For those who take offense at calling unbelief "irrational"

I loved @MurphyLong 's stuff. He nailed dead center the idea that "you can't explain how stuff got here" and how that is NOT a "proof" of God. Dead on.

I am not sure I would go where I think he goes with that, but I like the root.

Here is the way I see that problem:

1. Something exists.
2. If causality is true it had to have an origin (if causality is NOT true, then goodbye science... it is sorta BASED on causality)
3. Things cannot cause themselves
4. Therefore, the universe had to have a beginning (and thank you Aristotle for that.... all the good thoughts are already thunk, folks)

Modern materialists will posit that the "origin" of the universe is itself eternal. Just like Christians claim God is eternal, they claim the material universe is eternal..... this is Hawking's "Brief History of Time" as well, as he posits what I call a "rubber band universe" that is eternally compressing via gravity into superdense matter and energy, exploding into "big bangs" and creating new universes..... but it is all just matter, with a dead universe at the core.

Christians of course say that the origin of the universe is PERSONAL and not impersonal. God made it and governs it and made man.

NEITHER IS PROVABLE (nothing is provable, remember?)

The only course possible, then, is to LOOK AT THE SYSTEMS AS A WHOLE AND SEE WHICH "MATCHES UP" TO WHAT I OBSERVE.

The bible teaches that I am a being whose personality is NOT an accident, but that I have true meaning.
It teaches that morality and the absolute moral judgements that all of us are constantly making are not irrational and meaningless but do correspond in some way to a universal analog for morals... therefore there really IS a "good" and "bad"
The bible teaches that we have a good and true reason to have a revulsion from death. It is the judgment of God and leads to a final and irrevocable judgment. Otherwise, why would we fear such a natural thing?
My logic is not just an accident and an arbitrary custom of thinking, but the laws of logical thought are true universally (indeed everyone accepts them) because they are the cosmic evidences of a logical and orderly creator.
Jesus could NOT have been a GOOD MAN, for the simple reason that he was an idiotic dumbass..... who claimed to be God, claimed to be the only way to God, claimed to be the one and unique bearer of moral evil in his own body as a payment for it and claimed to be the eternal judge who would forever determine men's fates by their relationship to Him...... he was either totally f***king crazy or he was God, and don't give me some stupid mewling nonsense about "good teacher." He was a lying idiotic fool (remember, he DIED for this, because at his Jewish trial, he claimed to be God, citing himself as the God man predicted in Daniel.... it is what got him the death sentence.... though they changed the charges before the Roman authorities and said he was a seditionist). In fact... even at the Roman trial, he stuck to his claim to be the "King of the Jews" and amazingly told Pilate that in effect PILATE and not Jesus was the one on trial. He claimed he would rise from the dead as an authentication, and there is an empty tomb back there that people have been trying to explain away for 2,000 years.


Are these things "proof"? Pffft. No. But they (and many many more like them) are EVIDENCES of the truth of the world view of the gospel.


I think you are right to reject arguments of Christians as "proof(s)" They are evidence, but evidence depends almost entirely on the prejudices of the weigher of the evidence.


At any rate, thank you for participating in the thread.
 
When I tell someone that I love them, it is true.
I can give evidence of love, but I can't scientifically prove it. But my love is very real.
As is my faith.
 
Last edited:
My life is filled with a great deal of tension right now, as Carole is in Alabama dealing with my mother in law, who is, it seems, falling multiple times a day, disoriented, resistant to Carole helping her. I get multiple phone calls per day telling me of how she (Carole) is distraught, nervous, can't sleep, frustrated, broken hearted at seeing her mom in such a state, scared for her, and wondering how we are going to care for her. Because of all that, I thought it best to wait till this a.m. to respond to @rogue, lest I just vomit out a stream of bile and hatred in the name of a God of love (our silliness and wickedness in the name of good is a wonder..... if God did not use crooked sticks to draw straight lines, nothing would ever get done, I guess).

I also have a floor to finish and house to wash, as I am WAY behind, with customers whining. Don't like to work on Sundays, but it has to be done. Anyway, here is a brief (!! ha ha) analysis/synopsis of what @rogue has written, and my response.

