you would realise just how hostile the nature of this universe is, and how oblivious we are to the terrifying nature of true reality.
Explain what you mean by reality's 'terrifying nature'.
-
Sassy, how about you stop saying everyone else is ignorant and actually listen to what is being said for a change.
How about you read the posts properly and fully and realise we are talking about CHRISTIAN facts and even posted proof.
But you somehow cannot see the forest for the trees.
Stop making stupid remarks due to your own problem of not being able to establish truth because you haven't a clue to what the truth is being discussed.
-
Written by some Greek bloke 60-90 years after the death of Jesus.Written by some Greek bloke some 60-90 years after the death of his protagonist, who he had never seen let alone met.
Written by some Greek bloke 60-90 years after his hero passed away, who obviously liked to tell a story and created a unique theosophy over the time it took him to create his main character.
Again it has to be pointed out that this Greek bloke had never seen Jesus let alone met him and was writing his stuff a good 60-90 years after his Christ walked the earth. So all he could do was put words into his characters mouth, make up shit that sounds good and have Jesus say them.
We have no proof that Jesus said any of the shit yon Greek bloke says he does. The Greek bloke wasn't there to hear any of it.
All we have is what is known as Hearsay!!
Instead of pronouncing it, hearsay. Why not do as Christ said and then come back and tell us if he was telling the truth.
If you at least obeyed his words you know if he is telling the truth and if God was speaking through him. As it is, you have no wish to know if God or Christ are real. In fact you never wanted to know because then you have to face the truth about yourself.
Stop harping on about hearsay because until you are willing and wanting to do what it takes to know the truth, then you simply have no reason for studying it, in the first instance.
-
How about you read the posts properly and fully and realise we are talking about CHRISTIAN facts and even posted proof
I know that's what you are talking about. I realise that many people posting hear are not Christian so may not have the same feel or knowledge about Christianity that a Christian does - which is why I don't post about Christian facts. My point was it is not helpful to just call people ignorant but better to try to take in what they are saying and understand if they are talking about Christian facts or not.
But you somehow cannot see the forest for the trees.Stop making stupid remarks due to your own problem of not being able to establish truth because you haven't a clue to what the truth is being discussed.
What stupid remarks have I made. Please give examples.
-
It's funny then that a fall in Church attendance proves that there is no God :D
No not funny really, it's just that people are better educated now days, anything you need to find out the answers for are only a few clicks away it's no longer that easy to pull the wool over the eyes as it used to be, no small wonder the exponential falls in attendance.
ippy
-
We both know when it comes to the bible there is no way to find out but to do as it tells us.
The Bible tells you to stone adulterers to death.
Do you do that?
We both know when it comes to the bible there is no way to find out but to do as it tells us.
Not just the Bible but every single other "holy book" which men claim was written/inspired by the supreme cosmic mega-being.
-
The Bible tells you to stone adulterers to death.
But it also says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
You've hit the ground running with your Bible editing scissors haven't you Kahtru
-
Quote: Leviticus 20:10
King James Bible (I am using the KJV on this occasion as it was 'there first', but it so happens it says the same as other versions, differently worded)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
----------------------
Old Testament teachings, Mosaic. We do not ignore them, they were put in place for a purpose, but can only be read in the light of the teachings of the New Testament. Jesus wouldn't have stoned anyone, he'd have forgiven them and encouraged them not to do it again. Quite right too.
-
But it also says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
...and it tells us how to test for an unfaithful wife: Numbers 5:11-29.
-
But it also says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
If someone who believes that they are without sin, actually casts the first stone, then it's OK for everyone else to join in?
-
But it also says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
You've hit the ground running with your Bible editing scissors haven't you Kahtru
Nope, just call it another of the many contradictions found throughout the Bible.
-
If someone who believes that they are without sin, actually casts the first stone, then it's OK for everyone else to join in?
If they are at you Seb then yes.
-
Nope, just call it another of the many contradictions found throughout the Bible.
Snip Snip goes the editor.
-
Snip Snip goes the editor.
Put it alongside the bit that you snipped...
But it also says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
-
If someone who believes that they are without sin, actually casts the first stone, then it's OK for everyone else to join in?
;D
There are some who are so arrogant. I doubt they would be so in the presence of Jesus, Sebastian.
-
Anyone who thinks they are better than others, as some appear to do, need a reality check. None of us are faultless that is for sure.
-
If they are at you Seb then yes.
...and if not me?
-
;D
There are some who are so arrogant. I doubt they would be so in the presence of Jesus, Sebastian.
Let's hope he's there if it ever happens then eh?
-
The fundie/Biblical literalists Christians just love to tell the rest of us that they have the 'truth', but can't provide the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to substantiate their claim. The fact that millions of people claim to be Christians doesn't make the religion true, a statement which has been made many times to try to convince non believers. No doubt people of other religions believe their faiths are true too, whilst yet again not being able to verify their beliefs are factual.
I have come to the conclusion the 'truth' is exclusive to the person concerned, however far fetched it might be to other people. It is fine for people to believe what they wish to believe, with the proviso that they don't force it down the throats of others in the real world, and don't use it as an excuse for bigotry and abuse.
So why do you force your bigotry and beliefs on other people.
~TW~
-
She doesn't.
-
So why do you force your bigotry and beliefs on other people.
~TW~
That is a good one coming from you, LOL!
-
That is a good one coming from you, LOL!
So you cant answer the question
~TW~
-
She doesn't.
She does and she knows it Shaker! Stop being so partisan, floo doesn't mind, she'll come back fighting fit as always. No-one means her any harm.
-
She does and she knows it Shaker! Stop being so partisan, floo doesn't mind, she'll come back fighting fit as always. No-one means her any harm.
No, I don't agree. She doesn't force anything on anyone in the manner stated. This is an online forum; it's simply not possible to force anything on anyone else. People post their views and opinions, and especially with a small forum where the same people post day in and day out you can come to know somebody's opinions almost before they've stated them. Nobody's compelled to come here; whoever does so does it out of choice. That also applies to reading whatever is posted here.
-
I agree; I rarely bother with anything TW posts, for example, I just skim past. Doesn't interest me and however forceful he might think his posts are I just ignore them.
If Floo's having an Evil Deity moment I ignore that most of the time too.
-
I agree; I rarely bother with anything TW posts, for example, I just skim past. Doesn't interest me and however forceful he might think his posts are I just ignore them.
If Floo's having an Evil Deity moment I ignore that most of the time too.
The feeling is very mutual Rhiannon.But I bet when BBC says this bone took 50 million years to evolve you swallow that without question. 8) ::) :o
~TW~
-
I doubt it; Rhiannon is intelligent enough to understand exactly why and how we can know something to be so old (though this knowledge isn't exactly a state secret kept in a bank vault in Zurich; it's freely available in any number of books that anyone can read), while you very obviously are not, and think that the creation myths of the ancient Hebrews whose cosmos extended to whatever edge of the desert they could see are the last word in understanding the word around us ::)
-
I doubt it; Rhiannon is intelligent enough to understand exactly why and how we can know something to be so old while you very obviously are not, and think that the creation myths of the ancient Hebrews are the last word in understanding the word around us ::)
So she is that clever she needs you to speak for her :'(
~TW~
-
So she is that clever she needs you to speak for her :'(
~TW~
No - she isn't online at present and I am.
-
No - she isn't online at present and I am.
well genius tell us the truth as to how nothing goes bang.
~TW~
-
So she is that clever she needs you to speak for her :'(
~TW~
No, I just choose not to talk to talk to you, TW. I've had more productive conversations with a crisp packet.
-
No, I don't agree. She doesn't force anything on anyone in the manner stated. This is an online forum; it's simply not possible to force anything on anyone else. People post their views and opinions, and especially with a small forum where the same people post day in and day out you can come to know somebody's opinions almost before they've stated them. Nobody's compelled to come here; whoever does so does it out of choice. That also applies to reading whatever is posted here.
Yes, agree with that. The idea that anyone 'forces' their opinions on others here is quite weird. Seriously, if you read something here that you don't like, you can actually switch off your computer, you can go and water the hydrangeas, and play with your pet spider, and indeed, any number of things. Of course, you can also disagree with it, fine, and you can express that.
I also think that people who have been casualties of religion are entitled to go on about it again and again and again, as anyone who has been abused, is entitled to do. Ironically, this abuse often consisted of being forced to listen to horrendous and sadistic stuff as a child. So I am happy for Floo to tell us ten thousand times about this, so that, FFS, we learn about it, and prevent it happening again!
-
Equally I don't feel that Alan forces his stuff on me, or Sass for that matter. Sometimes I wade into debate with Alan, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'll rise to Sass' bait but a lot of the time I've got other things to be getting on with. It's always a choice though.
-
Exactly. Forums are very repetitive, but hello hello, there is an off switch. As Anthony Hopkins used to say about his critics, fuck 'em.
-
well genius tell us the truth as to how nothing goes bang.
~TW~
What on earth does this repetitive slogan of yours have to do with anything so far under discussion?
-
Exactly. Forums are very repetitive, but hello hello, there is an off switch. As Anthony Hopkins used to say about his critics, fuck 'em.
Yeah, and there's enough interesting stuff to keep pulling me back in. It's like being in a slightly odd pub; if I don't fancy talking to the bore at the bar, I won't. There's plenty of good company apart from them.
-
What on earth does this repetitive slogan of yours have to do with anything so far under discussion?
Everything.---It is to you a very high brick wall that you would rather wish was not there=The Big Bang,but in your case ???????
~TW~
-
Everything.---It is to you a very high brick wall that you would rather wish was not there=The Big Bang,but in your case ???????
~TW~
Why is this a problem.
Who says it was nothing?
-
Post moved to general discussion ;D
-
well genius tell us the truth as to how nothing goes bang.
~TW~
Right after you tell us why your god just happens to exist.
The fact that "nothing going bang" does not form part of any scientific theory is largely irrelevant. The unexplained in science does not make silly fairy tales any more believable....
-
I wondered why my ears were burning, LOL!
I state my POV where religion is concerned and for that I make no apology. However, I am not trying to convert others to my way of thinking, as others do. I get particularly irritated with the muppets who use threats of the tortures of hell if one doesn't convert. One particular poster seems to get off on images of the 'unsaved' burning in the mythical flames of hell, which says more about their unpleasant way of thinking than anything else.
-
The Bible tells you to stone adulterers to death.
Do you do that?
Wrong the bible tells us the Messiah will bring Gods final word and we are to obey him.
The bible also tells you if you break one law you have broken them all.
As Christ has revealed he who is without sin can cast the first stone.
So people do not stone adulterers because the Son of God has come and shown no one but himself can cast that stone.
He forgives her, and tells her not to sin again... So no we obey God and we accept forgiveness of our sins through Christ and we do as he did, not as your wrong thinking tells you.
How can a sinner justifiably commit murder of another when they are equally guilty in Gods eyes?
Not just the Bible but every single other "holy book" which men claim was written/inspired by the supreme cosmic mega-being.
You got it wrong again, didn't you. Because NOT every holy book is a book of Prophecy. It does not have prophecies fulfilled.
And if you never read them you cannot comment. Had you read the OT you would understand why your points are so moot when it comes to the NT. But you appear happy to remain looking ignorant and spouting nonsense to all intent and purpose. :(
-
I wondered why my ears were burning, LOL!
I state my POV where religion is concerned and for that I make no apology. However, I am not trying to convert others to my way of thinking, as others do. I get particularly irritated with the muppets who use threats of the tortures of hell if one doesn't convert. One particular poster seems to get off on images of the 'unsaved' burning in the mythical flames of hell, which says more about their unpleasant way of thinking than anything else.
You really are a plonker, science which seems to be your god the bits you choose tells us that this place the world will end some say it is going to be a little warm.
Now the God of the bible says hell will be warm and it is a place for you,not created for you,but rather for disobedient angels,nevertheless convenient for you.
That is the message,now you have told us more times then we can remember this is just plain daft.So we have the clock ticking each day you get closer to a never ending nothing or a meeting with the person you call a liar,killer fiend,so all you have to do is wait give it time and pray that God does not exist,pray also that nothing went bang.
~TW~
-
You really are a plonker, science which seems to be your god the bits you choose tells us that this place the world will end some say it is going to be a little warm.
Now the God of the bible says hell will be warm and it is a place for you,not created for you,but rather for disobedient angels,nevertheless convenient for you.
That is the message,now you have told us more times then we can remember this is just plain daft.So we have the clock ticking each day you get closer to a never ending nothing or a meeting with the person you call a liar,killer fiend,so all you have to do is wait give it time and pray that God does not exist,pray also that nothing went bang.
~TW~
I rest my case!
-
The fundie/Biblical literalists Christians just love to tell the rest of us that they have the 'truth', but can't provide the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to substantiate their claim.
So, how do they differ from science and scientists, Floo?
-
So, how do they differ from science and scientists, Floo?
The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.
What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.
-
So, how do they differ from science and scientists, Floo?
Oh, I dunno... Let me think.... oh yes; evidence.
-
Oh, I dunno... Let me think.... oh yes; evidence.
No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity. We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.
-
No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.
Who else? Courgettes?
We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.
Your question has been answered - suck it up instead of blethering on about right and wrong.
-
The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.
What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.
I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality? We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.
-
Who else? Courgettes?Your question has been answered - suck it up instead of blethering on about right and wrong.
Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality. If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.
-
I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality?
It do all of reality.
We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.
Your question about the difference between religios of the kind Floo mentioned and science/scientists had nothing to do with this and has been answered.
-
Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality.
Those who diss your position, as you call it, quite rightly and correctly point out that you are unable to substantiate your belief that something else covers it apart from science - you never having managed to provide an appropriate methodology here.
As for those elusive other places where you claim to have done so, well ... more said the better.
If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.
Wasn't aware that I'd made one.
-
Hope,
Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position...
People "diss" your position by pointing out where you make logical errors - your reliance on the negative proof fallacy for example. If I were you I'd be pleased when they did so because I'd learn from that, wouldn't make the same blunders again, and would attempt more cogent arguments the next time round.
You on the other hand just ignore the corrections and carry on making the same mistakes.
...by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality.
People know that - that's why they still do science so as to discover more. If though you actually meant something like, "there are parts of reality that science could never address" then by all means demonstrate its existence and propose a reliable and robust alternative method to investigate it.
If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.
Sadly not.
-
I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality? We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.
If science covered the 'all of reality' (whatever that is) we wouldn't still be doing science. We're still doing science because we have much to learn and it's pretty good at turning up answers.
I'm not sure why you think 'right and wrong' are in any way 'reality'. But whatever they are, centuries of relying on religion to figure it out have done us few favours and the situation is not improving (although the ingenious ways in which we can annihilate ourselves have). It'd be nice for the religious to argue that had they engaged with science more instead of running scared from it we'd somehow not have the WMD that we do, but given that the fundie right in the States see a nuclear apocalypse as part of being 'rapture ready' and there are fears around IS and a nuclear drone strike, it's not really that likely, is it?
-
No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity. We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.
As usual you get it wrong.
Some forms of evidence are objective facts, and remain so whether or not humans have subjective views regarding these facts. So it is a fact that humans cannot fly unaided if they are under the influence of gravity and whether or not you subjectively agree with this is irrelevant to what will actually happen if you decide to test it by stepping out of a 5th floor window whilst you are wearing nothing but a smile.
'Right' and 'Wrong' aren't facts in themselves: they are opinions (informed or otherwise), so that the best science can do is investigate what people cite as their rationale for holding these opinions - at best commonly shared moral opinions are axioms.
You also seem confused that science doesn't currently know everything that is potentially knowable but this has always been the case since science is an on-going incremental process involving existing knowledge and theory - so that it doesn't currently know everything that is potentially knowable is in no sense an issue, as the history of progressive scientific progress clearly shows. No doubt there is much still to be learned via systematic and disciplined investigation.
You, however, seem to be misrepresenting the scope of science to claim that there is some other aspect to reality that will forever be closed to science but you can't provide any method based on knowledge or theory to substantiate your claim since if this 'extra-reality', for want of a better term, can never be knowable then you can't know (as in having knowledge) that it exists: so that to claim it does, as you do, is a contradiction in terms.
All you are really demonstrating, albeit that you are unaware that you are, is your inordinate fondness for fallacies.
-
No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.
No, evidence, in the scientific sense and in the only sense that is important in assessing matters of objective truth, is objective, To be strict about it, it is inter-subjective (Popper); that is, independently verifiable by different individuals.
We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out...
I'm sure we don't have a full picture, but that doesn't justify using subjective notions to determine matters of objective fact. If we did that we would end up believing contradictory things, which would be confusing.
If you have some other way of inter-subjectively testing ideas that can lead to your god, then there are lots of people waiting for you to produce it...
...it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.
Probably because they are not matters of objective fact - they are defined by people; individually and collectively.
-
No, I just choose not to talk to talk to you, TW. I've had more productive conversations with a crisp packet.
So you talk to crisp that figures.
~TW~
-
At least a crisp packet's real.
-
At least a crisp packet's real.
Exactly!
-
No, evidence, in the scientific sense and in the only sense that is important in assessing matters of objective truth, is objective, To be strict about it, it is inter-subjective (Popper); that is, independently verifiable by different individuals.
But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life. As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives. Nor does it purport to support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.
I'm sure we don't have a full picture, but that doesn't justify using subjective notions to determine matters of objective fact. If we did that we would end up believing contradictory things, which would be confusing.
You mean like politics? ;)
If you have some other way of inter-subjectively testing ideas that can lead to your god, then there are lots of people waiting for you to produce it...
As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people. The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.
Probably because they are not matters of objective fact - they are defined by people; individually and collectively.
Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more. Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.
-
Hope,
That’s an awful lot of stupid to cram into one post.
But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life. As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives. Nor does it purport to support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.
Of course it “deals” with those things as natural phenomena. How far it’s gone towards explaining them is moot, but there’s nothing conceptually to stop if from doing so. And it’s indifferent to claims of supernatural entities for the perfectly good reason that those who believe in them can only express their beliefs as white noise. It’s not that science can’t address them but something else can – nothing can, because there’s no cogent reason to think they exist in the first place.
You mean like politics?
Or anything else – people hold contradictory opinions about lots of things. So what?
As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people. The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.
Utter bollocks. “Experience” requires the attribution of cause and - so far at least – you’ve never once managed even to propose a method to distinguish your attribution of “God” as the cause of your experience from someone else’s attribution of Thor or pixies as the cause for their experience. Why then should anyone take your claim more seriously than theirs? Should we accept all of them as true on the basis of personal assertions, or none of them?
Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more. Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.
That’s global not universal, and of course there are similarities – we’re the same species, and behaviours like reciprocal altruism are evolutionarily advantageous no matter who or where we happen to be.
Good grief!
-
But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life.
Not dealing with everything doesn't mean that it is subjective, it means that it doesn't deal with everything. By an odd coincidence, the things it doesn't deal with are subjective.
As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives.
Those things being subjective. Subjective things do impact people's lives but that is outside the scope of science because it deals with objective evidence.
As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people. The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.
What do you mean by "experience"? Subjective experiences are not, by their nature, inter-subjectively testable.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with falling outside of some "naturalistic framework". If you have a genuinely inter-subjective test, that anybody can use and obtain the same result, then spell it out.
I'll not hold my breath.
Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more. Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.
That is probably to do with the fact that we are humans - that doesn't make our notions of right and wrong objectively real in the sense that they exist apart from human minds.
-
But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life. As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant
Irrelevant to the earlier part of this thread, certainly - posts #74, #75 and #77. It was only in #77 that you brought up right and wrong, your earlier question having been so resoundingly answered as to leave you with no comeback or wiggle room but to introduce something irrelevant to the discussion.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.
Unless you're a thoroughgoing solipsist or floridly psychotic (one and the same thing, perhaps ...) natural phenomena are a given. We encounter a world of stuff doing things from the moment of our exit from the womb - and, possibly, some time before that point. So that's the world we live in. Remember that it's those, like you, who propose non-natural phenomena - non-stuff doing things - who bear the burden of proof of demonstrating to others why the idea should be given head room.
-
The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.
What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.
Yes. Unlike a tub thumping antitheist like herself Shakey miducks
-
Irrelevant to the earlier part of this thread, certainly - posts #74, #75 and #77. It was only in #77 that you brought up right and wrong, your earlier question having been so resoundingly answered as to leave you with no comeback or wiggle room but to introduce something irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're a thoroughgoing solipsist or floridly psychotic (one and the same thing, perhaps ...) natural phenomena are a given. We encounter a world of stuff doing things from the moment of our exit from the womb - and, possibly, some time before that point. So that's the world we live in. Remember that it's those, like you, who propose non-natural phenomena - non-stuff doing things - who bear the burden of proof of demonstrating to others why the idea should be given head room.
Science is not scientism Shaker.
-
Uh oh. Isms ahoy.
-
Uh oh. Isms ahoy.
Dont be such a philistine.
-
Shakes,
Uh oh. Isms ahoy.
Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy not only relies entirely on straw men versions of what people post, he even goes so far as to re-define terms and then attacks people supposedly for subscribing to his personal re-definitions rather than to the actual meanings. "Scientism" for example is one of his favourite dishonesties: he re-invents it to mean something like "science is the only means there can ever be to discover anything" rather than its actual meaning of "the only means we have reliably and consistently to investigate and test the material phenomena we appear to encounter, mediated by intersubjective experience".
Hard to know whether he even knows the real meaning of the terms he abuses but corrupts because he's just a troll, or whether he can't stand the notion of uncertainty so is compelled to lie so as to fit the world of hid his dullard literalism. He runs into the same problems with morality for example - if it's not universally mandated then it's not "proper" morality or some such arse gravy, but there it is either way.
Me, I decided not to reply to his trolling until he posted without lying. It's been weeks now, and I've had no cause to reply yet.
Funny that.
-
Shakes,
Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy not only relies entirely on straw men versions of what people post, he even goes so far as to re-define terms and then attacks people supposedly for subscribing to his personal re-definitions rather than to the actual meanings. "Scientism" for example is one of his favourite dishonesties: he re-invents it to mean something like "science is the only means there can ever be to discover anything" rather than its actual meaning of "the only means we have reliably and consistently to investigate and test the material phenomena we appear to encounter, mediated by intersubjective experience".
Hard to know whether he even knows the real meaning of the terms he abuses but corrupts because he's just a troll, or whether he can't stand the notion of uncertainty so is compelled to lie so as to fit the world of hid his dullard literalism. He runs into the same problems with morality for example - if it's not universally mandated then it's not "proper" morality or some such arse gravy, but there it is either way.
Me, I decided not to reply to his trolling until he posted without lying. It's been weeks now, and I've had no cause to reply yet.
Funny that.
Unfortunately for you readers are at liberty to check definitions of scientism to see if they tally with your meaning or mine.
As an anti antitheist though I have to take my hat off to you in your taking the piss out of antitheists.
-
Unfortunately for you readers are at liberty to check definitions of scientism to see if they tally with your meaning or mine.
Thought I'd make it easier for all by just quoting the Oxford Dictionary definitions
scientism
1 Thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
1.1 Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions. They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.
-
But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?
-
But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?
It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life. It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'. Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.
I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.
-
It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life.
It just does those bits that are amenable to its underlying methodology - nobody has claimed otherwise, so this is a straw man.
It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'. Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.
Nobody has said this in the way you imply it, so this sounds like another straw man. Even so, much of what humans feel subjectively does involve our biology.
I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.
Yet another straw man - a trio of them in a single post, so well done you.
-
But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?
Scientism isn't science particularly the scientism demonstrated here by many on this forum, as Hope has pointed out.
-
But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?
SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.
I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.
No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.
-
It just does those bits that are amenable to its underlying methodology - nobody has claimed otherwise, so this is a straw man.
Nobody has said this in the way you imply it, so this sounds like another straw man. Even so, much of what humans feel subjectively does involve our biology.
Yet another straw man - a trio of them in a single post, so well done you.
You mean it gives you a few breadcrumbs you just imagine a whole loaf.
Well that is about it, isn't it. You can follow the trail of breadcrumbs you never get to the loaf, do you?
-
SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.
I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.
No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.
Given a lot more time science will probably come up with the answer, which will be tested, and a lot more logical than the creation myth!
-
You mean it gives you a few breadcrumbs you just imagine a whole loaf.
Well that is about is, isn't it. You can follow the trail of breadcrumbs you never get to the loaf, do you?
Love the last sentence - it shall be my sig for just one week.
-
Hope,
There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions. They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.
That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?
As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...
...which leads us to Trollboy, who just caricatures the term to mean something like, "science will eventually find out everything and nothing else can" whereas it more properly means, "science is the only means we have that regularly and reliably allows us to access and investigate the world as it appears to be, mediated by intersubjective experience". I've no idea whether there are absolute truths, and nor for that matter whether science is a reliable guide to what they might be. I do though know that it creates with remarkable success models that have explanatory power and that enable us to build things like power stations and satellites that actually work. And I know that because intersubjective experience tells me so.
By contrast those who would posit "God" and place it outwith the purview of science by calling it immaterial offer instead to demonstrate their claims what exactly? Assertions? Bad logic? Trollboy-style pathological dishonesty?
See, that's your problem. Rather than lie about what science actually entails in the hope that no-one notices that the cupboard of methods to investigate religious claims is bare, isn't it for the theist who presumes to evangelise to provide an alternative method of his own to do the job? You can refer to "experience" as much as you like, but as we all know that personal experience is notoriously one of the most unreliable methods of determining cause, it's all a bit thin I'm afraid.
-
It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life. It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'.
No, science is based on testable evidence; full stop. Not "to a degree". The fact that science doesn't address every aspect of human life doesn't stop it being exclusively based on the testable.
Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.
Can't say I've noticed anybody saying anything like this - examples would be useful.
I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.
Who, where...?
-
Scientism isn't science...
::) Is this your new mantra? Got bored with "methodology isn't ontology"?
-
Some,
Is this your new mantra? Got bored with "methodology isn't ontology"?
And presumably bored too with the atheism = anti-theism lie.
-
SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.
I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.
No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.
OKAY THEN SASSY
You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?
It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.
-
Thought I'd make it easier for all by just quoting the Oxford Dictionary definitions
There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions. They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.
There's a reason why this confidence - and to my amazement, in choosing to use the word confidence you chose exactly the right one - is a perfectly reasonable stance vis-a-vis science and utterly irrational bobbins vis-a-vis creationism.
Let's see how long you can ignore those who tell you why this is the case.
-
OKAY THEN SASSY
You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?
It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.
What is God? Please take your time to answer...
-
Yipeeee I got her.
Shes cracked!
-
Hope,
That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?
As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...
...which leads us to Trollboy, who just caricatures the term to mean something like, "science will eventually find out everything and nothing else can" whereas it more properly means, "science is the only means we have that regularly and reliably allows us to access and investigate the world as it appears to be, mediated by intersubjective experience". I've no idea whether there are absolute truths, and nor for that matter whether science is a reliable guide to what they might be. I do though know that it creates with remarkable success models that have explanatory power and that enable us to build things like power stations and satellites that actually work. And I know that because intersubjective experience tells me so.
By contrast those who would posit "God" and place it outwith the purview of science by calling it immaterial offer instead to demonstrate their claims what exactly? Assertions? Bad logic? Trollboy-style pathological dishonesty?
See, that's your problem. Rather than lie about what science actually entails in the hope that no-one notices that the cupboard of methods to investigate religious claims is bare, isn't it for the theist who presumes to evangelise to provide an alternative method of his own to do the job? You can refer to "experience" as much as you like, but as we all know that personal experience is notoriously one of the most unreliable methods of determining cause, it's all a bit thin I'm afraid.
All definitions are available online Hillside.........are you getting yours from the great soviet encyclopaedia or something?
Floo has provided a fine example of what I speak...........but you knew that didn't you you old satirical pirate you.
-
Yipeeee I got her.
Shes cracked!
Nice one, LOL!
-
Hope,
That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?
As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...
And which scientific theory did you have in what you quaintly refer to as your "mind"?
-
There's a reason why this confidence - and to my amazement, in choosing to use the word confidence you chose exactly the right one - is a perfectly reasonable stance vis-a-vis science and utterly irrational bobbins vis-a-vis creationism.
Let's see how long you can ignore those who tell you why this is the case.
It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes. Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.
-
It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes. Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.
It's up to those who think that there are "supernatural issues" to present a case as to why they think so and why anybody else should take it even remotely seriously. There aren't "supernatural issues" just because somebody asserts that there are without evidence or commits any number of howling logical fallacies in their (lack of) reasoning; a proper case must be made.
We're still waiting.
This isn't scientism - which term no doubt you've picked up from Vlad - but another sort of -ism, namely scepticism.
-
It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes. Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo) so nobody it 'making out' that there is a dichotomy between it and science - it's inevitable because as you rightly say, science doesn't address the supernatural.
So show how the supernatural exists outside of personal subjective experience and there's something to discuss. Otherwise this is just another story.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)
Is it? Is it really!
Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?
Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Is it? Is it really!
Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?
Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material ;)
Gonnagle.
But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
-
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
Hear hear.
-
Yipeeee I got her.
Shes cracked!
Royal Evasion... Any idiot could have realised that someone who does not believe in God cannot ask someone else....
OKAY THEN SASSY
You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?
It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.
It is obvious that God was not made in the teachings of the bible that God is the true immortal.
What really happened was your ignorance of the bible and God came through in astounding measure.
God is a person for whom time has no meaning. He exists in all places and in all times.
A day and a thousand years are the same to him.
So God was not made we were the beings made by God.
Only the created is limited by time but those who have ETERNAL life, like God will live forever.
God is not limited to time and is in all times and places at once. He tells the end from the beginning.
King James Bible
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Before everything and the existence of time....God was...
My question was simple... What God? Because anyone who knew or knew about the God of the bible would not have asked that question.
Ignorance isn't always bliss... is it? Sometimes it is just plain dumb.
-
Nice one, LOL!
Fools seldom differ! ::)
-
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo) so nobody it 'making out' that there is a dichotomy between it and science - it's inevitable because as you rightly say, science doesn't address the supernatural.
So show how the supernatural exists outside of personal subjective experience and there's something to discuss. Otherwise this is just another story.
What God does it show why Science cannot, and will not, ever find the answer to the meaning and creation of life.
One could ask the question: How does the world exist and the universe with man in it, without any real explanation as to why in Science?
The easiest answer is:- God created it... because there is simply no better answer and God has it all just so in the bible.
We see Moses writes about an order of creation. We see that Darwin writes in his book the same order as the bible says it came into being.. Little clues for those who seek truth however the answer may come about.
We know that crops get their life from soil we plant seeds and it gives us abundance of living things.
Genesis tells us God took some soil and formed a man. But the life came from God breathed into his nostrils.
We also know that in Genesis 3.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
God cursed the ground... We see there was a change so that science will never find out God formed a man from the soil/dirt of the earth. But what we can be sure of is that what exists gives ground and truth to the bible and God being the creator because man cannot give any real answer.
-
But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
So how can you be a pagan then? Because they don't rely on the material?
Furthermore if your child is seriously ill and all the material elements of treatment are failing them, are you saying you would not pray and ask others to pray and ask God to help and deliver them?
Paganism shows that you do not believe the statement you made to be true.
-
We see Moses writes about an order of creation. We see that Darwin writes in his book the same order as the bible says it came into being.. Little clues for those who seek truth however the answer may come about.
What did Darwin write about creation?
-
So how can you be a pagan then? Because they don't rely on the material?
Not all pagans are theists or even supernaturalists.
-
So how can you be a pagan then? Because they don't rely on the material?
Furthermore if your child is seriously ill and all the material elements of treatment are failing them, are you saying you would not pray and ask others to pray and ask God to help and deliver them?
Paganism shows that you do not believe the statement you made to be true.
No, this just shows that you don't know much about paganism.
Incidentally as a thought experiment I tried praying recently, to see what happened, simply out of curiosity. I felt my anxiety shoot up. Won't be trying that one again.
-
What did Darwin write about creation?
In Darwins book he kept the order of man and animals in the same order as Genesis 1.
His theory of evolution kept the order of creation of the world and living beings in the same order.
Surely you knew that? I learned that in my teens that Darwin claimed evolution was the same order in creation of Genesis 1.
Does it not amaze you that the earth suddenly had all these new creatures evolving but the truth was that it stopped at it's creation/evolution.
Inmagine saying the world evolved but as soon as all the life at that present time evolved it stopped and what existed just continued. In the bible we also see how the tower of Babel caused man to be spread all over the world and with different tongues.
But the languages have not much changed. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Acts is that all people present from different nations heard the disciples speak in their own tongues. Why question me when you cannot question or reason the theory of evolution in an educated way for yourself.
You believe in evolution but missed an epic fact like that... Darwins evolution kept the order of creation the same as Gods word.
-
Not all pagans are theists or even supernaturalists.
But that does not change the fact or even make any difference to the fact a Pagan wrote:
Quote from: Rhiannon on Today at 10:07:35 AM
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
If she believes she does not NEED more than the MATERIAL, than why be a Pagan.
It belies what she is saying. Paganism is not the material.
-
Wrong the bible tells us the Messiah will bring Gods final word and we are to obey him.
The bible also tells you if you break one law you have broken them all.
As Christ has revealed he who is without sin can cast the first stone.
So people do not stone adulterers because the Son of God has come and shown no one but himself can cast that stone.
He forgives her, and tells her not to sin again... So no we obey God and we accept forgiveness of our sins through Christ and we do as he did, not as your wrong thinking tells you.
How can a sinner justifiably commit murder of another when they are equally guilty in Gods eyes?
You got it wrong again, didn't you. Because NOT every holy book is a book of Prophecy. It does not have prophecies fulfilled.
And if you never read them you cannot comment. Had you read the OT you would understand why your points are so moot when it comes to the NT. But you appear happy to remain looking ignorant and spouting nonsense to all intent and purpose. :(
The fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was added to the Jesus myth approximately 350 years after he had died.
If you look at our earliest bibles, you'll see that it doesn't even appear.
It's an after-thought, an embellishment designed to sucker people like you into believing the fable.
-
Ok, one more time for Sass.
Not all pagans are theists.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
Well that has me thinking, we need the material to reach the spiritual, we are all spiritual, we use the material to touch the spiritual, is spiritual, material, spiritual is a feeling, is that material.
I suppose it depends on how we get our spiritual kicks. ???
Gonnagle.
-
Only the created is limited by time but those who have ETERNAL life, like God will live forever.
God is not limited to time and is in all times and places at once. He tells the end from the beginning.
I'm glad I started to save some of my posts, it makes repeating myself easy.
To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.
I see it as a category where the whole idea of the supernatural belongs.
Contrast that with the natural, which I see as covering everything that exists, including what we have yet to discover.
The term "supernatural" gives people a green light to not only make up whatever beings they want but also to endow these beings with self-contradictory and magical abilities. I see it all the time with believers when they refer to their particular choice of deity as being uncreated and somehow living outside of and unaffected by the passage of time. Yet their god still thinks and acts inside and outside of our natural realm.
It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.
From a point of reason, the whole thing comes over to me as a logical nightmare, excused by the one word - "supernatural". It's a fallacy of special pleading whereby whatever the believer places in this supernatural realm gets excused from the scepticism and scrutiny.
-
No, this just shows that you don't know much about paganism.
It isn't paganism in question it is your statement about yourself and Pagansim supports what I have said.
What you said and I quote was:
Quote from: Rhiannon on Today at 10:07:35 AM
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
Paganism is not the material... It is based on myths and superstition all manamade about nature and it's forces.
So the material is what you CAN see and feel for real. But Paganism is not a material it is a system of beliefs without evidence.
But your statement was untrue because you do not live as if you only needed the material.
Why not just admit what you wrote was not a true statement of your beliefs?
Here is the basic defintion of Paganism.
Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions.
Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Related topics
It [Wicca] draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice. Wikipedia
Explore: Wicca
Modern Paganism, or Neo-Paganism, is a modern, Earth-centered religious perspective which borrows and adapts from pre-Christian paganism as well as from contemporary religious thought. paganlibrary.com
Explore: Modern paganism
Yule, A pagan festival also called the Winter Solstice, celebrates the rebirth of the Sun, the Sun God and honors the Horn
Not based on anything material then... Whether modern or old.
You said you ONLY NEED the Material and yet you claim to be Pagan. Your statement was false.
Incidentally as a thought experiment I tried praying recently, to see what happened, simply out of curiosity. I felt my anxiety shoot up. Won't be trying that one again.
Maybe the truth is your issue... You are obviously confused if you claim to only need the material but then you run after paganism. If God did not exist why would your anxiety levels shoot up. In this world we know that anything not belonging to God belongs to the devil.
Surely you can see he did not want you having the peace Christ and God brings through truth and faith.
God is not the author of chaos or anxiety the devil is. From the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed mankind became alone, anxious and afraid. If you prayed the chances are the hold paganism has over you did not want to let you go.
If your paganism did you any good, then why try praying again?
You sound confused and without peace. You should ask Jesus to show you the way back to God and peace of mind.
-
Ok, one more time for Sass.
Not all pagans are theists.
In what way then can an atheist be pagan?
-
In what way then can an atheist be pagan?
That would take us too far astray on this board and would be better suited to the Pagan Topic - I might even start a thread myself.
For now I would just add that if you examine the writings and thought of non-realists such as Don Cupitt and others it demonstrates that there are people who regard themselves as Christians who are not theists. As with Christians, so with (some) pagans.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Well that has me thinking, we need the material to reach the spiritual, we are all spiritual, we use the material to touch the spiritual, is spiritual, material, spiritual is a feeling, is that material.
I suppose it depends on how we get our spiritual kicks. ???
Gonnagle.
I think there are, as Shaker has noted as regards Vlad's posts, a surfeit of isms. We seem to have multiple isms suggested for the opposite of materialism, when I don't think it is really clear anyone is such a thing.
We love our little labels but use them as if they are exhaustive descriptions of people rather than the roughest short hand. Better to talk to the person and not the ism.
-
In Darwins book he kept the order of man and animals in the same order as Genesis 1.
His theory of evolution kept the order of creation of the world and living beings in the same order.
Surely you knew that? I learned that in my teens that Darwin claimed evolution was the same order in creation of Genesis 1.
Evolution by Natural Selection isn't about creation but about the way existing life forms changed to give the wide range of different species we see today.
Looking at Genesis 1 the apparent order of creation is first a lifeless planet, light, water etc - which has nothing to do with evolution by natural Selection.
Next it says vegetation, then living creatures in the water and birds in the sky. Then land animals on the next day and then man.
Is that the order that you see reflected in modern scientific understanding? Well there is a general commonality but vegetation and birds are out of order and the creation of man doesn't match our scientific understanding. That life forms started in the seas is a match.
Does it not amaze you that the earth suddenly had all these new creatures evolving but the truth was that it stopped at it's creation/evolution.
Inmagine saying the world evolved but as soon as all the life at that present time evolved it stopped and what existed just continued.
No idea what you mean there - can you explain further?
In the bible we also see how the tower of Babel caused man to be spread all over the world and with different tongues.
But the languages have not much changed. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Acts is that all people present from different nations heard the disciples speak in their own tongues.
Not sure what that's gt to do with it.
Why question me when you cannot question or reason the theory of evolution in an educated way for yourself.
You made a claim - I asked you to give supporting info. That's how discussions work. Your attempt to belittle is a bad habit of yours Sassy - and something you seem to pick others up on. I can certainly talk about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and am educated to degree level, so best if yous tick to a discussion rather than attempting to get personal and belittling people.
You believe in evolution ...
I accept thatToE is the best scientific explanation for the vast number of species on this planet and see it has a vast amount of supporting evidence. I don't have a belief in it in that if scientific evidence was found to invalidate it I would accept that.
... but missed an epic fact like that... Darwins evolution kept the order of creation the same as Gods word.
No, I'm aware there is some general correlation between scientific understanding and the order of creation in Genesis 1. The main interesting point is the idea that life began in the seas, but this isn't enough to argue any special knowledge in Genesis in my view.
-
The fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was added to the Jesus myth approximately 350 years after he had died.
If you look at our earliest bibles, you'll see that it doesn't even appear.
It's an after-thought, an embellishment designed to sucker people like you into believing the fable.
You are completely ignorant when it comes to God and the bible.
You think in the flesh and cannot see with your spirit.
What all believers in God have had since the beginning of time is God and his Spirit.
Through his words and Prophets he has made known his will for mankind and all who believe in him.
You take a myth theory and wave it around as if it actually means something.
Look through the bible and you will see God has always revealed his will to man through the Holy Spirit.
Gods people are living people. People who accept his word as truth and live in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Someone who teaches us and leads us into all truth.
Jesus said:
John 16:13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Those in Christ do not rely on what is written. They have something far greater as the Prophets of Old. Gods Spirit to guide them. You only have what your flesh has your own reasoning and inability to see what is actually before you. Spiritually blind as Saul/paul WAS. He had to become blind in order to see what was really the truth.
No suckers believing in fables., The children of God receiving what their God promised them.
How do we know Jesus is the Son of God? Because Gods promises to us come true and we receive what he promised through the Prophets a long time ago.
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
We believe what God says about his son. It is this that makes us redeemed and the children of the Most High God.
No self-righteousness, no earning it...just Gods free gift.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He wants all to be saved. God keeps his promises..
-
Ok, one more time for Sass.
Not all pagans are theists.
Pagan or theist has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement you made.
I have answered this and you cannot bring theist or atheist into the discussion.
You stated that you believed you ONLY NEEDED THE MATERIAL.
But your statement meant you could not and would not follow paganism if a true statement.
-
I am not being drawn into non consequential arguments about creation or evolution.
My post is clear that Darwin kept his order of evolution to the same order a Genesis and Gods creation of animals and man.
You can go off and do as you please. But I am addressing the issues relevant to what I posted and you replied to.
So now we see I was correct it is the end of the discussion on that level.