First of all, without being too snooty, the only way to start out is by claiming he is a poseur. He has read almost nothing, or if he has read it, he did not understand it. My suspicion is that he may have grown up in some type of Christian background, but NEVER actually looked beyond the surface to see if the common garden variety objections to the faith actually have reasonable answers. Does that sound hateful? I don't mean it to be. Rather, it is an encouragement to him (however vain that attempt may be) and more to others who look on, to actually READ stuff by CS Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Tim Keller, John Frame, Gerstner, Francis Schaeffer, Zacharias and/or others who have meaningfully interacted with objections. If this stuff is true, you should want to know about what claims to be the ultimate purpose in life and if false, you should work to liberate men and women from believing abject lies. You have to understand it to do either.

My experience is that you will OFTEN find liars who say "yeah, yeah, I have read all that and I found them fails" but then show that they have NO idea how they respond to objections, in that they repeat the same stupid objections as though they had never been answered. Someone with a knowledge of critics actually INTERACTS with the critic. They don't act like they never even existed. Anyway, if you are looking for really good and solid answers to the most cogent objections to faith, I have some recommendations to read. There are others, but these are my favorites to give away 1) Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. 2) Miracles, CS Lewis 3) The Problem of Pain, CS Lewis 4) He is there and He is not Silent, Francis Schaeffer 5) The God who is there, Francis Schaeffer 6) The Reason for God, Tim Keller. Some of these are more abstract and you have to think carefully when reading them. They appeal to me because I have always been attracted to "thinking through" stuff, whether it be this, chemistry, engineering, or even how to rewire a house. I like to "see" the overall grid. I recognize that others might just want a good book on the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. Lots of those, including Josh McDowell's stuff, William Lane Craig, Lee Stroebel, and others.... if you are interested in this area.

So, on to the posts themselves.



There is nothing to debate. "Belief" cannot be debated. There are no facts available to debate with Belief in something is the simplest possible solution and requires no thought, research, facts or evidence. Most people like simple. It's easy. It feels good. It goes along with the crowd. I get that. -- Nonsense. Belief, however grounded, is all there is to debate, whether your belief is in yourself, God, or skepticism. Utter skepticism is in fact, a "belief." What he is doing here is a sleight of hand, defining "belief" as something one does in the absence of reason. Perhaps one might find that perspective among some really ignorant fundamentalists and he assumes from his personal history that this is Christian belief? I don't know. I do know it is a caricature of faith, and no one who has bothered to read history of Western Civ on anything deeper than a comic book would make such a terribly ignorant claim. The whole historical stream of apologetics, from Justin Martyr and Polycarp and Clement of Rome (100 AD or so and forward) through Clement of Alexandria and the Ante Nicene fathers to the medieval scholastics to the Reformers to the anti rationalists to the current day.... ALL of it deals with accepted facts, and how a non Christian world view simply will not accomodate them in a manner as smoothly as the biblical world view. This statement is just frightfully ignorant historically. He has created a straw man and then killed it. This is not honest at all.



I have read the bible (multiple times). I have studied other religions, mythologies (greek, norse, egyption,) and belief systems from all over the globe. Reading and understanding the bible is exactly how I became an athiest. Reading and understanding other religions holy books solidified that conclusion. All I can respond to this is that if he has a comprehensive grasp of the Bible and "other holy books"--I am assuming he is claiming to have read the Qu'ran, Tipitaka, and the Vedas, maybe the book of Mormon and the Tanakh Midrash.... and... crap I don't know, maybe the Urantia book or something :) -- if he has a grasp of these books, all I can say is that he hides that comprehension extremely well. Anyway, these books differ from each other as widely as is possible. They make divergent truth claims (or non-truth, in some cases), and to "refute" one is completely irrelevant to the others. It is only a secular western person who assumes a shallow view that "all religions are the same" and the equally stupid "faith is divorced from reason" who could make an assertion that by reading and understanding the major "holy books" that one can see the flaw in all of them. This is not the mark of a student, but a poseur. No other way to say it, and sorry (not really) if it pisses you off.

The fact that man created god (all gods) is obvious. Our "gods" act like us and have our morals (like condoning slavery and misogyny), but you don't hear those verses in church! I don't want to go into debates on "slavery" save to point out that the practice of the OT was vastly different than that of race based slavery and was more akin to the idea of indentured servants than what we had in the west. Nor do I want here to focus on gender roles and culture. I fear @rogue's understanding of these issues is about as deep as his understanding of "belief," but what I DO wish to point out is what he has done here without even realizing it. Note that he invokes some (unnamed) absolute moral standard to condemn the morality of the bible, and even claims that if a "god" were to have our morals (the whole "man created god in his image".... straight from the cover of Aqualung, I guess) THEY WOULD BE DEFICIENT. My question here is "deficient to WHAT STANDARD?" You see, even in arguing against biblical morality, he argues that there is a "higher standard" of morality which should judge it. In a material world, this is utter nonsense. By definiton, there can be no right or wrong at all, much less some system which is superior to others. Morality implies PURPOSE, and by definition a dead universe has no purpose, no set of higher or lower activities, and no "goals"...... including survival of any set of species. I admit, I giggled at this one.