If you want to ask me about anything else. Then readdress your post and be plain about the issues in relation to God and the bible which you are disagreeing with.
Evolution by Natural Selection isn't about creation but about the way existing life forms changed to give the wide range of different species we see today.
Looking at Genesis 1 the apparent order of creation is first a lifeless planet, light, water etc - which has nothing to do with evolution by natural Selection.
Next it says vegetation, then living creatures in the water and birds in the sky. Then land animals on the next day and then man.
Is that the order that you see reflected in modern scientific understanding? Well there is a general commonality but vegetation and birds are out of order and the creation of man doesn't match our scientific understanding. That life forms started in the seas is a match.
No idea what you mean there - can you explain further?
Not sure what that's gt to do with it.
You made a claim - I asked you to give supporting info. That's how discussions work. Your attempt to belittle is a bad habit of yours Sassy - and something you seem to pick others up on. I can certainly talk about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and am educated to degree level, so best if yous tick to a discussion rather than attempting to get personal and belittling people.
I accept thatToE is the best scientific explanation for the vast number of species on this planet and see it has a vast amount of supporting evidence. I don't have a belief in it in that if scientific evidence was found to invalidate it I would accept that.
No, I'm aware there is some general correlation between scientific understanding and the order of creation in Genesis 1. The main interesting point is the idea that life began in the seas, but this isn't enough to argue any special knowledge in Genesis in my view.
-
Pagan or theist has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement you made.
I have answered this and you cannot bring theist or atheist into the discussion.
You stated that you believed you ONLY NEEDED THE MATERIAL.
But your statement meant you could not and would not follow paganism if a true statement.
Sass, a belief in anything non-material isn't necessary for pagans. It's a very individual thing.
-
Try putting it in bold type, she might catch on then.
-
Sass, a belief in anything non-material isn't necessary for pagans. It's a very individual thing.
You said you only believed in the MATERIAL and only NEEDED the Material.
Nothing to do with Paganism.
-
I am not being drawn into non consequential arguments about creation or evolution.
My post is clear that Darwin kept his order of evolution to the same order a Genesis and Gods creation of animals and man.
If you don't want a discussion then fine - don't raise the subject. Your post was clear that you made that claim. If you make a claim you have to expect people on a discussion thread to discuss that don't you?
You can go off and do as you please.
Thanks.
But I am addressing the issues relevant to what I posted and you replied to.
You carry on - but if you make claims to support your beliefs expect them to be questioned.
So now we see I was correct it is the end of the discussion on that level.
'I'm right and I'm not listening to anyone else' puts fingers in ears 'La. la, la, la ...' Come on Sassy, you can do better than that I'm sure.
If you want to ask me about anything else. Then readdress your post and be plain about the issues in relation to God and the bible which you are disagreeing with.
I'm not disagreeing with the Bible - I am questioning claims you make about it and raising the possibility you might be wrong in what you claim. I have no belief in God so inevitably see the Bible differently to you who do. You suggest that Genesis matches scientific understanding and I have recognised a superficial correlation in some areas but not in others. I'm sure you find this different to the normal argumentative, confrontational approach taken on here but who knows - perhaps it will catch on.
-
Try putting it in bold type, she might catch on then.
Try truth you might not look so desperate and deliberately IGNORANT.
She said she ONLY NEEDED THE MATERIAL....
I guess you have no sense of shame or sensibility when it comes supporting a lie.
-
You said you only believed in the MATERIAL
She didn't say any such thing. What Rhiannon wrote was:
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
-
Try truth you might not look so desperate and deliberately IGNORANT.
She said she ONLY NEEDED THE MATERIAL....
That's right. What she didn't say - which you claimed she had said but didn't - is that she only believes in the material. What she said was that whether there's anything more than the material she doesn't know (nor do I, though she may have an opinion that leans more to one side than the other, as I do), so your attribution of a position that she doesn't hold is either stupidity or wilful mendacity.
-
Nothing to do with Paganism.
Indeed; and yet you were the one who introduced paganism in #129.
-
Pagans needeth not the non-material; verily, there are those who forsake gods altogether, sayeth Rhiannon.
(I'm hoping Sass finds that more comprehensible)
-
Put in bold and underlined - should nail it.
-
Dear Sane,
I think there are, as Shaker has noted as regards Vlad's posts, a surfeit of isms. We seem to have multiple isms suggested for the opposite of materialism, when I don't think it is really clear anyone is such a thing.
We love our little labels but use them as if they are exhaustive descriptions of people rather than the roughest short hand. Better to talk to the person and not the ism.
Well I think I was talking to the person, that person being Rhiannon who I know is a very spiritual person, Rhiannon can find happiness in taking her dog for a walk, but that leaves me open to, does spiritual mean happy, we don't actively seek unhappy.
What I do know is, we are all spiritual animals, it is how we have evolved, when all our basic needs are met, we then go on to the spiritual, we have a friend in common who finds the spiritual in going at mach three with his beard on fire or just plucking away at his banjo ( I said plucking ) but the question remains, or questions, do we need material to achieve spiritual, is the sun on the back of your neck material, and is the spiritual experience, material?
And yes I do realise that I am probably talking to myself, what is spiritual, do we need the material to achieve spiritual.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't know if I'm a 'spiritual' person, Gonners, but I have a strong sense of the spiritual. What I don't believe is that there's any need for the supernatural in order to have a rich, fulfilling and nourished spiritual life.
-
What does the term 'spiritual' actually mean?
-
It means different things to different people, Floo, but to me it means looking after the part of ourselves that has needs that go beyond what is necessary for our physical survival.
-
Dear Floo,
My definition, something that takes you out of yourself in a good way, but I could be completely wrong.
Gonnagle.
-
It means different things to different people, Floo, but to me it means looking after the part of ourselves that has needs that go beyond what is necessary for our physical survival.
I am not sure what that means?
-
I am not sure what that means?
It's the part of me that needs to marvel at the clouds or the taste of olives. That loves playing music too loudly in my car. That feels the hairs on the back of my neck rise when reading certain poetry. It's the part of me that reaches to take my child's hand.
Yours will be right for you.
-
Dear Sane,
Well I think I was talking to the person, that person being Rhiannon who I know is a very spiritual person, Rhiannon can find happiness in taking her dog for a walk, but that leaves me open to, does spiritual mean happy, we don't actively seek unhappy.
What I do know is, we are all spiritual animals, it is how we have evolved, when all our basic needs are met, we then go on to the spiritual, we have a friend in common who finds the spiritual in going at mach three with his beard on fire or just plucking away at his banjo ( I said plucking ) but the question remains, or questions, do we need material to achieve spiritual, is the sun on the back of your neck material, and is the spiritual experience, material?
And yes I do realise that I am probably talking to myself, what is spiritual, do we need the material to achieve spiritual.
Gonnagle.
It was prompted by your comment rather than a direct reply. I am with Floo, I am not really sure about what spiritual is but it definitely doesn't seem from your view of it, to be anyway removed from the material. But I was making a more general point, that we get hung up on philosophic ideas like 'material' but we don't live our lives as if that is significant. We accept that running in front of a bus is a generally bad idea, and we act as if we have free will.
Not only do we like putting others on boxes, we often do it to ourselves. Perhaps the question works better if you just asked people how they feel connected, or lose themselves and not worry about naming it beyond that or how it links to the material, whatever that is.
There is a place for very narrow, defined philosophic discussions but too often on here we end up with a neither philosophy nor everyday discussions, as we take the isms, and then ignore the restrictions placed on them. And I have been as guilty on that as anyone
-
I am not sure what that means?
Put it this way: T.S. Eliot (I think) said that culture begins once your basic animal needs - food; drink; clothing; shelter from the elements - are satisfied. With those elementary things sorted you can turn your mind to other stuff that's not just about the immediate demands of survival. Eliot called it culture, but you could as easily make an argument that you can call it spirituality. Or the aesthetic - personally I think the two things overlap at the very least and may even be synonymous. Writing sonnets and symphonies and stopping to enjoy the sunset seem to have damn all to do with survival in any evolutionary sense, yet people do these things because they satisfy needs that we as humans have for creation, for symmetry and beauty.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I don't know if I'm a 'spiritual' person, Gonners, but I have a strong sense of the spiritual.
Ain't that the same thing?
What I don't believe is that there's any need for the supernatural in order to have a rich, fulfilling and nourished spiritual life.
To much talk for me regarding supernatural, woo, supernatural stops being super when we finally find an explanation, man is supernatural, of course we have thousands of theories for us, life is supernatural and we have thousands of theories for life, when the likes of Prof Cox says, "it is a miracle we are even here" I just have to nod my head and agree.
The Universe is supernatural, you can preach to me all about the big bang, gravity, how one element can change into another element, but that tells me nothing of the why, the why anything.
Oh and by the way, I am listening to thousands of Tic fans having a spiritual experience right now. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Put it this way: T.S. Eliot (I think) said that culture begins once your basic animal needs - food; drink; clothing; shelter from the elements - are satisfied. With those elementary things sorted you can turn your mind to other stuff that's not just about the immediate demands of survival. Eliot called it culture, but you could as easily make an argument that you can call it spirituality. Or the aesthetic - personally I think the two things overlap at the very least and may even be synonymous. Writing sonnets and symphonies and stopping to enjoy the sunset seem to have damn all to do with survival in any evolutionary sense, yet people do these things because they satisfy needs that we as humans have for creation, for symmetry and beauty.
I'm not sure it stops with culture or even the aesthetic. Getting caught in a cloudburst is a spiritual experience. Tasting salt on my lips when on the beach is a spiritual experience. My dog attempting to climb on my lap and give me a big stinky Labrador kiss is a spiritual experience. Holding someone who is crying is a spiritual experience. It's all the things we don't need, but without them our lives lose meaning.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
but without them our lives lose meaning.
Yer on fire today Missus ( you pronounce it Missess in Glaswegian ) Spiritual gives meaning to life, that will do for me ;)
Gonnagle.
-
OKAY THEN SASSY
You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?
It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.
This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc
The problem is that we can only imagine things in the terms of what exists in our own universe. Time and deterministic science are properties of this universe, but we do not know what exists outside.
There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God.
-
Dear Alan,
I will ask, give the Auditors a break, what is God? answers on a postcard to every religion on this planet. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc
You might have noticed that in the latter scenario there's insufficient data, therefore nobody claims to know. Nobody asserts that this, that or the other is the case. Unlike some I could mention.
The problem is that we can only imagine things in the terms of what exists in our own universe. Time and deterministic science are properties of this universe, but we do not know what exists outside.
I have no need of that hypothesis.
There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God.
Sheer assertion yet again, of course. And as tiresome as ever.
-
This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc
The problem is that we can only imagine things in the terms of what exists in our own universe. Time and deterministic science are properties of this universe, but we do not know what exists outside.
There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God.
Yes, there are things that we don't know. That doesn't give you the right to label those things 'God'.
-
Yes, there are things that we don't know. That doesn't give you the right to label those things 'God'.
It might be a temporary placeholder for current ignorance for some people, but they'd do well to call it 'X' instead since a great many of the god followers seem very insistent that their god is something similar to a person of sorts with a decided list of likes and dislikes.
Using God as a pseudo-explanation for the universe (pseudo because this so-called explanation is (a) ad hoc and (b) itself stands in need of explanation, so explains nothing) gets you as far as deism, not theism.
-
It's the part of me that needs to marvel at the clouds or the taste of olives. That loves playing music too loudly in my car. That feels the hairs on the back of my neck rise when reading certain poetry. It's the part of me that reaches to take my child's hand.
Yours will be right for you.
I can't think of anything off hand.
-
Dear Alan,
I will ask, give the Auditors a break, what is God? answers on a postcard to every religion on this planet. ;)
Gonnagle.
The simple truth is that God is the source of all that exists.
Our limited human brains are not capable of discerning the nature of God, so we have to rely on what God has revealed to us.
-
The simple truth is that God is the source of all that exists.
So many words to express such little content.
Our limited human brains are not capable of discerning the nature of God, so we have to rely on what God has revealed to us.
Circular argument, Alan.
-
Floo, there are people who simply aren't spiritual or at least not spiritual enough to notice. There's nothing wrong with that, we're all different.
On a personal level for a change :D, my mum was very unspiritual. It didn't bother her in the least and she considered people who were, including me, rather airy fairy and fanciful. Not in an unkind way.
-
This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc
Yes - so inventing a god isn't an improvement.
There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God.
He asserted, without the hint of any evidence or a scintilla of rational argument...
-
Floo, there are people who simply aren't spiritual or at least not spiritual enough to notice. There's nothing wrong with that, we're all different.
On a personal level for a change :D, my mum was very unspiritual. It didn't bother her in the least and she considered people who were, including me, rather airy fairy and fanciful. Not in an unkind way.
I am not bothered, I am comfortable as I am.
-
Dear Brownie,
rather airy fairy and fanciful.
Yup! that's me, more airy than fairy but completely fanciful.
Gonnagle.
-
I am not bothered, I am comfortable as I am.
To me, Floo, your art, poetry and the whisky you enjoy each evening (IIRC) are spiritually nourishing. You don't have to label them as such though.
And yes, I get the spirits/spirit thing in there. But it's true for me that life's small pleasures are spiritual. Including spirits that come in bottles from places in Scotland.
-
To me, Floo, your art, poetry and the whisky you enjoy each evening (IIRC) are spiritually nourishing. You don't have to label them as such though.
And yes, I get the spirits/spirit thing in there. But it's true for me that life's small pleasures are spiritual. Including spirits that come in bottles from places in Scotland.
I don't see my art, writing and poetry as spiritual
I only drink a very small whisky three times a week now, after the statins did my liver no good at all!
-
And that's fine, Floo. And I've been lucky enough to see some of your art and think it's beautiful. And some would argue that makes it spiritual to them, even if that's not how you experience it. :)
-
And that's fine, Floo. And I've been lucky enough to see some of your art and think it's beautiful. And some would argue that makes it spiritual to them, even if that's not how you experience it. :)
That is very kind of you.:)
-
And that's fine, Floo. And I've been lucky enough to see some of your art and think it's beautiful. And some would argue that makes it spiritual to them, even if that's not how you experience it. :)
I agree with that, I once had a picture that floo created and whenever I looked at it I could almost lose myself in it. It was lovely.
-
You people are very kind. :) Actually Brownie I am looking at the picture I created for you right at this minute, it is on my bedroom windowsill.
-
Dear Floo,
My definition, something that takes you out of yourself in a good way,
Gonnagle.
In a sense, yes, it puts you into a good 'space'. Some look for an external stimulus to realise this 'space' and which possibly lasts for as long as the stimulus and the memory of it. The so called 'spiritual' path is perhaps to find that 'space' (?Heaven?) within and remain conscious of it without interruption.
-
Parroting SASS ALAN BURNS said.
"There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God."
Yep Alan I get it. I got it when Sass said it.
Now once again try to respond to a very simple question.... "If you cannot have ANYTHING unless God created it, That must apply to God also so you cannot have God unless something created him. You cannot posit one claim without acknowledging the other. SO WHO MADE GOD".
Its a simple question please try to do better than Sass and engage.
.
-
You people are very kind. :) Actually Brownie I am looking at the picture I created for you right at this minute, it is on my bedroom windowsill.
Well that's more than I can do floo. I took mine up to Norfolk and a cup of tea was spilled on it! Story of my life.
''You people are very kind.'' Not at all, it is The Truth :).
-
It's the part of me that needs to marvel at the clouds or the taste of olives. That loves playing music too loudly in my car. That feels the hairs on the back of my neck rise when reading certain poetry. It's the part of me that reaches to take my child's hand.
Yours will be right for you.
This post made my day! Especially the 'reaching to your child's hand'. Thanks Rhiannon.
-
This post made my day! Especially the 'reaching to your child's hand'. Thanks Rhiannon.
And thank you for saying so, jjohnjil. :)
-
SO WHO MADE GOD".
Your question makes no sense.
You could also ask "who made existence"
-
Your question makes no sense.
In the field of cop-outs, Alan, that has to be the biggest one going.
You could also ask "who made existence"
You could if you're the sort of person who always leapfrogs over the possibility of a what rather than a who.
-
Your question makes no sense.
You could also ask "who made existence"
Yes God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.
-
Yes God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.
Because?
-
Parroting SASS ALAN BURNS said.
"There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God."
Yep Alan I get it. I got it when Sass said it.
Now once again try to respond to a very simple question.... "If you cannot have ANYTHING unless God created it, That must apply to God also so you cannot have God unless something created him. You cannot posit one claim without acknowledging the other. SO WHO MADE GOD".
Why does it have to apply to God, john, if he is the ultimate source? You might as well ask where the mass that triggered the energy to initiate the Big Bang came from. Perhaps you would be so good as to answer that 'simple' question.
By the way, I found your use of 'simple question' in your post quite amusing. The nature of the origins of life and everything is anything BUT simple. Ask your friendly physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, astroomers, ...., ...., .. .
-
In the field of cop-outs, Alan, that has to be the biggest one going.You could if you're the sort of person who always leapfrogs over the possibility of a what rather than a who.
So in terms of material science can you explain the difference between a "what" and a "who"?
-
So nothing existed before God created everything.
IE nothing means NO THING not even God !!!!
So there wasn't even a God before there was anything !!!
You guys really do not think things through do you.
It's so much easier to make stuff up and stick your fingers in your ears.
-
So there wasn't even a God before there was anything !!!
What do you think existed before anything existed? ???
-
What do you think existed before anything existed? ???
How do you know there was such a time?
-
So in terms of material science can you explain the difference between a "what" and a "who"?
Yes, pretty easily.
'Who' implies consciousness, awareness, personality - something analogous to what we recognise as being like our own consciousness. We refer to people as 'who' and inanimate, unconscious and insentient things as 'what.' Charles Dickens is the man who wrote Great Expectations; the hydrological cycle is what causes rain to fall. And so on.
You are determined, by your prior adherence to theism, to see any cause of the universe (leaving aside for now whether such talk even makes sense) as personal - as a who. You have no grounds whatever for such a stance when there's just as much likelihood - in fact vastly more - that any such process would be an entirely abstract and impersonal one. In other words, a what, not a who.
-
How do you know there was such a time?
The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing. In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang. So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?
-
Yes, pretty easily.
'Who' implies consciousness, awareness, personality - something analogous to what we recognise as being like our own consciousness. We refer to people as 'who' and inanimate, unconscious and insentient things as 'what.'
But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions. So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?
-
But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions. So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?
The so far imperfectly explained X factor of subjective awareness or consciousness, I guess. Qualia, as they say in technical lingo.
-
The so far imperfectly explained X factor of subjective awareness or consciousness, I guess. Qualia, as they say in technical lingo.
Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.
-
Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.
Well explained? That certainly comes as news to me. Which of these circles explain it well and provide a methodology for investigating and evaluating such a claim, as well as a means of sifting through rival, mutually inconsistent and mutually contradictory claims?
-
The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing. In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang. So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?
I don't know.
Do you claim to know?
Just because we think everything had a cause does not mean that is the case.
So my question still stands
-
Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.
No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?
I know we feel very real. I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'. But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss.
-
But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions. So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?
Think in terms of patterns of information flow; that would be a start.
-
The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing. In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang. So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?
This is just using 'God' to escape the discomfort of infinite regress; God as opiate, God as anaesthetic, masquerading as a philosophical proposition.
-
This is just using 'God' to escape the discomfort of infinite regress; God as opiate, God as anaesthetic, masquerading as a philosophical proposition.
It amazes me that they consider the uncaused 'thing,' that caused everything we know, isn't a mass of sub atomic particles, which gradually swirled together and began expanding (a difficult enough concept for us to understand). No, this 'thing' that came from zilch just happens to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, vengeful father-figure who worries whether we believe in him or not!
The mind boggles!
-
No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?
To me, the soul is the perfect explanation for who I am. (Not what I am!)
-
It's not an explanation, it's just Polyfilla - a colourless goo that fills gaps.
-
She didn't say any such thing. What Rhiannon wrote was:
She doesn't need more than the material.. even went as far as to say 'we' so implying EVERYONE does not need more than the material. So she did say that for herself and for everyone else.
What you think denial is acceptable...
-
That's right. What she didn't say - which you claimed she had said but didn't - is that she only believes in the material. What she said was that whether there's anything more than the material she doesn't know (nor do I, though she may have an opinion that leans more to one side than the other, as I do), so your attribution of a position that she doesn't hold is either stupidity or wilful mendacity.
As she is a pagan what she wrote is totally misleading and implies and even states no one needs anything but the Material.
Which she obviously does NOT BELIEVE because if she did believe her statement she would not be a practicing pagam.
So NOTHING stupid or even wilful that is your position because the statement is clear. If she held that position then she could not be a practicing pagan because she believes the MATERIAL IS ALL YOU NEED. She said "we" so referring to herself and believing it about everybody else.
Hence you are wrong and deliberately denying it. Just as you tried to defend Floo some weeks back and made yourself look dishonest then.
So far all you have done is proved that you will sink to any level to defend something you know you cannot defend without appearing dishonest.