I find the entire subject ridiculous. It's 2017 for crying out loud. Yeah. And it was 2016 last year. Unless you make the assumption that advanced techology argues for the demise of faith based systems, then what is the point? If you ARE making such an assumption, then that is something to assert and defend, not to throw it out as if it were a given. It most definitely is NOT a given. If you want to argue that (and not bawl it out like some fundamentalist preacher whose notes read "logic weak here.... shout loudly"), then we can actually examine it.

Your posts were so frequent that the responses will have to be staggered. More nest post
 
Last edited:
Assuming you "believe" in the devil, which I don't. No religion can survive without a "boogie man". If there really was a "god", there would be no need for a "devil". Clearly an invention of man. Let that roll around for a minute. I did let it roll about. Perhaps the key to letting it roll around is having a large empty space for it to roll, but at any rate, the statements are nonsense. Eastern religions have no "devil" (nor do they have a "god"... rather both are manifestations of the impersonal, adapted to humans trapped in the maya, or illusion). The only thing that makes a little bit of sense here is the idea that good demands evil. This is, in fact, false. What we call the "apodosis" is true, that evil "needs" good to exist, but not what is called the "protasis" -- which is good needs evil to define itself. This is why he does not understand the nature of his assertion. He is operating from the premise that "evil" is a positive entity LIKE good. If he had read any real interaction by Christians on the subject ("The Problem of Pain" by Lewis is pretty good, but the more comprehensive stuff is by Augustine and Aquinas), he would know that this is NOT the Christian position. Evil is a parasite, and a constant falling away FROM the good. It has no independent existence nor any postitive substance. Think of it as a cancer, forever becoming LESS and destroying, falling away, collapsing, and rotting away from its source. This is the reason Jesus pictured hell (gehenna) as a garbage dump. It is a place where men (and other creatures) who have rejected the God who made and sustained them forever fall apart and collapse. They cannot cease to exist, but rather devolve into perpetual and deeper despair rather than hope, sorrow rather than joy, hatred rather than love, grief rather than elation..... it is what it means to be "separated" from God, who is the source of life. Note that it is a self imposed damnation. One of the most brilliant lines in lit was Milton's "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." Hell, evil, Satan, condemnation.... they are all united by one theme, and that is locking the door to joy FROM THE INSIDE. Christ's death for sin is so powerful that it COULD empty hell in an instant. Men stay there because they "wish" to do so. Not that they embrace the horror, but they will willingly choose that if the only alternative is to surrender pride and arrogance and admit they need a savior. Hell is eternally preferable to that. Again, though, evil is a parasite on the good and hell is like an asymptotic curve, forever approximating the anti-good but unable to get there.



If there was one shred of evidence of god, and I mean one shred, theists would jump all over it. They would have an actual fact to use. I already gave you several evidences in the classical proofs of God. You ignored that (though you were able to whine about me calling you ignorant in doing so). Here, for your enjoyment, so you can ignore them again, are JUST A FEW evidences:
1) Cosmological Argument- We have done this a few times so I won't repeat. Goes back to Aristotle
2) Teleological Argument - Argument from design, or purpose. Commonly referred to as the "Watchmaker Argument" referring to William Paley who argued that if you found a watch on the beach, you would assume a watchmaker, and not a random set of events arranged the gears. Just for the record, "The Blind Watchmaker" is Dawkins attempt to argue that there is in fact no design in the universe, only an "appearance of design" (no shit. He actually says that)
3) Moral Argument - The evidence that since all men agree that there is a standard we "should" follow, this is clear evidence that there exists a universal standard of right and wrong. Far from being an argument AGAINST this, the fact that we all argue about "who is right" in condemning one standard over another is actually a revelation that we all acknowledge there IS a universal standard...., we just argue that this person is wrong about what it "is." Since morality cannot derive from mechanics alone it argues for a person in back of the standard.
4) Ontological Argument - this is a more sophisticated argument (I did not "get it" for some time), proposed by Anselm in the middle ages. It argues basically this way:
a) The Christian God, if he exists, is the highest, most magnificent and glorious and best entity possible that we can conceive of
b) It is greater to exist in reality than only to exist in the imagination
c) Therefore, a "god" who exists only in the imagination would not -by definition- be the greatest being that one could conceive
QED God must exist.
That one is a brain twister. There are arguments against it (as there are for all these), but it is good as evidence gathered from the operations of the human mind.... arguing that we are "pre wired" as it were to believe in God.