You can claim it to be ignorance but if you do then no one will believe a word you say in future.
Shaker you are masking the wrong. Which is deceitful to say the least.
What she said is clear,.,.. That she and all were included only needed the material.
It won't change no matter how much you try to make it change.
It must feel so cold and lonely not being able to defend anything with actual truth.
Rhiannon made a statement which was factually incorrect on her part. She cannot believe that if she does not practice that.
So ear ticklers like yourself have to take responsibility and try practicing what you preach.
If she really believed what she wrote then she would not be a practicing pagan.
End of matter. Factual and untwisting...
-
Sass appears to be jealous when people, like Rhi come out with sensible comments, which Sass invariably fails to do, so she tries to diss them, very sad.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Quote Rhiannon
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)
Is it? Is it really!
Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?
Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material ;)
Gonnagle.
But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
Paganism is a form of religion.
Image result for paganismwww.thewhitegoddess.co.uk
Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions.
Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Related topics
It [Wicca] draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice. Wikipedia
Explore: Wicca
Modern Paganism, or Neo-Paganism, is a modern, Earth-centered religious perspective which borrows and adapts from pre-Christian paganism as well as from contemporary religious thought. paganlibrary.com
Explore: Modern paganism
Yule, A pagan festival also called the Winter Solstice, celebrates the rebirth of the Sun, the Sun God and honors the Horned God. urbandictionary.com
Explore: Yule
Hence if Rhiannon actually believed you do not need religion (and paganism is the name given to all religions not Abrahamic in origin) She says she doesn't need more than the material in fact she states what I believe is that we don't need more than the material
Clearly stating we don't need religion, then she is saying she believes that none necessary including paganism and believes in the material...
Rhiannon originally wrote: Quote Rhiannon
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)
So if religion not needed and she believes it is all about the supernatural and even says we do not need religion
But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.
I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.
Then she would not be a pagan and would be really set on showing how the material is all we need.
The truth is that only two Abrahamic religions have really existed in truth that has shown God feed his people.
The Israelites in the Wilderness and Jesus when he fed the 5,000 with a simple meal of loaves and fishes.
Sometimes people may not mean something to come out the way it did.
But she cannot now having made that statement say she only needs the material if a practicing pagan. Simple as....
It is untrue she cannot believe that if she practices paganism. For it is a religion albeit a false one but nonetheless a religion which she practices.
-
You are completely ignorant when it comes to God and the bible.
You think in the flesh and cannot see with your spirit.
What all believers in God have had since the beginning of time is God and his Spirit.
Through his words and Prophets he has made known his will for mankind and all who believe in him.
You take a myth theory and wave it around as if it actually means something.
Look through the bible and you will see God has always revealed his will to man through the Holy Spirit.
Gods people are living people. People who accept his word as truth and live in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Someone who teaches us and leads us into all truth.
Jesus said:
John 16:13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Those in Christ do not rely on what is written. They have something far greater as the Prophets of Old. Gods Spirit to guide them. You only have what your flesh has your own reasoning and inability to see what is actually before you. Spiritually blind as Saul/paul WAS. He had to become blind in order to see what was really the truth.
No suckers believing in fables., The children of God receiving what their God promised them.
How do we know Jesus is the Son of God? Because Gods promises to us come true and we receive what he promised through the Prophets a long time ago.
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
We believe what God says about his son. It is this that makes us redeemed and the children of the Most High God.
No self-righteousness, no earning it...just Gods free gift.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He wants all to be saved. God keeps his promises..
I get it, Sass.
The supreme cosmic mega-being sacrificed himself to himself in order to appease himself so that he could save humanity from himself.
Perfectly sensible.
-
I am not being drawn into non consequential arguments about creation or evolution.
My post is clear that Darwin kept his order of evolution to the same order a Genesis and Gods creation of animals and man.
According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.
That's not only at odds with Darwin but also with the millions of pieces of evidence we have.
-
This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc
The problem is that we can only imagine things in the terms of what exists in our own universe. Time and deterministic science are properties of this universe, but we do not know what exists outside.
There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist. And this ultimate source of existence is God.
I guess the universe is real enough; it exists and some of it we can observe and measure. Sure there is much that we don't know about our universe but there is also much that we do know.
It wasn't that long ago when the universe was completely unknown to us. People would try and explain this unknown by creating another level of unknown. I don't see creating a second mystery to solve a first one as being that helpful.
Yet religious people think it reasonable to do just that: They invent an extra layer of mystery, call it by the name of whatever deity they have chosen to worship and categorically deny that anything could have come before it.
Furthermore these same religious people will emphatically deny that a quantum singularity from which our universe may have emerged could have always existed.
Thankfully, science endeavours to explain the unknown with the known - no need to add extra layers of mystery and magic.
-
Dear Khatru,
According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.
Please try and keep up, God does not do poofed, and Sass is right ( is that a first ) vegetation, animals then man.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Khatru,
Please try and keep up, God does not do poofed, and Sass is right ( is that a first ) vegetation, animals then man.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV
Gonnagle.
OK, not poofed but magicked.
Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.
Then came the animals because man was lonely.
Finally Eve comes along.
Genesis 2:1-22
-
Dear Khatru,
Magicked! You learn a new thing everyday, magicked is a real word ::)
Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.
Well there are some who say Genesis 1 and 2 were written by two different authors, silly! Everyone knows it was God wot wrote it.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Khatru,
Magicked! You learn a new thing everyday, magicked is a real word ::)
Well there are some who say Genesis 1 and 2 were written by two different authors, silly! Everyone knows it was God wot wrote it.
Gonnagle.
Fair enough, Gonny
Mind you, which creation account is correct?
They can't both be right.
However, one, or indeed both accounts, could be wrong!
-
Dear Khatru,
Not wrong, just not scientific, not Darwinian enough.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
No mention of the Big Bang, Gravity, singularity, matter, anti matter.
No we had to figure that out ourselves, and we are still trying to figure out how Godunnit, or not, strange but there are some who think there is no God :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Still does not address the issue of infinite regress though Gonners.
So if GOdunnit - who dunnGod?
-
Dear Trent,
His Mum and Dad, it's Mum and Dads all the way down.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Trent,
His Mum and Dad, it's Mum and Dads all the way down.
Gonnagle.
So that'swhere he got the mortgage to build Earth - the bank of Mum and Dad. That had been worrying me.
-
...strange but there are some who think there is no God :o :o
Why do you find that strange?
-
According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.
That's not only at odds with Darwin but also with the millions of pieces of evidence we have.
As you can see below it is according to YOU alone. And so why keep showing that you know nothing about
the bible and addressing issues you know nothing about...
Again your ignorance in your last two posts to myself from you show you know nothing of Darwin's theory or the bible.
I suppose you just believe what your religion teaches you. Should have read the books.
Example
Genesis 1.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
-
OK, not poofed but magicked.
Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.
Then came the animals because man was lonely.
Finally Eve comes along.
Genesis 2:1-22
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Your understanding is naff... :P
-
As you can see below it is according to YOU alone. And so why keep showing that you know nothing about
the bible and addressing issues you know nothing about...
Again your ignorance in your last two posts to myself from you show you know nothing of Darwin's theory or the bible.
I suppose you just believe what your religion teaches you. Should have read the books.
Example
Genesis 1.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Actually, it's according to the Bible and you'll find it in Genesis 2.
The account there has man created first, then the plants, then the animals, then Eve.
I'm not surprised you don't mention it because it's at odds with your cut and paste job from Genesis 1.
Damn those biblical contradictions! They always catch you out.
-
What do you think existed before anything existed? ???
I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.
-
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6838655/gods-diary-is-embarrassing
;D
-
No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?
I know we feel very real. I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'. But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss.
I notice that you "have no problem with labelling the jumble ...". Others do. Furthermore, do you have any evidence that your thinking has any more or even less validity to that held by Shakes/Gordon/etc; or to that held by Sass/Alan/myself?
-
I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.
You don't invent them, john? If not why do you, and those who think like you, so regularly bring them into the discussion?
-
Hope,
I notice that you "have no problem with labelling the jumble ...". Others do. Furthermore, do you have any evidence that your thinking has any more or even less validity to that held by Shakes/Gordon/etc; or to that held by Sass/Alan/myself?
Yes: the former group make arguments that are logically coherent; the latter group do not. That means precisely that the thinking of one group has more "validity" than the thinking of the other. Witness for example your love of the negative proof fallacy and your evasions when you're corrected on it.
-
Hope,
Yes: the former group make arguments that are logically coherent; the latter group do not. That means precisely that the thinking of one group has more "validity" than the thinking of the other. Witness for example your love of the negative proof fallacy and you're evasions when you're corrected on it.
So, what logically coherent argument lies behind Rhi's understanding, blue? Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument? If so, where is the evidence (and that evidence needs to be independent of the scientific logic that so many like to rely on)? As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?
-
Hope,
So, what logically coherent argument lies behind Rhi's understanding, blue?
Rhi makes several arguments. You tell me specifically which one you think not to be logically coherent and I’ll tell you whether or not I agree – and why.
Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument?
Science is a branch of logic. There are some types of logical argument that do not entail the practice of science - mathematics for example.
If so, where is the evidence (and that evidence needs to be independent of the scientific logic that so many like to rely on)?
The evidence that the logic that informs science is coherent is that it works: ‘planes fly, medicines cure, buildings stay upright etc. Pseudo-science that by definition is not logically sound on the other hand does not work.
As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?
That's pretty incoherent, but essentially the “evidence” that the negative proof argument you deploy so often here is a fallacious one is that there is no logical path from not being able to falsify something and that thing actually being true. Worse still, if you insisted nonetheless that “you can’t disprove it” in some way means that the “it” must thereby be true, then you’d have no choice but to allow in every other unfalsifiable conjecture by the same back door of irrationality. Try googling "Russell's teapot" for further details.
(Incidentally, I’ve not bothered for now with your deeper problem of being “not even wrong” because of the lack of a cogent definition for “god”, but it’s there in the background nonetheless.)
-
As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?
It is not casting doubt. It showing that either your arguments are unsound (premises are not demonstrated) and/or illogical (conclusions do not follow from the premises).
The NPF is an example of the latter.
-
Rhi makes several arguments. You tell me specifically which one you think not to be logically coherent and I’ll tell you whether or not I agree – and why.
Well, we 'll start with this one: I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'.
and then move onto this one:
But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss
Science is a branch of logic. There are some types of logical argument that do not entail the practice of science - mathematics for example.
Your point? How do you know that spiritual matters aren't equally a branch of logic. It would certainly make sense to me that they are.
The evidence that the logic that informs science is coherent is that it works: ‘planes fly, medicines cure, buildings stay upright etc. Pseudo-science that by definition is not logically sound on the other hand does not work.
You're the one introducing the idea of pseudo-science; any reason why?
That's pretty incoherent, but essentially the “evidence” that the negative proof argument you deploy so often here is a fallacious one is that there is no logical path from not being able to falsify something and that thing actually being true.
Yet life depends on this type of situation. For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.
-
Yet life depends on this type of situation. For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.
It doesn't matter (although it might well be susceptible to scientific investigation) since whether or not I love Marmite, Chopin, or my wife is not a true for everyone type claim.
Unlike the claim to an objectively true God.
-
Hope,
Well, we'll start with this one:
"I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'."
I’m not sure why you think critiqueing Rhi’s arguments has anything to say to the logically fallacious arguments you attempt but, for what it’s worth, she seems to be attaching a label (“soul”) to some phenomena without accepting the additional baggage that the religious attach to the same term.
It’s potentially confusing perhaps, but I see no obvious logical error in reasoning there.
and then move onto this one:
"But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss"
You misunderstand the nature of the burden of proof. It’s for those who think there to be a “soul” that does these things to make the argument for it, not for others to disprove it. Rhi’s response should technically have been, “there is no coherent argument to suggest that there is a separate entity that….etc ...and therefore the likelihood is that there is not...” or some such, but she seems to me to have been speaking colloquially rather than in strict epistemological terms.
Your point?
My point was to answer your question – which I did.
How do you know that spiritual matters aren't equally a branch of logic. It would certainly make sense to me that they are.
I know that to the extent that no-one that I’m aware of has ever managed to make arguments to support their contentions about “spiritual matters” that in any way satisfy the rules of logic. To the contrary – the only arguments I’ve seen (yours for example) flatly break those rules.
You're the one introducing the idea of pseudo-science; any reason why?
Yes – to explain to you how we know that real science is logically sound whereas pseudoscience it not.
Yet life depends on this type of situation. For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.
No it doesn’t depend on “this type of situation” at all, and your analogy is a false one in any case. If we applied your negative proof fallacy here, rather it would read more like, “you can’t disprove that X loves Y, therefore X must love Y”.
-
As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?
The NPF is beloved only by those who use it and keep on using it despite being told repeatedly that it's a fallacy. You, in other words. Nobody else loves it because rational people don't love sloppy thinking and the inability to take on board new information. We're heartily sick to the back teeth of it and wish you would stop using it every other post.
There's a love affair with bad reasoning here all right and it's all yours.
-
'Soul' is just a label, a useful shorthand for the non-material us we perceive. It's as good a term as any, like 'spirit', but the idea that it is a 'thing' is unproven and, to me, illusory.
-
One of the interesting things about the negative proof fallacy, is that it seems to assume a binary state of affairs. That is, statements are either true or false. So if you can't prove that something is false, it is true, the fallacy runs.
But of course, this is not correct. Many things can be said to be true, false or uncertain or unknown. Thus if an atheist can't prove that there is no God, this does't mean that there is, but that it's uncertain, (although the atheist may argue that it's implausible or contradictory).
But this non-binary state also seems to apply to incredulity. For example, someone says, 'I can't see how the brain can produce consciousness', and then goes on to say, therefore God does it.
But again, the middle term is missing, the cause of consciousness is uncertain or unknown. This doesn't mean that the brain does not produce it! That's why neuroscientists are working on it.
Another one that pops us - you can't say what happened before the Big Bang, therefore God. Well, no, it's unknown.
So some theists seem to use black and white thinking a lot; hence, the (mis)statement, you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is.
-
Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument?
What does "scientifically logical" mean? Either an argument is logical or it isn't. Science uses logic, there isn't a particular variety of logic that is scientific.
As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?
I refer you to wigginhall's excellent post on the matter but you've had it explained so many times, I doubt it's going to sink in.
Look, if you think that being able to do "no more than cast doubt on" an idea is any sort of justification for the idea being taken seriously, you really do need to understand that logically, that opens the door to anything, no matter how far-fetched or patently silly, just so long as you construct it in a way that it can't be falsified. For example:
- Shy fairies that only manifest to those who truly believe.
- The universe was created by Kevin - a spotty teenager in a higher dimensional universe, who was given a new physics set for his birthday. We are but his playthings.
- Endless hordes of tiny, mischievous pixies that scurry round the cosmos pushing stuff around in exactly the right way to make us think there is gravity.
And so on, and so on. You can do no more that cast doubt on any of these...
-
Actually, it's according to the Bible and you'll find it in Genesis 2.
The account there has man created first, then the plants, then the animals, then Eve.
I'm not surprised you don't mention it because it's at odds with your cut and paste job from Genesis 1.
Damn those biblical contradictions! They always catch you out.
No bible contradictions...
Adam placed in a GARDEN God creates for him in Chapter 2. Why not read it instead of believing everything you are told...
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
He had done everything in preparation.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Bells ringing now? Eden a Garden which God has planted...
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
So God created a garden for man to live in which was separate from the rest of what he had created.
Never mind! Your triumph non existent and short live... ::)
-
I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.
Your pride is your worst enemy. If you were not dishonest you would be open minded enough to allow yourself to be wrong and others right. Truth is that there is no absolute way for you to accuse theist of invention when it comes to God.
Since the scattering at the tower of Babel the whole world no matter how remote and unknown a place has humans living there who know about a GOD.
If you were honest you would allow for yourself to be wrong. But you don't in the light of what you have not experienced.
If you believed others to be truthful. Then you also have to allow for the fact they might be experiencing that which you haven't.
You need to calm down. The belief that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah started over 2,000 years ago.
It is only the people who do not know Christ who are handed over to their illusions...
-
Hope,
Yes: the former group make arguments that are logically coherent; the latter group do not. That means precisely that the thinking of one group has more "validity" than the thinking of the other. Witness for example your love of the negative proof fallacy and your evasions when you're corrected on it.
For pessimism and pride of self and man is what the former group have.
Christ stands for love and for helping your fellow man.
But the former group stand for themselves and for their individual self and not the good of others.]
Who would deny the world what it needs... People who are selfish and self indulgent who see nothing good outside themselves.
Jesus Christ loved God and mankind that he gave his life for his fellow man.
When it boils down to it, the latter care more for their fellow man than the former group.
I believe it makes better sense to be part of the latter than the former.
-
<Jesus Christ loved God and mankind that he gave his life for his fellow man.>
Don't you mean 'just' his earthly body which means nothing in the end.
Jesus gave up nothing really, sorry !!!
If Jesus is back in the 'same position' He was just before He came to earth then there's no change at all??
-
'Soul' is just a label, a useful shorthand for the non-material us we perceive. It's as good a term as any, like 'spirit', but the idea that it is a 'thing' is unproven and, to me, illusory.
See the PRIDE of SELF...
IS UNPROVENAND, TO ME, ULLUSIONARY....
UNPROVEN what is non-material about a soul and how can it perceived as such if as you say it doesn't exist?
Your confusing your disatisfaction with your life and the soul with your old beliefs. A soul is not necessarily a Christian ONLY held belief.
Truth is you think attacking anything from belief, is detaching yourself from faith.
Self-destruction is not the same as losing faith. You caved into circumstance and your own feeling.
You thought by doing that and giving up faith all your troubles would cease. But you are just stuck in the way you were when you separated yourself from God.
But God has never let you go, are you sure you want to remain in the cold where no one but you ever wanted you to be?
-
One of the interesting things about the negative proof fallacy, is that it seems to assume a binary state of affairs. That is, statements are either true or false. So if you can't prove that something is false, it is true, the fallacy runs.
But of course, this is not correct. Many things can be said to be true, false or uncertain or unknown. Thus if an atheist can't prove that there is no God, this does't mean that there is, but that it's uncertain, (although the atheist may argue that it's implausible or contradictory).
But this non-binary state also seems to apply to incredulity. For example, someone says, 'I can't see how the brain can produce consciousness', and then goes on to say, therefore God does it.
But again, the middle term is missing, the cause of consciousness is uncertain or unknown. This doesn't mean that the brain does not produce it! That's why neuroscientists are working on it.
Another one that pops us - you can't say what happened before the Big Bang, therefore God. Well, no, it's unknown.
So some theists seem to use black and white thinking a lot; hence, the (mis)statement, you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is.
A lot of nonsense made up by man to try and protect himself from the reality that God is.
What is fact is man exists... what is fact is that so far no new life in the solar system of ours, like ours.
More unexplainable if the life in the otherwise dead void called space.
You can make all the statements you want to make. But you have only you and your pride trying to convince you God does not exist. People who find God they have the most valuable thing a man can know and possess of himself.
They have hope, forgiveness and understanding... which even the atheist and his pride cannot take away from him.
You stick with your mumbo jumbo and we believers will stick with the love and truth of God.
I know who is most satisfied in their lives...
-
Sassy,
When it boils down to it, the latter care more for their fellow man than the former group.
A highly dubious proposition given the behaviour of these people here, and for that matter given the wider appalling things that have been - and are - done in the world in the name of Christianity.
None of which is relevant though, because the discussion was about the former group using logic that's logically sound and the latter being unable to do so. And that matters because the latter group would have us think their claims of fact to be true, despite being unable to muster an argument to show that they are. You for example when asked to demonstrate your claims without simply quoting chunks from a book reply by quoting chunks from that book. The question you never respond to though is why anyone should share your personal belief that that particular book is truthful or accurate in the first place.
-
<Jesus Christ loved God and mankind that he gave his life for his fellow man.>
Don't you mean 'just' his earthly body which means nothing in the end.
Jesus gave up nothing really, sorry !!!
If Jesus is back in the 'same position' He was just before He came to earth then there's no change at all??
Because you want it to be that way does not make it so.
Pride again... It comes before a fall, they say. Story of mankind, isn't. But God does not lie he is truth.
You mistrust everything and everybody. Should you really be trusting your feelings on this subject?
Because basically you are saying what you think and feel is right regardless of what the truth may be.
-
Sassy,
A highly dubious proposition given the behaviour of these people here, and for that matter given the wider appalling things that have been - and are - done in the world in the name of Christianity.
None of which is relevant though, because the discussion was about the former group using logic that's logically sound and the matter being unable to do so. And that matters because the latter group would have us think their claims of fact to be true, despite being unable to muster an argument to show that they are. You for example when asked to demonstrate your claims without simply quoting chunks from a book reply by quoting chunks from that book. The question you never respond to though is why anyone should share your personal belief that that book is truthful or accurate in the first place.
It is truthful and accurate because Sass says so, LOL!
-
Sassy,
A lot of nonsense made up by man to try and protect himself from the reality that God is.