5) Decartes argued that once you get past "I doubt, therefore there must be someone doubting", that logically there MUST be a God who created our rational faculties to comport with the created universe. The original post is actually a modified restatement of this argument..... which you completely ignored...... but that is ok. Most everyone else in here did as well.

6) Finally, there is the Transcendental Argument that argues from the existence of logical absolutes, or laws of thought. It goes like this: ALL people rely on "laws" of truth and logic to communicate. Even to deny this, requires that you invoke the law of non contradiction. These laws are universal and transcendent (all people use them an rely on them). The are NON EMPIRICAL, in that you cannot observe them, measure them, control them in an experiment, or subject them to analysis..... you can only observe their effects and thus assume they are "there." They are therefore, since non empirical, RATIONAL constructs. That is, they are the product of mind. However, since they JUDGE human thought and are not 7 billion individual "rules" they are not the product of human mind. Therefore, they must be the product of one superior mind in the universe.

When you add to this the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the amazing record of pre-told history of the bible, the fact that the bible was compiled over at least 40 centuries, by people of various cultures, languages, educational and political differences, economic status, and it all has one common theme, with a common purpose, the centuries long testimony of those who claim to "know" God as a person, and the transforming power of Christ, the radical changes that occur in men (the apostle Paul would be one of the first and one of the more stellar)... all these are EVIDENCES.

It is simply false and silly to make this kind of ridiculous claim that there is "no evidence." We make convictions in court every day on this type evidence, and you applaud those convictions (at least some of them).
 
Last edited:
I understand why they believe. Belief is easy. Look ma, hard questions in life. Don't worry child, "god did it" is all you have to say.…

This is so patently stupid and false that it does not deserve an answer.

"For the Believer, no proof is necessary. For the Unbeliever, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase This sums it up pretty good. If you believe something with no real proof, you aren't likely to change your mind. Something that is real does not need faith.

I am fairly sure you have no idea what you are talking about here. Look upstream about "evidence" vs "proof" in my response to another person. In the interest of charity and brevity we won't go back over this logical trainwreck you have made here.

Historical records have little if any information on these biblical events.
This is demonstrably false. Repetitively, overtly, obviously and categorically false. It is "evidence" (ahem) that you have done no research aside from maybe ripping some article from the skeptic tank posted by another poseur. It is the only explanation of why someone would post such silliness.

Research a little farther back and you will find most, if not all, biblical stories came from pagan stories from hundreds of years earlier.
Here. Let me help you. You are referring to the first century objection that Xty borrowed themes from the Greek and pagan mystery religions. Dying Gods, resurrection, etc. What you don't know is that Justin Martyr (disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John the Apostle) and Clement of Alexandria absolutely decimated and DESTROYED this set of objections by going to the Eleusian Mystery religions, the Egyptian texts, the Persian god/goddess stories and categorizing how the skeptics misrepresented and at times lied about these stories, completely destroying any credibility they had.

I did a paper on Clement in grad school, and I literally laughed out loud at the ease with which he and Justiin Martyr demolished this stuff. They were so annihilated and humiliated that it took 2,000 years almost for a “scholar” to dig this crap back up (Frazer, in “THE GOLDEN BOUGH”) and republish it. Of course, it was lauded and hailed as ground breaking research at the time. It has mostly been debunked (again!) surviving only in the kind of corners of the internet where gullible skeptics will seize on anything for “support.”

Constantine had the books voted on to create the bible in the 4th century to unify the roman empire. He offered the various church's money to agree upon a single book to be used by all christians. It's simply not the word of any god. That is an actual historical record.

Every time I think you have hit absolute rock bottom in the idiocy of your claims, I find you have secured a shovel and gone deeper. First of all, the Muratorian Canon (about 180 AD) shows that the Church had an accepted “canon” of books it accepted as written by God FAR before “Constantine” who invoked the Nicene Council in 325 AD... which did not deal with the canon. Secondly, the actual council where the church declared which books were accepted by the church as a whole as God's revelation was not called by Constantine. It was not even of interest to Constantine, who was dead, but rather by Marcian, who was emperor. in 451 AD. There is so much other nonsense in this statement that I will just pass over it in the interests of space. Try reading a book. It won't hurt you.

 
Last edited:
I understand why people 2000 years ago needed religion as they did not know basic facts about the universe around them. It's needless today.Give me evidence of the existence of god
Try responding to the evidence you have and we will move on from there. I assure you, I have PLENTY more.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus (cute little picture of some unknown person in a toga deleted)

I have to thank you. You have given me a hearty chuckle with that one. First of all Epicurus never said that. There are no records of anything close. This is just another idiot meme circulated by some atheist clown who thought he was witty and made it half way there.

Secondly, it makes the same mistake we covered upstream, which is assuming evil is a positive entity or something that has existence in itself. Go read the reply upstream on the Christian doctrine of evil and then come back and we can talk. Proverbs says that laughter is medicine for the soul, so I suppose I should expect a bill for treatment? :)

Anyway.... the rest of your posts are mostly recycles of what we have here. I have to go pressure wash a house and replace a floor entryway.

An aside, as I leave. I do not just treat anyone who voices objections to the faith as an idiot. I do have a short short short patience quota for this kind of nonsense, but if you would ever like to actually deal with this in a grown up manner, you might find that I can be kind and respectful, and will in fact respect mature dialogue. I do so with others, and what makes you "special" is your style. Anyway, have a great day.

 
Anybody got the cliff notes on what Tans wrote? He could have finished the floor and pressure washing instead of writing a novel.
 
SPST said:
Anybody got the cliff notes on what Tans wrote? He could have finished the floor and pressure washing instead of writing a novel.
Click to expand...

Sure.
1) Christianity is extremely comportable with rational coherent thought.
2) Disbelief is actually irrational and a denial, at some level, of rational and logical thought
3) Don't post stupid stuff in arguing with the above 2

That is it in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
SPST said:
Anybody got the cliff notes on what Tans wrote? He could have finished the floor and pressure washing instead of writing a novel.
Click to expand...

Sure.
1) Chiristianity is extremely comportable with rational coherent thought.
2) Disbelief is actually irrational and a denial, at some level, of rational and logical thought
3) Don't post stupid stuff in arguing with the above 2

That is it in a nutshell.
 
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
Click to expand...

If I am truly the culmination of random clashing of atoms that occurred entirely by chance,
Can I trust that my perception is anything more than my own reality?
If it is, than perhaps non of you actually exist.
If it is truly random, how can one explain the Billions of similar sentient beings out there?
The human genome is but for a very limited number of genes, the same as the animal genome.
This would indicate a purpose more than random chance, because too much is similar to be entirely random.
Algorithms have shown that future behaviors are predictable based on patterns
If there is a pattern, than it is not random, therefore has a purpose.
A purpose proclaims a design and therefore requires a designer.
Or,,,,,,,,
non of you actually exist....

Over simplification, but you get the gist.
 
Mountain man said:
The human genome is but for a very limited number of genes, the same as the animal genome.
This would indicate a purpose more than random chance, because too much is similar to be entirely random.
Click to expand...

Or would indicate the obvious evolutionary process.
 
Last edited:
rogue said:
Or would indicate the obvious evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
Conventional creationist wisdom strongly suggests through probability and statistics that not a fraction of enough time has passed since the big bang for this kind of order to have been brought to the chaos that would have been the beginning.
 
rogue said:
That does not exist either
Click to expand...

If you are in agreement that the beginning of the universe was a big bang, and that it has been in existence for an estimable period of time as acknowledged by the scientific community (the "exact" age which I don't recall and is not important here, but let's go with billions of years, versus the 6000 or so that the hard line creationists use), then it has been extrapolated that there is no way, statistically speaking, for the series and sequence of events to occur that would be necessary to realistically and reasonably embrace macro evolution in the relatively short span of time that has transpired since said big bang.

And this isn't religion, it's math.
 
Last edited:
fieldgrade said:
If you are in agreement that the beginning of the universe was a big bang, and that it has been in existence for an estimable period of time as acknowledged by the scientific community (the "exact" age which I don't recall and is not important here, but let's go with billions of years, versus the 6000 or so that the hard line creationists use), then it has been extrapolated that there is no way, statistically speaking, for the series and sequence of events to occur that would be necessary to realistically and reasonably embrace macro evolution in the relatively short span of time that has transpired since said big bang.