Wiggs made a reasoned argument. You may or may not think it to be correct, but just asserting it to be "a lot of nonsense" is pointless. If you think his argument to be wrong, then use a counter-argument that undoes it. And if you can't do that, then his argument stands until someone else can.
-
Sassy,
Wiggs made a reasoned argument. You may or may not think it to be correct, but just asserting it to be "a lot of nonsense" is pointless. If you think his argument to be wrong, then use a counter-argument that undoes it. And if you can't do that, then his argument stands until someone else can.
:D really.
~TW~
-
:D really.
~TW~
I guess you don't have a counterargument either - what a surprise! :o
-
I guess you don't have a counterargument either - what a surprise! :o
But I do have a counterargument here it is look around your room and pick something out that made itself. :D
~TW~
-
But I do have a counterargument here it is look around your room and pick something out that made itself. :D
~TW~
How is that an argument?
-
But I do have a counterargument here it is look around your room and pick something out that made itself. :D
You seem to have forgotten to include the argument bit.
-
No bible contradictions...
Adam placed in a GARDEN God creates for him in Chapter 2. Why not read it instead of believing everything you are told...
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
He had done everything in preparation.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Bells ringing now? Eden a Garden which God has planted...
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
So God created a garden for man to live in which was separate from the rest of what he had created.
Never mind! Your triumph non existent and short live... ::)
I just knew you'd respond along these lines.
You've been sussed, Sass.
Unfortunately for your argument, you neglected to deal with the contradiction.
It still has man before animals and all your screaming and foot-stamping can't change that.
Damn those biblical contradictions!
Ps. How about going back and facing up to my recent points in the other threads which you ran away from?
-
:D How about going back and facing up to my recent points in the other threads which you ran away from? 8)
Try Me
~TW~
-
TW,
How about going back and facing up to my recent points in the other threads which you ran away from? 8)
You've actually made some points rather than just spewed insults and abuse?
Really
Really really?
Blimey - well that's a first. OK, so what are these "points" that you think you've made, and why do you think them to be rational and well-founded?
-
Blue
Don't be unkind at least some things which have been made have been seen in the room. A first step to perceiving reality, perhaps.
-
:D How about going back and facing up to my recent points in the other threads which you ran away from? 8)
Try Me
~TW~
What points would they be?
The floor is yours......
-
What points would they be?
The floor is yours......
I am not a mind reader you said you had ask Sass questions that she could not answer so try me. :)
~TW~
-
I am not a mind reader you said you had ask Sass questions that she could not answer so try me. :)
~TW~
Why should I believe your god is real, and not just a delusion of yours?
-
Why should I believe your god is real, and not just a delusion of yours?
When did I say you had to believe my God is real,is that is a delusion of yours. ::)
~TW~
-
I am not a mind reader you said you had ask Sass questions that she could not answer so try me. :)
~TW~
Sorry....misread your post.
I will indeed.
-
Because you want it to be that way does not make it so.
Pride again... It comes before a fall, they say. Story of mankind, isn't. But God does not lie he is truth.
You mistrust everything and everybody. Should you really be trusting your feelings on this subject?
Because basically you are saying what you think and feel is right regardless of what the truth may be.
You seem to be looking into some weird kind of mirror as all you call the rest of us reflects manifold on you.
-
:D How about going back and facing up to my recent points in the other threads which you ran away from? 8)
Try Me
~TW~
OK, let's start with one that Sass refused to answer.
Let the copy and paste begin...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1
Do you agree with this statement?
-
When did I say you had to believe my God is real,is that is a delusion of yours. ::)
~TW~
No one said had to. I said why should I believe your God exists, and is not just a delusion.
I take it that you do believe a God exists.
Why do you believe that?
-
OK, let's start with one that Sass refused to answer.
Let the copy and paste begin...
Psalm 14:1
Do you agree with this statement?
I didn't refuse to answer, I was avoiding making you look more stupid than you already look.
Khatru.Quote from: Sassy on April 11, 2016, 10:50:43 AM
So where you have the problem of knowing the truth and put it down to worldly scholarly matters like language.
The believer in Spirit and Truth does not have that problem.
Ah yes, that fits the third and ninth in my list of reasons that Christians regularly trot out to explain why they get it but I don't.
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 01:29:55 PM by Khatru »
Ippy and Owlswing both thought Khatrus post be a good post but I pointed out that fools seldom differ.
Then we get the reply from Khatru.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".
Psalm 14:
Is that the kind of fool you're talking about?
My post was clear in intention that is had NOTHING to do with Psalm 14:1 and as such only a fool would have even suggested it.
The old saying is “Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.” Not psalm 14:1.
How stupid does Khatru look now?
-
Sass, no one looks as stupid as you, apart from your clone TW, only you can't see it!
-
No one said had to. I said why should I believe your God exists, and is not just a delusion.
I take it that you do believe a God exists.
Why do you believe that?
I think I have answered that question more times then I can remember and I will be here all day telling you why,so we will pass on that with the comment try to keep up this has been answered many time.So we do not keep going back over old ground.
~TW~
-
OK, let's start with one that Sass refused to answer.
Let the copy and paste begin...
Psalm 14:1
Do you agree with this statement?
Taking in the whole context of the psalm where God makes a point,or you could say a point is made for God,if God is God then those who oppose him are fools big time. :) so yes.
~TW~
-
I think I have answered that question more times then I can remember and I will be here all day telling you why,so we will pass on that with the comment try to keep up this has been answered many time.So we do not keep going back over old ground.
~TW~
This is the usual cop out for those that cannot answer.
The truth is that so far no one anywhere ever, has given a good logical reason to believe in a god. All attempts by everyone have failed, and you are no exception.
You believe for totally illogical reasons. Now that is the truth!
-
This is the usual cop out for those that cannot answer.
The truth is that so far no one anywhere ever, has given a good logical reason to believe in a god. All attempts by everyone have failed, and you are no exception.
You believe for totally illogical reasons. Now that is the truth!
Dont talk shit.
~TW~
-
What planet is bR on that is the question why does our history say today br that it is the year 2016.
~TW~
-
What planet is bR on that is the question why does our history say today br that it is the year 2016.
~TW~
It's 5776 in the Jewish calendar ;)
-
It's 5776 in the Jewish calendar ;)
Is it so I score again under 6000 well done.
~TW~
-
Score? Only in the stupidity and borderline illiteracy stakes.
-
Score? Only in the stupidity and borderline illiteracy stakes.
Yes but I am fine because pratts like you keep posting evidence that supports me. What was it 5776 magic
~TW~
-
Dont talk shit.
~TW~
You make my point for me.
Instead of a reasoned and logical rebuttal, all you can do is that.
Your beliefs are delusional, and I suspect you know that, and that's why you never offer any reasoned comment, just insults.
-
BR,
I think I have answered that question more times then I can remember and I will be here all day telling you why,so we will pass on that with the comment try to keep up this has been answered many time.So we do not keep going back over old ground.
So far as anyone can tell the TW/Sassy amalgam believe in their god because the religious book with which they happen to be most familiar tells them to. He/she/they show no inclination to break out of the circular reasoning of "God is true because a book says so; the book is true because God made it so" so round and round they go. Be nice if he/she/they could ever attempt and actual argument - i.e., something that isn't logically hopeless - to make their case but after all this time I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.
-
Yes but I am fine because pratts like you keep posting evidence that supports me. What was it 5776 magic
~TW~
That's the Jewish calendar - I never knew you were Jewish. Your post #281 implied that there's something notable about it being the year 2016 according to Bede's dating, whereas other religions have their own calendars giving different dates. Which one is correct?
Prat has only one t, incidentally. I suppose you have to be a bit of a prat not to know that.
-
As br and shaker are suffering from foot in mouth I will now log out my message to you both is you deceive yourself. 5776 brilliant ;D
~TW~
-
Log out?
Are you sure you know how to do it on your own?
-
As br and shaker are suffering from foot in mouth I will now log out my message to you both...
Clearly you know that you have no arguments, that's why all you do is post childish insults and then run away...
-
As br and shaker are suffering from foot in mouth I will now log out my message to you both is you deceive yourself. 5776 brilliant ;D
~TW~
Do you mean run away because the questions make you feel uneasy?
-
BR,
So far as anyone can tell the TW/Sassy amalgam believe in their god because the religious book with which they happen to be most familiar tells them to. He/she/they show no inclination to break out of the circular reasoning of "God is true because a book says so; the book is true because God made it so" so round and round they go. Be nice if he/she/they could ever attempt and actual argument - i.e., something that isn't logically hopeless - to make their case but after all this time I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.
A lot of what TW and Sass believe isn't especially Biblical, or if it is it's an uncommon interpretation of it. There's more to it than simply believing in x and y - it's a scaffolding on which their lives have been built. I'm not even sure where it comes from - it's not identifiable with any mainstream Christianity that I grew up around.
-
Rhi,
A lot of what TW and Sass believe isn't especially Biblical, or if it is it's an uncommon interpretation of it. There's more to it than simply believing in x and y - it's a scaffolding on which their lives have been built. I'm not even sure where it comes from - it's not identifiable with any mainstream Christianity that I grew up around.
That sounds about right to me - having built their lives on it though, it seems they have no choice but to respond like four-year-olds with insult and abuse when confronted with arguments they can't address. I wonder too whether - deep, deep down - there's a tiny voice somewhere that says, "what if this entire belief system is wrong?" that they suppress immediately it pops up, but that's there nonetheless so their behaviour betrays the nagging suspicion that they've bet the farm on the wrong horse.
Despite their disgraceful behaviour here, I have to admit to a sneaking sympathy/pity for them if that is the case. Realising that everything you've based your beliefs on is a crock must be an agonising process I'd have thought.
-
Rhi,
That sounds about right to me - having built their lives on it though, it seems they have no choice but to respond like four-year-olds with insult and abuse when confronted with arguments they can't address. I wonder too whether - deep, deep down - there's a tiny voice somewhere that says, "what if this entire belief system is wrong?" that they suppress immediately it pops up, but that's there nonetheless so their behaviour betrays the nagging suspicion that they've bet the farm on the wrong horse.
Despite their disgraceful behaviour here, I have to admit to a sneaking sympathy/pity for them if that is the case. Realising that everything you've based your beliefs on is a crock must be an agonising process I'd have thought.
I doubt it. Any such 'tiny voices' would be seen as Satan testing their faith and you would be seen as one of Satan's little helpers. It's all covered in the manual.
-
I doubt it. Any such 'tiny voices' would be seen as Satan testing their faith and you would be seen as one of Satan's little helpers. It's all covered in the manual.
Straight from the Alan Burns playbook, of course.
-
ekim,
I doubt it. Any such 'tiny voices' would be seen as Satan testing their faith and you would be seen as one of Satan's little helpers. It's all covered in the manual.
That's a thought - any glimmer of reason or sense that's allowed to intrude must be the devil tempting them from the true belief, so all the more reason to extinguish it sharpish and thereby reinforce the faith itself. Yikes!
-
I didn't refuse to answer, I was avoiding making you look more stupid than you already look.
Ah yes, that fits the third and ninth in my list of reasons that Christians regularly trot out to explain why they get it but I don't.
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 01:29:55 PM by Khatru »
Ippy and Owlswing both thought Khatrus post be a good post but I pointed out that fools seldom differ.
Then we get the reply from Khatru.
My post was clear in intention that is had NOTHING to do with Psalm 14:1 and as such only a fool would have even suggested it.
The old saying is “Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.” Not psalm 14:1.
How stupid does Khatru look now?
You were given various opportunities to answer the question and still your faith failed you.
You're all over the place, Sass.
All I asked was whether you agreed with the scripture.
A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
Too late now - you had your chances and you blew them.
-
ekim,
That's a thought - any glimmer of reason or sense that's allowed to intrude must be the devil tempting them from the true belief, so all the more reason to extinguish it sharpish and thereby reinforce the faith itself. Yikes!
Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated.
-
Taking in the whole context of the psalm where God makes a point,or you could say a point is made for God,if God is God then those who oppose him are fools big time. :) so yes.
~TW~
I suppose the bile and invective in this scripture is hardly surprising considering its author thought nothing about sacrificing humans to appease the bible god.
Anyway, does it make you feel good lumping the billions of people in the world who do not believe in your choice of deity into one category as corrupt, abominable and doing no good?
Care to share your proof that every single unbeliever is a corrupt, abominable fool who never does any good at all?
-
I suppose the bile and invective in this scripture is hardly surprising considering its author thought nothing about sacrificing humans to appease the bible god.
Anyway, does it make you feel good lumping the billions of people in the world who do not believe in your choice of deity into one category as corrupt, abominable and doing no good?
Care to share your proof that every single unbeliever is a corrupt, abominable fool who never does any good at all?
Well having just witnessed shaker and br shoot each other in the head.You seem to want to do the same The writer says the fool, he has an opinion he is entitled to his opinion the rest of your post is just an add on where you go on a rant as your mates would say, and introduce your thoughts and your thoughts only.So next question if you have one.
~TW~
-
Well having just witnessed shaker and br shoot each other in the head.You seem to want to do the same The writer says the fool, he has an opinion he is entitled to his opinion the rest of your post is just an add on where you go on a rant as your mates would say, and introduce your thoughts and your thoughts only.So next question if you have one.
~TW~
You haven't answered the first question about why you believe there is a god.
Can you do that?
-
You haven't answered the first question about why you believe there is a god.
Can you do that?
I did answer but you are a little slow,some people would say thick,I would say slow. :)And as Sass says you lack understanding.Not much I can do for you it seems hell awaits.
~TW~
-
Well having just witnessed shaker and br shoot each other in the head.You seem to want to do the same The writer says the fool, he has an opinion he is entitled to his opinion the rest of your post is just an add on where you go on a rant as your mates would say, and introduce your thoughts and your thoughts only.So next question if you have one.
~TW~
Except that I wasn't asking the writer for his opinion.
I wanted yours.
Which was why I asked you to provide the evidence to back up your assertion that the scripture is true.
You failed to do so.
No surprise that Sass refused to answer it and you can probably see yourself why she chose to give the question a body swerve.
-
I did answer but you are a little slow,some people would say thick,I would say slow. :)And as Sass says you lack understanding.Not much I can do for you it seems hell awaits.
~TW~
You have not answered, that is a lie.
Simply post why you believe a god or gods exist. Do not post that you have answered somewhere else at some other time. That is evasion.
-
Except that I wasn't asking the writer for his opinion.
I wanted yours.
Which was why I asked you to provide the evidence to back up your assertion that the scripture is true.
You failed to do so.
No surprise that Sass refused to answer it and you can probably see yourself why she chose to give the question a body swerve.
I gave you mine yes I agree.What is wrong with you people cant you read.
~TW
-
I gave you mine yes I agree.What is wrong with you people cant you read.
~TW
Stop saying you HAVE done it, and DO IT.
Why do you believe a god or gods exist?
-
You have not answered, that is a lie.
Simply post why you believe a god or gods exist. Do not post that you have answered somewhere else at some other time. That is evasion.
Well read this why i believe in God http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
And when you have read it sod off and annoy someone else with your crap.
~TW~
-
Well read this why i believe in God http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
And when you have read it sod off and annoy someone else with your crap.
~TW~
This is a document by someone else and is not why YOU believe in a god.
Took a quick look and it mentions Irreducible Complexity, which we know is creationist nonsense.
THERE IS NO IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. It has NEVER been found.
If this is why you believe in a god, you should stop believing in 5,4,3,2,1 NOW.
-
Well read this why i believe in God http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
And when you have read it sod off and annoy someone else with your crap.
Why are you too afraid to make your own argument?
"Irreducible complexity" - YAWN!
Quite apart from this having been dealt with many times before, you really need to get to get it into your head that attempting to poke holes in the science of evolution is not an argument for the existence of your god.
It simply doesn't matter how many unknowns there are in science - it doesn't make your magic sky fairy any more believable.
-
Well read this why i believe in God http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
More likely the otherway round - you accept the contents of that article because you believe in God.
-
A lot of what TW and Sass believe isn't especially Biblical, or if it is it's an uncommon interpretation of it. There's more to it than simply believing in x and y - it's a scaffolding on which their lives have been built. I'm not even sure where it comes from - it's not identifiable with any mainstream Christianity that I grew up around.
Proof... oh you don't have any do you? It is all made up trying to hit out at people who have forgotten more about Christianity than you ever knew.
What I believe in is exactly what Christ believed in. Seems you dig yourself in deeper each day.
-
Proof... oh you don't have any do you? It is all made up trying to hit out at people who have forgotten more about Christianity than you ever knew.
What I believe in is exactly what Christ believed in. Seems you dig yourself in deeper each day.
How do you know what Jesus believed?
As far as I am aware, he never wrote anything down. It was ll written by others, possibly making him say what they wanted him to have said. Some that wrote about him, never even met him!
-
Well read this why i believe in God http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
And when you have read it sod off and annoy someone else with your crap.
~TW~
I see you are not quite intelligent enough to understand the document you point to.
The point has been made though. Suppose that evolution by natural selection was wrong.
How does this get to a god.
All this gets you is that now we do not understand something.
When you are smart enough to understand this, then you can talk to the grown ups.
-
Stop saying you HAVE done it, and DO IT.
Why do you believe a god or gods exist?
Could it be, because God does exist.
Why do human beings exist?
You don't know the answer to that one either.
But nonetheless we do exist.
Hence the reason God exists... he made us...
-
Could it be, because God does exist.
Why do human beings exist?
You don't know the answer to that one either.
But nonetheless we do exist.
Hence the reason God exists... he made us...
You need to demonstrate that a god exists.
You should not believe stuff because it MIGHT be true.
ANYTHING MIGHT be true.
Not knowing something does not mean MAKE UP AND ANSWER. It simply means you do not know.
Why are you so afraid of not knowing?
-
BR et al,
You can ask as much as you like, but the answer is always the same: they believe in "God" because a book they choose to believe is correct tells them to. That's it: there's no argument, no evidence, no anything beyond that circular reasoning. The closest they will ever get to breaking the circle is to look for imaginary holes in the science so as to jemmy their god into them, but that's it.
Really, that's it.
-
I see you are not quite intelligent enough to understand the document you point to.
The point has been made though. Suppose that evolution by natural selection was wrong.
How does this get to a god.
All this gets you is that now we do not understand something.
When you are smart enough to understand this, then you can talk to the grown ups.
Grown up you ;D pain in the rear end you dont even understand 7776 :D Why dont you demonstrate 7776 is wrong.
~TW~
-
what a bunch of dead beats this excuses are.
~TW~
-
Grown up you ;D pain in the rear end you dont even understand 7776 :D Why dont you demonstrate 7776 is wrong.
~TW~
Do you at least admit that you have no logical sound reasoning underpinning your belief in a god?
If so then there is nothing to discuss.
BUT, if you think you have a logical sound reason, then you need to put up or shut up.
-
what a bunch of dead beats this excuses are.
Running away again?
Why can't you provide even a hint of a rational argument for your god?
-
what a bunch of dead beats this excuses are.
~TW~
Is English your second language?
Your statement above does not make sense.
-
Is English your second language?
Your statement above does not make sense.
It's ~Twenglish. English, but with an unhealthy addition of ~Twatish!
-
Could it be, because God does exist.
Why do human beings exist?
You don't know the answer to that one either.
But nonetheless we do exist.
Hence the reason God exists... he made us...
Yet another daft assertion on the part of Sass!
-
I gave you mine yes I agree.What is wrong with you people cant you read.
~TW
There you go, it's plain to see that you're incapable of thinking for yourself and that you need to be told what to think. Which explains why you can't buttress the biblical statement with any supporting evidence.
Now contrast your failure to do that with my success at disproving what your god claims.
He says every unbeliever is corrupt, abominable and never does anything good.
Look at how Bob Geldof's efforts have led to millions of saved lives. That's good.
Now look at how your warped beliefs have got you denying the good work he did and calling him a corrupt fool. That's evil.
Try thinking for yourself sometime.
-
There you go, it's plain to see that you're incapable of thinking for yourself and that you need to be told what to think. Which explains why you can't buttress the biblical statement with any supporting evidence.
Now contrast your failure to do that with my success at disproving what your god claims.
He says every unbeliever is corrupt, abominable and never does anything good.
Look at how Bob Geldof's efforts have led to millions of saved lives. That's good.
Now look at how your warped beliefs have got you denying the good work he did and calling him a corrupt fool. That's evil.
Try thinking for yourself sometime.
Rubbish.
~TW~
-
It's correct not rubbish.
You cannot present your reasons for your belief in a god.
Why is that?
-
Rubbish.
~TW~
Good rebuttal
I can see your faith has enabled you to skillfully deploy logic and reason to devastating effect by way of refutation.
-
There you go, it's plain to see that you're incapable of thinking for yourself and that you need to be told what to think. Which explains why you can't buttress the biblical statement with any supporting evidence.
Can you explain why you are equally unable to buttress any of your claims with any supporting evidence?
-
Rubbish.
~TW~
Is not thinking a requirement of your religious cult, or is it just you?
-
You need to demonstrate that a god exists.
You should not believe stuff because it MIGHT be true.
ANYTHING MIGHT be true.
In the case of Mankind and God. what is the ANYTHING which MIGHT BE TRUE.
IT would have to include God made us. Because we did not make ourselves as the need for a man and a woman to procreate shows.
Not knowing something does not mean MAKE UP AND ANSWER. It simply means you do not know.
Why are you so afraid of not knowing?
We are not making up the answer... The tower of Babel shows how God scattered the people all over the world giving them different tongues so they could not understand each other, each to their own Country. However in every Country and even the remotest tribes found living isolated from the rest of mankind all know and believe in A God who created the world and man.
Sometimes the evidence itself, is the most astounding clues we have. That all places know of a God who created us.
Even a flood is universally accepted in the world as we know it amongst those people.
So the evidence would suggest that God was there at the beginning and that all mankind in every nation knew it.
-
BR et al,
You can ask as much as you like, but the answer is always the same: they believe in "God" because a book they choose to believe is correct tells them to. That's it: there's no argument, no evidence, no anything beyond that circular reasoning. The closest they will ever get to breaking the circle is to look for imaginary holes in the science so as to jemmy their god into them, but that's it.
Really, that's it.
Again the child who really hasn't a clue is trying to tell the adults what's what.
::)
-
Can you explain why you are equally unable to buttress any of your claims with any supporting evidence?
Hope, you and I are in an empty room save the air that we breathe. I say to you, there's nothing here, and we can both see that.
You say, no, God is here. But I can't see God and unlike the air there is no objectively measurable or discernible effects of God's presence.
Can you see why I don't need to prove that God isn't there and you do?
-
Do you at least admit that you have no logical sound reasoning underpinning your belief in a god?
Seems a bit daft to ask that when you have no logical sound reasoning, giving your belief in science and astrology that
you have no none for not believing. What you see is your own reasoning and in the light we exist in this Galaxy and no life anywhere else, means we didn't just happen. Because science has no reason other than God for why we exist at all.
If so then there is nothing to discuss.
BUT, if you think you have a logical sound reason, then you need to put up or shut up.
No it is you talking about logical and sound reasoning. Given the fact we exist then it is you who has to put up or shut up.
Prove using sound logical reasoning that God does not exist.
See what I mean it is you who needs to put up or shut up but you can't, can you?
-
Running away again?
Why can't you provide even a hint of a rational argument for your god?
God provided a rational and sound evidence.
Do as Christ says and if you obey him you will find his words are true and from whence they came.
Truth is that like BR and many others you DON'T follow the way in which to find out. No ones fault but your own.
It also shows you all have closed minds because you don't want to go the way shown to you and yet keep asking the way.
Shut up because the truth shows you cannot put up and do not know or want to know the truth.
-
Seems a bit daft to ask that when you have no logical sound reasoning, giving your belief in science and astrology that
you have no none for not believing. What you see is your own reasoning and in the light we exist in this Galaxy and no life anywhere else, means we didn't just happen. Because science has no reason other than God for why we exist at all.
No it is you talking about logical and sound reasoning. Given the fact we exist then it is you who has to put up or shut up.
Prove using sound logical reasoning that God does not exist.
See what I mean it is you who needs to put up or shut up but you can't, can you?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
Hope, you and I are in an empty room save the air that we breathe. I say to you, there's nothing here, and we can both see that.
You say, no, God is here. But I can't see God and unlike the air there is no objectively measurable or discernible effects of God's presence.
Can you see why I don't need to prove that God isn't there and you do?
No rubbish... you have to prove why you and Hope are both there....
There in lies the answer why God is more likely to exist... Because in a void called SPACE there is no life and you cannot live outside the earths atmosphere. Which means that only God a creator could have put mankind here and provided for us.
Truth is that without God you would not exist... Until you can prove how and why mankind exists then the only possible answer since mankind has existed is that God was there at the beginning and more importantly will be there at your end.
-
Can you explain why you are equally unable to buttress any of your claims with any supporting evidence?
e
Actually, I just did.
TW believes that every sinfle non-believer is a corrupt fool who never does anything good. He believes it to be true because no less an entity than the supreme cosmic mega-being has sanctioned the statement.
I pointed out the wonderful work and many lives saved through the work of Bob Geldof, a famous non-believer.
That is good supporting evidence of an unbeliever doing something very good indeed.
It also puts the lie to both the scripture in question and TW's belief.
Which explains his singular failure to refute me.
-
No rubbish... you have to prove why you and Hope are both there....
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST... BY PROVING WHY WE EXIST IN THIS VOID AND LIFELESS PLACE CALLED SPACE.
NO SCIENCE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT.
There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE is is manmade and created. However God exists even in tribes which have been undiscovered till recent times. It creates the proof above all that man has always know there was a God because he was there at the beginning and ever race has known that however isolated and undiscovered by the rest of the world they have been until now.
Now stop this stupid illogical reasoning and show us evidence... The only acceptable evidence from you is to PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST... God has shown you through Christ what to do to find him. If you don't do it then you have to admit you are wrong till you do and closed minded. Because others who have done what he says have found him.
-
Can we stop with all the stupid excuses and manmade arguments they really only show atheists clutching at straws.
Straw men arguments which show they have no real logical reasoning for their disbelief given the world around them.
If anyone is lacking in support and evidence then it is the atheists point of view.
So stupid to believe they can argue God does not exist in the light of they themselves exist in an otherwise empty void called space.
Seems they are willing to cling to any argument really fooling themselves that they actually have something to argue with.
If you do as God and Christ tells you, you will know if exists. Until you do you are not in a position to argue or call yourselves open minded... Because those who seek truth act on information provided. Till every atheist has acted on the words of God and Christ then they are no truth seekers and are not being honest when it comes to wanting to know if there is a God.
So when you have done as God tells you, let us know. TILL YOU DO, YOU CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST HIS EXISTENCE.
-
Sass, by your logic Bran the Blessed is real and his head is buried at Tower Hill. Nobody has proven otherwise.
-
PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST... BY PROVING WHY WE EXIST IN THIS VOID AND LIFELESS PLACE CALLED SPACE.
NO SCIENCE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT.
There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE is is manmade and created. However God exists even in tribes which have been undiscovered till recent times. It creates the proof above all that man has always know there was a God because he was there at the beginning and ever race has known that however isolated and undiscovered by the rest of the world they have been until now.
Now stop this stupid illogical reasoning and show us evidence... The only acceptable evidence from you is to PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST... God has shown you through Christ what to do to find him. If you don't do it then you have to admit you are wrong till you do and closed minded. Because others who have done what he says have found him.
Either you think logic is valid - in which case your argument is illogical (argument from ignorance), or you don't think logic is valid and your accusation that others are being illogical is absurd.
Please try to think.
-
Sass and her clone TW appear to be devoid of any kind of logic.
-
Sass and her clone TW appear to be devoid of any kind of logic.
Floo you were told your job is to make the tea,other then that you should not make any comments the seconds are ticking away,and you are in enough trouble as it is don't compound matters. :)
~TW~
-
PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST... BY PROVING WHY WE EXIST IN THIS VOID AND LIFELESS PLACE CALLED SPACE.
NO SCIENCE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT.
Does Hope know that you're driving the negative proof fallacy today?
There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
How strange, then, that here you are using it.
-
Does Hope know that you're driving the negative proof fallacy today?
How strange, then, that here you are using it.
Then why in your ignorance do you say this is wrong
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
~TW~
-
Does Hope know that you're driving the negative proof fallacy today?
How strange, then, that here you are using it.
Then why in your ignorance do you say this is wrong
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
~TW~
-
Floo you were told your job is to make the tea,other then that you should not make any comments the seconds are ticking away,and you are in enough trouble as it is don't compound matters. :)
~TW~
Get some help with your problems TW, they are getting worse.
-
Get some help with your problems TW, they are getting worse.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
~TW~
-
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
~TW~
Can you in your own words and thoughts explain why you believe in a god or gods?
-
Can you in your own words and thoughts explain why you believe in a god or gods?
Yes I can now can you in your own words and thoughts explain how you believe in the religion of evolution.
~TW~
-
Yes I can now can you in your own words explain how you believe in the religion of evolution.
~TW~
Then please do so as I and other asked first.
Evolution is not a religion it is both a fact and a theory.
Now, why do you believe in a god or gods?
-
Then please do so as I and other asked first.
Evolution is not a religion it is both a fact and a theory.
Now, why do you believe in a god or gods?
It is a religion
~TW~
-
The tower of Babel shows how God scattered the people all over the world giving them different tongues so they could not understand each other, each to their own Country
Actually, Genesis 10:5 explains how the people spread out according to their clans and languages. No mention of Babel there....that came later in your myth.
Damn those biblical contradictions!
Sometimes the evidence itself, is the most astounding clues we have. That all places know of a God who created us.
Even a flood is universally accepted in the world as we know it amongst those people.
So the evidence would suggest that God was there
That'll be the flood where your god killed pretty much all of the world's babies. You know? That act which so offended you yesterday.
Why on earth would I not see something wrong with killing EVERY SINGLE BABY IN THE WORLD
-
It is a religion
~TW~
Well, you are quite wrong it is a fact and a theory to explain the fact.
Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time (not cats to dogs as you probably think).
The problem is that you do not understand evolution (I am no expert). But saying things in ignorance, makes you look stupid.
Anyway, why do you believe in a god or gods?
-
Well, you are quite wrong it is a fact and a theory to explain the fact.
Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time (not cats to dogs as you probably think).
The problem is that you do not understand evolution (I am no expert). But saying things in ignorance, makes you look stupid.
Anyway, why do you believe in a god or gods?
Wrong this man says it is a religion http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html And so do I.
~TW~
-
So BR away you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgdG_OnnSnU
-
Then why in your ignorance do you say this is wrong
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
~TW~
This is why it's wrong: http://goo.gl/iaeBMi
-
Wrong this man says it is a religion http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html And so do I.
~TW~
Then he is an idiot and wrong. Evolution is a science not a religion.
You still have not answered why you believe in a god or gods.
You do know that even if evolution was not correct, that would not make a god more likely.
Do you know that?
-
This is why it's wrong: http://goo.gl/iaeBMi
nice try----try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PevC93HY-HQ&nohtml5=False I have things to do so keep yourself amused.
~TW~
-
Wrong this man says it is a religion http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html And so do I.
He is wrong and so are you. He doesn't understand thermodynamics and neither do you. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution explains it.
Doesn't it at least give you pause for thought that almost all the world's scientists of many religions and none, think the theory of evolution is not only possible, but backed up with copious evidence, while only a small group of people, with an obvious religious vested interest, think it isn't possible?
Are you so blinded by your faith?
You also still don't seem to grasp the fact that even if the theory of evolution was falsified tomorrow, it still wouldn't be an argument for you god.
-
nice try----try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PevC93HY-HQ&nohtml5=False I have things to do so keep yourself amused.
~TW~
::)
Just a few seconds in and the idiot thinks the big bang theory has something to do with evolution...
Even if the big bang theory is wrong it isn't an argument or evidence for your god.
-
nice try----try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PevC93HY-HQ&nohtml5=False I have things to do so keep yourself amused.
~TW~
You have failed yet again to explain why you believe in a god.
Now you run away with the pretence that you are busy so you do not have to face the problem.
If and when you come back, the question will be waiting for you.
-
Wrong this man says it is a religion http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html And so do I.
~TW~
Here's a hint....
Any statements about science that you get from a Christian website will usually be wrong and therein lies your problem.
If you want to read about having your house re-wired would you go to a plumbing website?
If you want to read about Christianity would you go to a scientific website?
So why go to a Christian website when seeking scientific information?
No wonder you guys are clueless.
-
Here's a hint....
Any statements about science that you get from a Christian website will usually be wrong and therein lies your problem.
If you want to read about having your house re-wired would you go to a plumbing website?
If you want to read about Christianity would you go to a scientific website?
So why go to a Christian website when seeking scientific information?
No wonder you guys are clueless.
What medication are you on and how about some more of your questions for my joke book.
~TW~
-
What medication are you on and how about some more of your questions for my joke book.
~TW~
You still refuse to answer the simple question.
Why are you so afraid to answer?
-
What medication are you on and how about some more of your questions for my joke book.
~TW~
Sorry
Scientist: "The current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points.
TW: "WTF do you scientists know? Let's see what the Bible has to say."
-
You still refuse to answer the simple question.
Why are you so afraid to answer?
It seems that wherever TW goes, he leaves behind a trail of unanswered questions that stand as testament to someone whose beliefs have failed him.
Time to repost an earlier comment.....
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.
If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.
-
It seems that wherever TW goes, he leaves behind a trail of unanswered questions that stand as testament to someone whose beliefs have failed him.
Time to repost an earlier comment.....
You ask me a question on Psalm 14 I answered Yes what is it about the word yes you have a problem with.
Since then you have not ask me anything.
~TW~
-
What medication are you on and how about some more of your questions for my joke book.
Bluster and insult - just another way of running away from questions you clearly can't answer...
-
Bluster and insult - just another way of running away from questions you clearly can't answer...
Ah the parrot returns have some seed.
~TW~
-
Bluster and insult - just another way of running away from questions you clearly can't answer...
Ah the parrot returns have some seed.
~TW~
QED
-
so you have about 5 minutes left to get your questions in then I must go elsewhere. :'(
~TW~
-
You ask me a question on Psalm 14 I answered Yes what is it about the word yes you have a problem with.
Since then you have not ask me anything.
~TW~
I have asked you why YOU believe in a god or gods in your own words.
You know this and keep running away from it.
Can you answer?
-
so you have about 5 minutes left to get your questions in then I must go elsewhere. :'(
~TW~
I keep repeating the question, and all you can do is lie that you do not know you have been asked a question.
That is low, even for you.
-
so you have about 5 minutes left to get your questions in then I must go elsewhere. :'(
~TW~
Still waiting for you to produce any smidgen of evidence or hint of a rational argument for your god.
Note: attempting to cast doubt on science is not an argument for your god.
I'll not hold my breath...
-
I keep repeating the question, and all you can do is lie that you do not know you have been asked a question.
That is low, even for you.
Your problem is English and reading and not accepting answers this answer should satisfy you ------------ John 14:16–17 (NIV)
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. -------------- but it is to easy for you to understand and you are also a worldling.
~TW~
-
;)I'll not hold my breath... ::)
Do it then you will have all the evidence. :) time to go.
~TW~
-
;)I'll not hold my breath... ::)
Do it then you will have all the evidence. :) time to go.
~TW~
::) Running away again.....
-
Your problem is English and reading and not accepting answers this answer should satisfy you ------------ John 14:16–17 (NIV)
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. -------------- but it is to easy for you to understand and you are also a worldling.
~TW~
So, some old book tells you that you are special because you have this invisible friend that other people won't accept.
Well okay then, if you put it like that, I'm totally convinced by this stunning evidence and inescapable reasoning.
;D
-
So, some old book tells you that you are special because you have this invisible friend that other people won't accept.
Well okay then, if you put it like that, I'm totally convinced by this stunning evidence and inescapable reasoning.
;D
well at last you see.
~TW~
-
well at last you see.
~TW~
::)
-
You ask me a question on Psalm 14 I answered Yes what is it about the word yes you have a problem with.
As you well know, Imwanted to establish whether or not you agreed with the scriptural lie.
Since then you have not ask me anything.
~TW~
Wrong. Having established that you believed the lie, I then went on to challenge you by asking for evidence.
Of course, I wouldn't ask you to do something I wasn't prepared to do myself, so I did provide evidence.
You, on the other hand, not only failed to provide evidence but your beliefs were so frail that you couldn't even negin to provide an answer.
-
Your problem is English and reading and not accepting answers this answer should satisfy you ------------ John 14:16–17 (NIV)
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. -------------- but it is to easy for you to understand and you are also a worldling.
~TW~
This is not an answer to the question as all you are doing is quoting an old book.
Is you answer you believe in a god because an old book says god exists?
Is that your answer?
-
As you well know, Imwanted to establish whether or not you agreed with the scriptural lie.
Wrong. Having established that you believed the lie, I then went on to challenge you by asking for evidence.
Of course, I wouldn't ask you to do something I wasn't prepared to do myself, so I did provide evidence.
You, on the other hand, not only failed to provide evidence but your beliefs were so frail that you couldn't even negin to provide an answer.
I answered the question you should have ask for my views as to why I said yes and not evidence.
You need to try and sharpen up.Are you related to floo ::)
~TW~
-
This is not an answer to the question as all you are doing is quoting an old book.
Is you answer you believe in a god because an old book says god exists?
Is that your answer?
Are you thick or just plain daft,the answer is correct the book is correct because I have had a personal experience of what the old book says.I am not asking you to believe that ,I could not care less go back to sleep get some rest.
~TW~
-
Are you thick or just plain daft,the answer is correct the book is correct because I have had a personal experience of what the old book says.I am not asking you to believe that ,I could not care less go back to sleep get some rest.
~TW~
I think it's quite obvious who is intellectually challenged!
So, your answer to the question why YOU believe in a god, is that an old book says a god exists?
So, if I find someone who believes in a different god, from a different old book, and that person has had personal experiences of that different god, what then?
-
I think it's quite obvious who is intellectually challenged!
So, your answer to the question why YOU believe in a god, is that an old book says a god exists?
So, if I find someone who believes in a different god, from a different old book, and that person has had personal experiences of that different god, what then?
Go away you know what I think of you play with your dolly.
~TW~
-
Go away you know what I think of you play with your dolly.
Bluster and insult is actually all you can manage, isn't it? No chance of you actually thinking, it would seem.
-
Go away you know what I think of you play with your dolly.
~TW~
And you call people thick!
When you are scared of questions, and their consequence, all you can do is bluster.
You must know that your beliefs are delusional and easily defeated with a little honest scrutiny, and that is why you react the way you do.
-
And you call people thick!
When you are scared of questions, and their consequence, all you can do is bluster.
You must know that your beliefs are delusional and easily defeated with a little honest scrutiny, and that is why you react the way you do.
Look read this slowly and take it in you are the complete nutter you ask questions get an answer and then like a bad case of indigestion you come back with the same shit so sod off.
~TW~
-
Moderator:
TW
Could we have less of the very obvious personal insults please.
I'm reluctant to close down a lively discussion, but retaliating in this way is generating more heat than light, which rarely leads to anything productive.
-
Look read this slowly and take it in you are the complete nutter you ask questions get an answer and then like a bad case of indigestion you come back with the same shit so sod off.
~TW~
Your answer was not clear, and I am asking for clarification.
Do you believe in a god, simply because and old book says a god exists?
Yes or No.
-
I answered the question you should have ask for my views as to why I said yes and not evidence.
You need to try and sharpen up.Are you related to floo ::)
~TW~
Calm down.
Try muttering at the ceiling light - I've heard you guys like doing that.
You don't have views other than those inane ramblings of some late Iron Age goat herders. I've heard them before.
I asked for evidence and you failed to deliver.
-
Calm down.
Try muttering at the ceiling light - I've heard you guys like doing that.
You don't have views other than those inane ramblings of some late Iron Age goat herders. I've heard them before.
I asked for evidence and you failed to deliver.
So we ignore the clown prince and I give you one chance to put your question up,
Waiting.
~TW~
-
I have a question I'd like to direct at ~TW~. In fact two:
Given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?
-
I have a question I'd like to direct at ~TW~. In fact two:
Given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?
So your post is right and mine is wrong all you have got to do is point me to something that does not wear out,waiting.
~TW~
-
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/
~TW~
-
So your post is right and mine is wrong all you have got to do is point me to something that does not wear out,waiting.
~TW~
Can you show us something that proves you actually understood Shaker's questions?
-
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/
~TW~
This article indicates that its authors haven't a bloody clue about how entropy functions within an open system, the very detail that Shaker pointed out to you.
They got one thing right - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is universal. However, again as pointed out, evolution is certainly not somehow managing to ignore it.
-
So your post is right and mine is wrong
Precisely.
all you have got to do is point me to something that does not wear out,waiting.
"Something not wearing out" has absolutely zero to do with the creationist misunderstanding of thermodynamics as a supposed refutation of evolution.
I shall repeat my questions from earlier: given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?
-
Precisely. "Something not wearing out" has absolutely zero to do with the creationist misunderstanding of thermodynamics as a supposed refutation of evolution.
I shall repeat my questions from earlier: given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?
Actually the failure is even worse than that. Even in a closed system what "appears to be a more ordered system" may not actual be one. A good example is micelle formation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics_of_micellization
Even though it looks like order is forming, actually, overall, the system is more disordered and therefore entropy an entropy driven process.
So whether the system is open or closed you can't tell which way the entopirc arrow points by looking at it.
Even if evolution was unfavoured in terms of entropy it could still occur if the enthalpic contribution outweighed the unfavourable entopic contribution..
The direction of a reaction are determined by both the direction and magnitude of enthalply and entropy and, where, the two point in opposite directions the arbiter is the Gibb's free energy of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
I suspect though that TW hasn't bothered to research this.
-
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/
~TW~
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. = always looks very impressive that. Less so when you realise his Ph.D. was in hydraulic engineering though. Add to that comments from scientists working in the field of evolution pointing out the errors in his understanding of the relevant science and, well, not very impressive at all really.
-
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. = always looks very impressive that. Less so when you realise his Ph.D. was in hydraulic engineering though. Add to that comments from scientists working in the field of evolution pointing out the errors in his understanding of the relevant science and, well, not very impressive at all really.
And is that it :) Was that a desperate attempt at a news flash.
~TW~
-
If you do as God and Christ tells you, you will know if exists.
I take it by this you mean the seek and you will find...etc..etc.. kind of thing.
Well, maybe, if I did that I would come to believe.
So what? How would that demonstrate the objective existence of God?
-
I take it by this you mean the seek and you will find...etc..etc.. kind of thing.
Well, maybe, if I did that I would come to believe.
So what? How would that demonstrate the objective existence of God?
So Stephen how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~
-
So Stephen how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~
I always answer questions posed to me.
So to you I say.
1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.
2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?
3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.
-
I always answer questions posed to me.
So to you I say.
1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.
2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?
3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.
you see you totally avoided the question not surprised.Read it again .
~TW~
-
you see you totally avoided the question not surprised.Read it again .
~TW~
No I didn't. I answered it straight.
I notice though you didn't give answers to the points I made.
-
No I didn't. I answered it straight.
I notice though you didn't give answers to mine.
Or mine.
-
No I didn't. I answered it straight.
I notice though you didn't give answers to mine.
This is the first time I have posted to you so I reject that and note that you are here just like the rest not to answer questions but to duck and dive and waste time.So we can put you in the dead loss book as well.
~TW~
-
This is the first time I have posted to you so I reject that and note that you are here just like the rest not to answer questions but to duck and dive and waste time.So we can put you in the dead loss book as well.
~TW~
How does giving a three part answer to your question constitute ducking, diving and wasting time? Your question was: you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts. To which Stephen replied:
I always answer questions posed to me.
So to you I say.
1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.
2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?
3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.
Ducking, diving and wasting time strikes me as the perfect description of your inability to answer the two questions I have now asked you on two separate occasions (in #397 and #402)
-
How does giving a three part answer to your question constitute ducking, diving and wasting time?
Ducking, diving and wasting time strikes me as the perfect description of your inability to answer the two questions I have now asked you on two separate occasions.
He did not answer the question he waffled same as you as he come back to correct himself No 8)
~TW~
-
He did not answer the question
Yes he did - in #408. I've just repeated his response in my previous post in the event that you missed it the first time around.
-
Yes he did - in #408. I've just repeated his response in my previous post in the event that you missed it the first time around.
You really are a clown I did not ask him those questions. Might be a good idea if you went to specsavers.
~TW~
-
You really are a clown I did not ask him those questions. Might be a good idea if you went to specsavers.
Why are you lying? He quite clearly answered your question.
-
Why are you lying? He quite clearly answered your question.
So you need specsavers as well. 8)
~TW~
-
So you need specsavers as well. 8)
~TW~
You asked: "you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts."
And you got his thoughts:
"1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.
2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?
3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered."
Are you really too stupid to recognise this as an answer...?
-
This might help https://www.facebook.com/Specsavers/?fref=ts
~TW~
-
...
Are you really too stupid to recognise this as an answer...?
This might help https://www.facebook.com/Specsavers/?fref=ts
I'll take that as a "yes"...
-
So Some kind of stranger how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~
-
So Some kind of stranger how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
My thoughts are: why should I bother answering when you are too stupid to recognise a plain English answer anyway?
[and that is an honest answer to your question]
-
My thoughts are: why should I bother answering when you are too stupid to recognise a plain English answer anyway?
[and that is an honest answer to your question]
So your stuffed as well .We have all in all a right shower of s--- on here.
~TW~
-
So your [sic] stuffed as well .We have all in all a right shower of s--- on here.
What exactly do you think you're gaining by all this silly dishonesty, stupidity, bluster and insult?
-
So Some kind of stranger how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~
Your question seems fallacious if it is the case, and bearing in mind what you've frequently said here, that the 'voice' you mention is something you'd claim was divine. If so then you are begging the question, in that your premise (the voice) assumes your conclusion (which is that the voice is divine/from God). Of course you might be thinking of some other source of this voice than your choice of God, which doesn't really help since you'd still be begging the question.
Therefore, your question is fallacious nonsense, and as such can be dismissed as illogical.
-
And is that it :) Was that a desperate attempt at a news flash.
~TW~
No.
-
No.
Good keep well.
~TW~
-
This is the first time I have posted to you so I reject that and note that you are here just like the rest not to answer questions but to duck and dive and waste time.So we can put you in the dead loss book as well.
~TW~
I very clearly answered your questions (request for my thoughts). It is obvious to anyone reading this thread that I did.
You, however, have clearly not responded to the points/questions I, or Shaker, have made.
-
I very clearly answered your questions (request for my thoughts). It is obvious to anyone reading this thread that I did.
You, however, have clearly not responded to the points/questions I, or Shaker, have made.
You ignored it completely so I see you as the same as the others on here Jokers, I have been waiting all day for khatru to ask a question he said he had.
All jokers,all a complete waste of space with serious reading difficulty's
~TW~
-
~TW~ keeps irony alive in the world single handed.
-
I dunno, the world also has Sass in it.
-
Sass, by your logic Bran the Blessed is real and his head is buried at Tower Hill. Nobody has proven otherwise.
As you can see my last post and what was written:-
Seems they are willing to cling to any argument really fooling themselves that they actually have something to argue with.
If you do as God and Christ tells you, you will know if exists. Until you do you are not in a position to argue or call yourselves open minded... Because those who seek truth act on information provided. Till every atheist has acted on the words of God and Christ then they are no truth seekers and are not being honest when it comes to wanting to know if there is a God.
So when you have done as God tells you, let us know. TILL YOU DO, YOU CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST HIS EXISTENCE.
Was HE Bran the Blessed mentioned in the Bible? Would doing as Christ said, prove Christ right about God or Bran?
Your reply was a pathetic attempt and not even a worthy or logical point to make. Since it had absolutely NOTHING to do with God, Christ or the Bible and Christianity from them.
No wonder you lost your faith I bet it was hard to keep hold of the one piece of truth with all the rubbish you have in your head about the things you know to be false.
-
Either you think logic is valid - in which case your argument is illogical (argument from ignorance), or you don't think logic is valid and your accusation that others are being illogical is absurd.
Please try to think.
All words but absolutely nothing by means to disprove what I stated. Logic seems to appear to be a foreign subject to you.
If you have NEVER done as Christ tells you then you simply cannot dismiss what he says, full stop.
And you think you have an argument is what is totally illogical.
-
Does Hope know that you're driving the negative proof fallacy today?
How strange, then, that here you are using it.
Do you know they don't exist that it is manmade and Christ and obeying him to find if true has NOTHING to do with negative proof fallacy. IN FACT it shows positive proof you are just in denial clutching at any straw but unable to prove your straw is correct. Until you do as Christ tells you then you don't and cannot use any excuse such a negative proof fallacy.
Because Christ and his words are the stumbling block you cannot go through it, around it, or over it.
If you don't do it, then you really have no arguments or proof of any type against it.
So stop spewing out more stupid remarks and false straw men arguments and show some proof that Christ lied.
Be here forever won't you. Because you have to prove what he said false. But you can't can you.
You never have tried to see if what he said true because you in truth you don't want to know the truth.
-
A bunch of Atheists and agnostics who haven't a clue how to argue logically or independently against the truth of Jesus Words.
Either bring evidence that what Christ has said is false or keep showing everyone how you have no logical or known way to prove Christ false.
Truth is if you obey Christ you can find out if his words are true. If he really is the Son of God.
In truth, you don't want to know. Which is totally different for not being able to believe.
If it was a matter you couldn't believe but would believe if true, then you would have done as Christ said.
Instead, you refute without proof that Christ is the Son of God and do absolutely nothing to prove it.
Ah well, if you are not willing to do as he tells you to know the truth, then you have no arguments against his words being the truth. Fickle and cowards who simply don't want to know the truth. Just spout stupid arguments which in the light of the words of God, cannot stand. You either want to know the truth or you don't. It is clear you do not want to know the truth and that is a different matter altogether.
So you choose ignorance and use ignorant excuses which in the light of Christ himself are absolutely not acceptable as any type of argument against him.
-
Sass, show us that Jesus really said what he is supposed to have said first. Whether it is 'true' or not comes later.
-
All words but absolutely nothing by means to disprove what I stated. Logic seems to appear to be a foreign subject to you.
You cannot deny basic logical fallacies and then tell people they are being illogical. That is blatant hypocrisy (which makes your god very cross, so I understand).
I'll try once more: you demanded that I "PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST" - this is a logical fallacy. It is easy to see that it is a fallacy by comparison; I can claim that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and we should all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
Now: PROVE THE GREAT GREEN ARKLESEIZURE DOES NOT EXIST!
-
Sass, show us that Jesus really said what he is supposed to have said first. Whether it is 'true' or not comes later.
You are no better then these other twirps on here dodgers total dodgers incapable of discussion.
~TW~
-
You ignored it completely so I see you as the same as the others on here Jokers, I have been waiting all day for khatru to ask a question he said he had.
All jokers,all a complete waste of space with serious reading difficulty's
~TW~
I did - in #426 - when I pointed out your question seems fallacious, and as such it can simply be dismissed as being spurious.
-
You ignored it completely so I see you as the same as the others on here Jokers, I have been waiting all day for khatru to ask a question he said he had.
All jokers,all a complete waste of space with serious reading difficulty's
~TW~
I clearly didn't ignore it.
You clearly didn't like the answers I gave.
Why don't you tell us what your thoughts are on the question you asked.
-
You ignored it completely so I see you as the same as the others on here Jokers, I have been waiting all day for khatru to ask a question he said he had.
All jokers,all a complete waste of space with serious reading difficulty's
It is blatantly untrue that people have ignored your question. You told a rather fanciful little story and then said "give us your thoughts". Therefore any thoughts that result from your story are a valid answer.
Perhaps it isn't other people's "reading difficulty's [sic]" that are the problem but your, rather obvious, writing difficulties. Maybe you think you asked a different question from the one that you actually typed?
-
All words but absolutely nothing by means to disprove what I stated. Logic seems to appear to be a foreign subject to you.
As English is to you. Rational thought likewise.
-
You are no better then these other twirps on here dodgers total dodgers incapable of discussion.
~TW~
Twerp
-
Any chance you could give us your thoughts on the question you asked me?
Yes they were brilliant questions which stitched you up like a kipper.
~TW~
-
Yes they were brilliant questions which stitched you up like a kipper.
~TW~
I was referring to your story about the lottery numbers.
What are your thoughts on it?
-
Yes they were brilliant questions which stitched you up like a kipper.
Defend them then, coward.
-
A lot of people come onto this forum as 'guests', possibly interested in seeing if religion has anything to offer them. One can only guess how they react towards the posts of TW and Sass who claim to be Christians, but spend their posting time dissing others. I know for a fact that one member, who joined for a short time, was completely disgusted by the sort of behaviour displayed by those two, and that of several other Christian posters who no longer favour us with their presence. Two other people of my acquaintance, didn't even bother to join the forum having viewed it as guests!
Just supposing a god does exist and is half way decent, I doubt it approves of its followers dragging the faith through the mire and bringing it into disrepute. "Depart from me for I never knew you", might be a phrase directed at them one day.
-
you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
Then he would be praying to mammon rather than God according to Jesus....
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
-
floo: "TW and Sass who claim to be Christians..."
I know Sass is a Christian but am not sure about TW whose remarks are sometimes so outre. Makes life interesting!
Inviting people to join a forum is something I no longer do. Going back several years, which you will remember floo, I invited someone from the old BBC forum to join the original Premier forum (which you invited me to join). I thought he would find it more his sort of thing than the BBC as practically everyone was a Christian. I don't want to name names but he was the person whose name began with J, he preached and posted in capital letters! He lasted a very short while before being banned and seems to have disappeared' I've never invited anyone again, to the best of my memory.
This is quite a good forum imo, something for everyone.
-
floo: "TW and Sass who claim to be Christians..."
I know Sass is a Christian but am not sure about TW whose remarks are sometimes so outre. Makes life interesting!
Inviting people to join a forum is something I no longer do. Going back several years, which you will remember floo, I invited someone from the old BBC forum to join the original Premier forum (which you invited me to join). I thought he would find it more his sort of thing than the BBC as practically everyone was a Christian. I don't want to name names but he was the person whose name began with J, he preached and posted in capital letters! He lasted a very short while before being banned and seems to have disappeared' I've never invited anyone again, to the best of my memory.
This is quite a good forum imo, something for everyone.
Trust me Brownie I am a Christian and I have turned the cheek to many times on here so you Christ haters will now receive what you ask for.The thing that gets me is you love to give it out,but you cant take it :o and the outright dishonesty is shocking.
Dr ~TW~
-
The thing that gets me is you love to give it out,but you cant take it :o and the outright dishonesty is shocking.
Laughable and hypocritical.
In recent days your questions have been answered, you have been presented with reasoned responses, you have been repeatedly invited to provide evidence and reasoning of our own, and instead, you have blustered, engaged in puerile insults and told blatant lies.
If your aim was to give the impression that your religion requires ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty; congratulations, you have succeeded.
-
Trust me Brownie I am a Christian and I have turned the cheek to many times on here so you Christ haters will now receive what you ask for.The thing that gets me is you love to give it out,but you cant take it :o and the outright dishonesty is shocking.
Dr ~TW~
Who hates Christ?
Not me.
-
Trust me Brownie I am a Christian and I have turned the cheek to many times on here so you Christ haters will now receive what you ask for.The thing that gets me is you love to give it out,but you cant take it :o and the outright dishonesty is shocking.
Dr ~TW~
When did you ever turn the other cheek, that is a porky? I don't hate Jesus, he was probably an ok guy, but just very human like the rest of us.
-
Moderator:
TW
I've removed several recent posts from this thread that contained demeaning comments from yourself (or quotes of your posts) in which you imply others here are mentally ill - please find other ways to express your views.
-
Trust me Brownie I am a Christian
Cunningly concealed, I must say.
-
When did you ever turn the other cheek, that is a porky? I don't hate Jesus, he was probably an ok guy, but just very human like the rest of us.
An opinion of an ok guy is not good enough.If he was not who he said he was,he is a fruit cake and a deceiver of the worst kind.Also you do not believe who he said he was, so this ok guy of yours is a figment of your twisted imagination,and no use to anyone,this ok guy of yours needs to be locked up as a madman.
Dr ~TW~
-
Moderator:
TW
I've removed several recent posts from this thread that contained demeaning comments from yourself (or quotes of your posts) in which you imply others here are mentally ill - please find other ways to express your views.
I will try but it is very hard.If only these people were consistent.
~TW~
-
An opinion of an ok guy is not good enough.If he was not who he said he was,he is a fruit cake and a deceiver of the worst kind.
Or genuinely mistaken, of course.
this ok guy of yours needs to be locked up as a madman.
Having been dead for two thousand years that will be tricky.
-
An opinion of an ok guy is not good enough.If he was not who he said he was,he is a fruit cake and a deceiver of the worst kind.Also you do not believe who he said he was, so this ok guy of yours is a figment of your twisted imagination,and no use to anyone,this ok guy of yours needs to be locked up as a madman.
Dr ~TW~
All you read about him are claims by OTHERS of what he said and did.
How can you be sure they are accurate?
-
An opinion of an ok guy is not good enough.If he was not who he said he was,he is a fruit cake and a deceiver of the worst kind.Also you do not believe who he said he was, so this ok guy of yours is a figment of your twisted imagination,and no use to anyone,this ok guy of yours needs to be locked up as a madman.
Dr ~TW~
I suspect that most of what was written about Jesus was concocted by the gospel writers, long after he died and had no basis in reality. But as this all happened so long ago we aren't likely to find out the truth of the matter.
-
All you read about him are claims by OTHERS of what he said and did.
How can you be sure they are accurate?
Yes, this is very much something I agree with. I don't get the point in discussing what Jesus meant by the claims that he made for himself without considering that there is quite a good argument to say that he didn't make any such claims at all.
-
Yes, this is very much something I agree with. I don't get the point in discussing what Jesus meant by the claims that he made for himself without considering that there is quite a good argument to say that he didn't make any such claims at all.
Yes and of course although they heard this they decided to be executed for what they did not believe and they made up.
~TW~
-
Yes and of course although they heard this they decided to be executed for what they did not believe and they made up.
~TW~
Why not?
They may have misunderstood or any other reason.
People are prepared to die for many things, that does not make them true.
I think you are confusing what someone really really really really believes to be true, and what is actually true.
People, perhaps at one point ever person on the planet believed the Earth to be flat, or that the Sun was burning.
But, they would all have been WRONG on both counts.
-
Yes and of course although they heard this they decided to be executed for what they did not believe and they made up.
You commit the elementary and unfortunately all too common fallacy of the excluded middle, in which truth of belief (everything the early Christians believed was literally and exactly true) and deliberate deceit (they died for what they explicitly knew to be false) are the only choices available.
This is an utter travesty of reasoning. The middle option being excluded is of course perfectly sincere but mistaken belief.
-
floo: "TW and Sass who claim to be Christians..."
I know Sass is a Christian but am not sure about TW whose remarks are sometimes so outre. Makes life interesting!
Inviting people to join a forum is something I no longer do. Going back several years, which you will remember floo, I invited someone from the old BBC forum to join the original Premier forum (which you invited me to join). I thought he would find it more his sort of thing than the BBC as practically everyone was a Christian. I don't want to name names but he was the person whose name began with J, he preached and posted in capital letters! He lasted a very short while before being banned and seems to have disappeared' I've never invited anyone again, to the best of my memory.
This is quite a good forum imo, something for everyone.
Sorry I don't remember the poster you are talking about, or actually remember anything about the Premier forum. The trouble is, I have posted on so many over the years I have forgotten a lot of them.
-
Brownie,
I know Sass is a Christian but am not sure about TW whose remarks are sometimes so outre. Makes life interesting!
"A" Christian perhaps as Fred Phelps is "a" Christian, though all three of them seem to me to be a long way from most definitions of mainstream Christianity these days. (Big C) Christian or not, there's precious little in the posts of the former two to suggest there's anything much (small c) christian about them though.
-
You commit the elementary and unfortunately all too common fallacy of the excluded middle, in which truth of belief (everything the early Christians believed was literally and exactly true) and deliberate deceit (they died for what they explicitly knew to be false) are the only choices available.
This is an utter travesty of reasoning. The middle option being excluded is of course perfectly sincere but mistaken belief.
Ok list the things they believed that were not true.Or will you do what you and all of your friends do waffle.Is this another example of dishonesty personified.
~TW~
-
Ok list the things they believed that were not true.Or will you do what you and all of your friends do waffle.Is this another example of dishonesty personified.
~TW~
They might have believed that Jesus performed miracles.
There is no reason to think that he actually did, so if they did believe that, they would probably be wrong.
-
Ok list the things they believed that were not true.
That the world would come to an end in their lifetime, is probably the prime example.
-
BR,
They might have believed that Jesus performed miracles.
There is no reason to think that he actually did, so if they did believe that, they would probably be wrong.
No you fool - they died for their beliefs for Pete's sake, so - um - in some unexplained way I can't quite put my finger on just now, those beliefs must have been true then.
You know, just like the beliefs of the devotees of Jim Jones and David Koresh...
...oh, hang on a mo though :(
-
That the world would come to an end in their lifetime, is probably the prime example.
Now that is good I like that,now when did Jesus say the world would come to an end in their lifetime.
~TW~
-
Now that is good I like that,now when did Jesus say the world would come to an end in their lifetime.
~TW~
You should of course re-phrase this as "when did someone write down that Jesus ....."
-
Now that is good I like that,now when did Jesus say the world would come to an end in their lifetime.
~TW~
Luke 9:27 and Matthew 16:28.
-
Luke 9:27 and Matthew 16:28.
Luke 9: 27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Matt 16;28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I do thank you Shaker but I reject those two verses and those two verses are fulfilled now/history could you try again.
~TW~
-
Luke 9: 27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Matt 16;28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I do thank you Shaker but I reject those two verses and those two verses are fulfilled now/history could you try again.
~TW~
Explain how you reject them.
They DID die before Jesus returned, so the statement if false.
You are saying it is not false.
How is it not false?
-
Luke 9: 27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Matt 16;28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I do thank you Shaker but I reject those two verses and those two verses are fulfilled now/history could you try again.
~TW~
once again Shaker these verses have happened they are history.
~TW~
-
once again Shaker these verses have happened they are history.
~TW~
These people died BEFORE Jesus returned.
Are you saying something different?
-
Shaker those two scriptures are history they have taken place.
~TW~
-
Shaker this scripture also 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. this has and is happening now.
~TW~
-
Shaker those two scriptures are history they have taken place.
~TW~
No they haven't.
-
No they haven't.
Try my new thread you might see why you are wrong.
~TW~
-
Try my new thread you might see why you are wrong.
~TW~
I have seen it, unfortunately, and you've offered not a scrap of evidence for your claims. But then, nobody ever thought you would.
-
I have seen it, unfortunately, and you've offered not a scrap of evidence for your claims. But then, nobody ever thought you would.
Give it time.
~TW~
-
Why would I have to do that?
If you have the evidence, present it.
-
Why would I have to do that?
If you have the evidence, present it.
Watch the show and take notes.
~TW~
-
Watch the show and take notes.
I have been, in both respects.
-
Shakes,
I have been, in both respects.
You don't seriously expect T(roll)W actually to make a logically coherent argument for his beliefs rather than just quote bits from a book he happens to find persuasive, laced with as much bile, threat and contempt for his interlocutors as he can manage to jemmy in too do you?
Seriously?
-
I think by 'the show' he means the unfolding end times and us lot getting carted off to the burny burny place.
-
Shakes,
You don't seriously expect T(roll)W actually to make a logically coherent argument for his beliefs rather than just quote bits from a book he happens to find persuasive, laced with as much bile, threat and contempt for his interlocutors as he can manage to jemmy in too do you?
Seriously?
Nah, not really ;)
Happy Friday to you and yours, bluemeister - hope all is well at Blue Towers.
-
Shakes,
Nah, not really ;)
Happy Friday to you and yours, bluemeister - hope all is well at Blue Towers.
And to you my friend - have a great weekend. Let's make it as unpolluted by T(roll)W's delusional unpleasantness as we can eh?
-
I think by 'the show' he means the unfolding end times and us lot getting carted off to the burny burny place.
I thought people were just left behind, to carry on toiling, worrying, being ill like we are now.
-
I think by 'the show' he means the unfolding end times and us lot getting carted off to the burny burny place.
yes indeed.
~TW~
-
Brownie says one thing - you say another - you both claim to be Christians. Who's right?
-
Brownie says one thing - you say another - you both claim to be Christians. Who's right?
Brownie a Christian please dont be silly.
~TW~
-
Did you mean Christian atheist.
~TW~
-
She says she is - who are you to say otherwise?
-
She says she is - who are you to say otherwise?
ME.
~TW~
-
She says she is - who are you to say otherwise?
to be fair, Brownie has done the same thing, it seems to be some thing some people who state they are Christian like to do
-
ME.
~TW~
But your opinion means nothing beyond your opinion.
-
to be fair, Brownie has done the same thing, it seems to be some thing some people who state they are Christian like to do
Well its social like isnt it who wants to be a pagan.
~TW~
-
ME.
~TW~
Sorry to hear you are suffering from it, thoughts are with you.
-
Well its social like isnt it who wants to be a pagan.
~TW~
I am happy to buy you, or donate for you, an apostrophe. Shall we crowd fund for a good suuply?
-
I am happy to buy you, or donate for you, an apostrophe. Shall we crowd fund for a good suuply?
I am working 18 keyboards at the same time this key board is older then you so it does well.Anyway must go a early prayer meeting tomorrow to thank God for an amazing answer to prayer in fact nigh on a miracle so must go now.
So to all members of the doom laden club goodnight and thanks to Shaker for 7000 years I just love it you could not make it up. :) ;) :D ;D Good night.
~TW~
-
I just love it you could not make it up.
~TW~
Well, you do, all the time! ::)
-
Brownie a Christian please dont be silly.
~TW~
I don't know why you have said that TW. I could easily say the same about you, in fact I have doubted your Christianity because you are often so cryptic, and nasty. Well, if you are talking about me you are leaving someone else alone so I suppose it doesn't matter too much.
-
Sass, show us that Jesus really said what he is supposed to have said first. Whether it is 'true' or not comes later.
Truth is if you obey Christ you can find out if his words are true. If he really is the Son of God.
In truth, you don't want to know. Which is totally different for not being able to believe.
As I said... if you obey Christ you can find out if his words are true.
In doing that you will see if Christ said what he said...first..
I am not Christ, I never said those words he did. So it is he whose words you have to obey because it is not about believing me it is about believing him. So either you do as he has told you or admit you just don't want to believe. Jesus told you he was the way, not following us but following him. Ask him to show you the way. Truth is like everything else you choose what you believe.
If sincere you would simply ask Christ to show you and follow him and his words.
Now don't ask things which are not the way of Christ or what he has taught. Obey his words and teachings and you will know if they come from him or God through him. Simple but so far you have displayed only ignorance and lack of wanting or searching for real truth.
-
You cannot deny basic logical fallacies and then tell people they are being illogical. That is blatant hypocrisy (which makes your god very cross, so I understand).
You have to show that Christ words are basic logical fallacies or shut up.
The blatant hypocrisy in the face of creation is just the same as the basic illogical fallacies you cal logical.
You see Stranger the facts are we exist and in this world no matter what scientist do they cannot create life forms we already have from any of the things/cells elsewhere on the planet. No evolution because we never change. We have had Elephants for thousands of years and they still look the same. We have different breeds of Elephants and some died out.
Same with all the animals but we never and never will find anything new by way of creature evolving.
THINK... Man has never changed for thousands of years. If crops did not exist and fruit trees/bushes we would have died.
The first man and woman had to be created. illogical to believe a bunch of cells which don't exist now created a man and woman from nothing on this planet.
I'll try once more: you demanded that I "PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST" - this is a logical fallacy.
Give the above, we see that it is not a fallacy....
Because there is nothing else that would explain our existence.
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
In the case of the evidence it is the only logical truth and therefore NO fallacy by definition looking at the evidence which
shows the earth had to be created.
It is easy to see that it is a fallacy by comparison; I can claim that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and we should all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
You are deceiving yourself and fooling only yourself if that is what you think you can compare belief in God to.
It is clear that you are the men who sold the emperor his new clothes. You think you can trick people into believing something
totally illogical. Instead of using the pride and ignorance of others to deceive them, you are simply deceiving yourself.
Lack of honesty is why you write the above. Pride as well, because the truth is you have no logical reason for not believing in God you would rather dishonestly pretend a logical fallacy exist. Because so and so said it.
Where as the bible is clear... you only have to obey Gods word to find out if it is Gods word.
See what I mean... too afraid to really do what it takes to find the truth...
Now: PROVE THE GREAT GREEN ARKLESEIZURE DOES NOT EXIST!
I just did.... he has nothing to support his existence in existence.
We have the Jews, The tribes of Israel, Israel itself, Jesus Christ and millions and billions of followers.
You see logically our God shows himself why he exists... Your god done anything at all..thought not.
Back to the drawing board. Truth alway outways your illogical pattern of thinking.
That which is true cannot be replace with the false can it?
-
As English is to you. Rational thought likewise.
Oh how Shaker has fallen....
Put a sock in it... I am sure the devil sent you to bore us.
But it is a good thing we have patience whatever language it is written in....
-
As I said... if you obey Christ you can find out if his words are true.
In doing that you will see if Christ said what he said...first..
I am not Christ, I never said those words he did. So it is he whose words you have to obey because it is not about believing me it is about believing him. So either you do as he has told you or admit you just don't want to believe. Jesus told you he was the way, not following us but following him. Ask him to show you the way. Truth is like everything else you choose what you believe.
If sincere you would simply ask Christ to show you and follow him and his words.
Now don't ask things which are not the way of Christ or what he has taught. Obey his words and teachings and you will know if they come from him or God through him. Simple but so far you have displayed only ignorance and lack of wanting or searching for real truth.
I bet Jesus is really grateful to your for your posts on his behalf, NOT! With chums like you, who needs enemies?
-
I don't know why you have said that TW. I could easily say the same about you, in fact I have doubted your Christianity because you are often so cryptic, and nasty. Well, if you are talking about me you are leaving someone else alone so I suppose it doesn't matter too much.
Good Could you point me to the post where you have defended your Lord.???????????????????????????
~TW~
-
Good Could you point me to the post where you have defended your Lord.???????????????????????????
~TW~
I bet Jesus could do without your defence of him that is for sure. Words without deeds are meaningless, what do you do to help others in a practical way?
-
A lot of people come onto this forum as 'guests', possibly interested in seeing if religion has anything to offer them. One can only guess how they react towards the posts of TW and Sass who claim to be Christians, but spend their posting time dissing others. I know for a fact that one member, who joined for a short time, was completely disgusted by the sort of behaviour displayed by those two, and that of several other Christian posters who no longer favour us with their presence. Two other people of my acquaintance, didn't even bother to join the forum having viewed it as guests!
Just supposing a god does exist and is half way decent, I doubt it approves of its followers dragging the faith through the mire and bringing it into disrepute. "Depart from me for I never knew you", might be a phrase directed at them one day.
Actually people left because of the atheists and people like you. Including the Moderators.
But this thread is about Truth not the forum.
I have pms which show that the believers who left wished us well and even those banned who wrote before they were banned.
Do you often tell untruths. WE HERE ALL KNOW if such a thing had been true you would have taken great delight at the time to mention it. Oh and what is it you know which you hide about Keturah. If you keep secrets then tell untruths it will come back to bite you on the bum. But God is my witness that some people who left who were believers and people who were banned had sent me pms wishing me well.
I think you wanted to change the subject. ::)
You are as bad as the others for INSULTING and stalking posters with insults and comments totally unfounded as you did in this post. Look in the mirror if you can see to remove your forest in your eye.
-
Sass, I am entitled to challenge your posts, just as you are entitled to challenge mine.
However, I believe I must be doing something right if you and your clone, TW, disagree with my POV. The day you both agree with me, is the day I should be seriously worried, LOL!
-
Then he would be praying to mammon rather than God according to Jesus....
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Truth is God provides the needs. If he needed the money he would not have to ask for lottery numbers God would provide it.
Matthew 17:24-27.
Matthew 17:24-27King James Version (KJV)
24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
So in life we need many things and as Christ has shown us the money is provided. This time for Christ a fish brought the coins up from the sea to them.
My God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in Glory through Christ Jesus our Lord.
A promise of provision and promise that all needs will be met.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.
What good does it do a man if he gain the whole world and yet loseth his own soul.
Prosperity has always come to the Jews and believers. But in truth they love God more than money.
TW was being put to the test... the person/s showed they have no understanding of God or his words and the believers.
Useless arguments in the face of the known truth,
-
floo: "TW and Sass who claim to be Christians..."
I know Sass is a Christian but am not sure about TW whose remarks are sometimes so outre. Makes life interesting!
Inviting people to join a forum is something I no longer do. Going back several years, which you will remember floo, I invited someone from the old BBC forum to join the original Premier forum (which you invited me to join). I thought he would find it more his sort of thing than the BBC as practically everyone was a Christian. I don't want to name names but he was the person whose name began with J, he preached and posted in capital letters! He lasted a very short while before being banned and seems to have disappeared' I've never invited anyone again, to the best of my memory.
This is quite a good forum imo, something for everyone.
I was a member of Premier and posted with Floo. Not once in all those years did she cotton on to the fact she was talking to me. I know you knew who I was but Floo never did catch on. That was because she was not wearing her prejudice goggles as she did not know it was I.
The forum closed and I think that was sad especially when it was so liked by all. Some good discussions.
-
Yes it was good on there but there was a Premier forum before that one, way back, maybe thirteen years ago. Floo and I were members of that. It closed after a year or so.
-
Sassy, you are so gloriously free of any hint of reasoning or logic - I know it's pointless trying to tell you but here we go, for a laugh...
You have to show that Christ words are basic logical fallacies or shut up.
Please try to concentrate. It is your words that form fallacies, sassy. I didn't mention this Christ character's words.
You see Stranger the facts are we exist and in this world no matter what scientist do they cannot create life forms we already have from any of the things/cells elsewhere on the planet. No evolution because we never change. We have had Elephants for thousands of years and they still look the same. We have different breeds of Elephants and some died out.
Same with all the animals but we never and never will find anything new by way of creature evolving.
THINK... Man has never changed for thousands of years. If crops did not exist and fruit trees/bushes we would have died.
The first man and woman had to be created. illogical to believe a bunch of cells which don't exist now created a man and woman from nothing on this planet.
If I've untangled this incoherent rant correctly, it's an argument from incredulity fallacy aimed at the theory of evolution (with a large helping of ignorance of said theory, thrown in for good measure).
Give the above, we see that it is not a fallacy....
Unfortunately you didn't even attempt to address the "PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST" argument from ignorance fallacy, you just added an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Because there is nothing else that would explain our existence.
This is just a different form of argument from ignorance. Even if it were true that we could think of no other explanation - that isn't actually and argument for one somebody made up without any evidence or arguments that positively support it. That's before we get to the fact that there are scientific theories, replete with evidence, for many aspects of how we came to be. There are also many, many other religious 'explanations' apart from your own favourite.
Additionally, of course, you have to face the fact that god doesn't actually explain anything because it could 'explain' anything. It is a conjecture without predictions; an unfalsifiable 'just so' story.
You are deceiving yourself and fooling only yourself if that is what you think you can compare belief in God to.
It is clear that you are the men who sold the emperor his new clothes. You think you can trick people into believing something
totally illogical. Instead of using the pride and ignorance of others to deceive them, you are simply deceiving yourself.
Lack of honesty is why you write the above.
By a staggering coincidence, that is pretty much my reaction to your stories about your god.
Pride as well, because the truth is you have no logical reason for not believing in God you would rather dishonestly pretend a logical fallacy exist. Because so and so said it.
I suggest you try to address the fallacies I have pointed out instead of adding to them and ranting. Perhaps you could get somebody to help you?
-
Sass, I am entitled to challenge your posts, just as you are entitled to challenge mine.
However, I believe I must be doing something right if you and your clone, TW, disagree with my POV. The day you both agree with me, is the day I should be seriously worried, LOL!
And there ends the first lesson of how Floos reasoning is tragically flawed.
Any Christian would disagree with an atheists point of view on God and Christ.
If you cannot accept Christ you will never accept Christians or God. Simple really nothing you say contains truth full stop when it comes to Christians and Christ. Light and darkness do not mix and in this case you will always be the darkness.
-
Sassy, you are so gloriously free of any hint of reasoning or logic - I know it's pointless trying to tell you but here we go, for a laugh...
Please try to concentrate. It is your words that form fallacies, sassy. I didn't mention this Christ character's words.
If I've untangled this incoherent rant correctly, it's an argument from incredulity fallacy aimed at the theory of evolution (with a large helping of ignorance of said theory, thrown in for good measure).
Unfortunately you didn't even attempt to address the "PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST" argument from ignorance fallacy, you just added an argument from incredulity fallacy.
This is just a different form of argument from ignorance. Even if it were true that we could think of no other explanation - that isn't actually and argument for one somebody made up without any evidence or arguments that positively support it. That's before we get to the fact that there are scientific theories, replete with evidence, for many aspects of how we came to be. There are also many, many other religious 'explanations' apart from your own favourite.
Additionally, of course, you have to face the fact that god doesn't actually explain anything because it could 'explain' anything. It is a conjecture without predictions; an unfalsifiable 'just so' story.
By a staggering coincidence, that is pretty much my reaction to your stories about your god.
I suggest you try to address the fallacies I have pointed out instead of adding to them and ranting. Perhaps you could get somebody to help you?
Far to much in one post stranger that is your first mistake,secondly does god exist ,does yes DOES Jesus exist.Well a big question but over the years we have 2016 for a reason and as Shaker says the Jewish people have 7000 years so being as people say cryptic,then I go along with Sassy.And leave you with your home work.
~TW~
-
Far to much in one post stranger that is your first mistake,secondly does god exist ,does yes DOES Jesus exist.Well a big question but over the years we have 2016 for a reason and as Shaker says the Jewish people have 7000 years so being as people say cryptic,then I go along with Sassy.And leave you with your home work.
~TW~
You believe god and Jesus are floating around somewhere in the ether, an opinion to which you are entitled. However, you are not entitled to state that assertion as a fact when you have no evidence to support it.
-
Yes it was good on there but there was a Premier forum before that one, way back, maybe thirteen years ago. Floo and I were members of that. It closed after a year or so.
I do remember when the new one set up you pm'd me to ask which person I was from the old site.
The new site didn't last long it has been some years since that closed.
-
You believe god and Jesus are floating around somewhere in the ether, an opinion to which you are entitled. However, you are not entitled to state that assertion as a fact when you have no evidence to support it.
I see so you are against free speech as well you are a regular dictator.We cannot talk about God on a so called Christian Topic Board.
Gordon could you make a note of that comment from floo.
~TW~
-
I see so you are against free speech as well you are a regular dictator.We cannot talk about God on a so called Christian Topic Board.
Gordon could you make a note of that comment from floo.
~TW~
Moderator:
TW
If I require your assistance on Modding matters I'll be sure to ask, so perhaps you'd concentrate on your own posting.
-
Meow ;D
-
Far to much in one post stranger...
For the hard of thinking, maybe.
...secondly does god exist ,does yes DOES Jesus exist.Well a big question but over the years we have 2016 for a reason and as Shaker says the Jewish people have 7000 years so being as people say cryptic...
And for those of us who don't speak Gibberish....?
And leave you with your home work.
Likewise: I suggest written English, English comprehension, basic science, and logic would be good starting points for you...
-
Moderator:
TW
If I require your assistance on Modding matters I'll be sure to ask, so perhaps you'd concentrate on your own posting.
Yes and when you remove my post is it possible you could PM me with a copy of the post you remove thanks.
~TW~
-
I do remember when the new one set up you pm'd me to ask which person I was from the old site.
The new site didn't last long it has been some years since that closed.
I fell out with and upset some people on there, forgotten why; well, that's the nature of forums, particularly religious ones for some reason.
-
That the world would come to an end in their lifetime, is probably the prime example.
That's right and some years later when the world hadn't ended, Christians had to make up the Gospel of John to try and explain away the non-appearance of Jesus.
Unfortunately for those writers, it also meant creating a gospel that had major contradictions to the other three.
-
Some,
Sassy, you are so gloriously free of any hint of reasoning or logic - I know it's pointless trying to tell you but here we go, for a laugh...
What's weird here is that the Sassys, T(roll)Ws, Alan Burns's, Hopes etc are either entirely unaware of or are entirely indifferent to logic so crash merrily (or in T(roll)W's case venomously) into fallacy after fallacy with not a care for how they undermine their assertions, yet now we see some of them accusing others of illogicality.
Naturally Sassy for example doesn't bother with a counter-argument of any kind to demonstrate this supposed illogicality, it's enough just to accuse someone of it presumably in the hope that no-one notices she's arguing only from assertion - another fallacy.
I saw something by the blessed Richard Attenborough a while back about a toad that just doesn't see animals in one plane but does in another because the latter are how their predators/prey (I forget which) present so the former just don't matter. The fundie literalists here are a bit like that I find: you can ask Sassy 'til you're blue in the face how she would propose to break out of the circular reasoning of, "the bible is true because god makes it true; god exists because the bible says so" but she just doesn't see the question - it's in the wrong plane.
Similar I see that T(roll)W is attempting a "No True Scotsman" fallacy just now, apparently oblivious or indifferent to it all the while.
Like I said: weird.
-
Some,
What's weird here is that the Sassys, T(roll)Ws, Alan Burns's, Hopes etc are either entirely unaware of or are entirely indifferent to logic so crash merrily (or in T(roll)W's case venomously) into fallacy after fallacy with not a care for how they undermine their assertions, yet now we see some of them accusing others of illogicality.
Naturally Sassy for example doesn't bother with a counter-argument of any kind to demonstrate this supposed illogicality, it's enough just to accuse someone of it presumably in the hope that no-one notices she's arguing only from assertion - another fallacy.
I saw something by the blessed Richard Attenborough a while back about a toad that just doesn't see animals in one plane but does in another because the latter are how their predators/prey (I forget which) present so the former just don't matter. The fundie literalists here are a bit like that I find: you can ask Sassy 'til your blue in the face how she would propose to break out of the circular reasoning of, "the bible is true because god makes it true; god exists because the bible says so" but she just doesn't see the question - it's in the wrong plane.
Similar I see that T(roll)W is attempting a "No True Scotsman" fallacy just now, apparently oblivious or indifferent to it all the while.
Like I said: weird.
No not weird.The problem you have is you have trouble seeing.
~TW~
-
I fell out with and upset some people on there, forgotten why; well, that's the nature of forums, particularly religious ones for some reason.
A LindaB came to mind for some reason when reading this... Do you remember that?
-
No not weird.The problem you have is you have trouble seeing.
~TW~
The problem you have is you have trouble seeing thinking. ::)
-
That the world would come to an end in their lifetime, is probably the prime example.
And this, Shakes, is where one wishes the Christians who still believe that the End is still to come would apply Occam's Razor just a bit. Have you noticed that such Christians give all the texts that seem unequivocally to spell out this message a different individual interpretation in each instance?
As an addition to Khatru's observation, I should add that John's gospel appears to have been written when only one of the people that Jesus is recorded as addressing was left!
Later on, some verses in the 1st Epistle of Peter were written to do a face-saving job.