And this isn't religion, it's math.
Click to expand...

I am not in agreement. I never said I "believe" in the big bang.

My main point with all this is that I DON'T CARE how it happened. Any of it. The universe, earth, animals, us, etc etc.

It has ZERO bearing on my life. Belief is not required. I just live hard every day and enjoy my life! What happened in the past is irrelevant.
 
rogue said:
I am not in agreement. I never said I "believe" in the big bang.

My main point with all this is that I DON'T CARE how it happened. Any of it. The universe, earth, animals, us, etc etc.

It has ZERO bearing on my life. Belief is not required. I just live hard every day and enjoy my life! What happened in the past is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Then why on earth did you ever engage in this debate to begin with? Or make every post that you ever have here one this forum that blames or disparages religious faith.

I think you do care.
 
Last edited:
The bible -

God created everything, including man and hell.

Not happy with man, he killed everyone except Noah and his family and started over. Killed everyone...

Again, not happy with man so he impregnates an innocent young girl with himself so he could die for our sins and save us from himself.

If you don't accept that, you go to hell.



I think I was about 10 or 11 when I realized this was messed up.
 
rogue said:
For my own enjoyment. I do care about that.
Click to expand...
So if I read you right, you're trolling, as it has always come across since you arrived. Welcome to my ignore list.

*poof*, and you're gone. :)
 
Last edited:
rogue said:
The bible -

God created everything, including man and hell.

Not happy with man, he killed everyone except Noah and his family and started over. Killed everyone...

Again, not happy with man so he impregnates an innocent young girl with himself so he could die for our sins and save us from himself.

If you don't accept that, you go to hell.



I think I was about 10 or 11 when I realized this was messed up.
Click to expand...

You have written all of this before, and we have gone step by step about why this is absolutely false and misguided. You have obviously no real desire ever to accept that something you realized when you were 10 or 11 is still wrong.

But, you will keep posting here because you care so little and it has so little impact on your life that you have to entertain yourself by bantering with us knuckle dragging Sky wizard worshippers because post #42.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rogue said:
I am not in agreement. I never said I "believe" in the big bang.

My main point with all this is that I DON'T CARE how it happened. Any of it. The universe, earth, animals, us, etc etc.

It has ZERO bearing on my life. Belief is not required. I just live hard every day and enjoy my life! What happened in the past is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then why bother participating in the discussion for any other reason than to stir it up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
You have written all of this before, and we have gone step by step about why this is absolutely false and misguided. You have obviously no real desire ever to accept that something you realized when you were 10 or 11 is still wrong.

But, you will keep posting here because you care so little and it has so little impact on your life that you have to entertain yourself by bantering with us knuckle dragging Sky wizard worshippers because post #42.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Is what I posted exactly what's in the bible? I've read it and that's the story. I'm sorry you can't see that.
 
sr30 said:
Then why bother participating in the discussion for any other reason than to stir it up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Post 441

It's just an internet forum. One of millions. I enjoy the banter ad I have learned a few things along with way.

One does not grow by talking to people that agree with them all of the time. Stirring the pot leads to new discoveries.
 
Last edited:
SSgt75 said:
I have put him on my prayer list.
Click to expand...

You are the first to say something nice. That is exactly what Jesus would do. Thank you.

You may not believe it, but that is appreciated because it tells me where your heart really is.
 
rogue said:
Is what I posted exactly what's in the bible? I've read it and that's the story. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Click to expand...

No, that is not exactly what is written in the Bible any more than if I said Shindlers List is a delightful story of a man who starts a flourishing business, deals with a few minor HR issues, but finds a steady source of labor and retires happy and healthy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Saving Private Ryan is about a group of men who decide to take a hike through Northern Europe, have some funny shenanigans with some locals, and then decide to invest in a bridge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rogue said:
You are the first to say something nice. That is exactly what Jesus would do. Thank you.

You may not believe it, but that is appreciated because it tells me where your heart really is.
Click to expand...

Post 63 showed everyone exactly how you feel about prayer and it's validity.

It is proof we actually care that we are still here since the Bible strictly instructs us not to cast pearls before swine. When Christians no longer reply to you, then you know what they think of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rogue said:
I'm going to tear up if you don't stop
Click to expand...

7ab0bb6117de1e88bd95ddb7f56299fa.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, are inherently unable to explain the beginning of time. According to those laws, something must precede the big bang to set it into motion. Yet nothing is supposed to precede it.

Who or what set the Big Bang into motion?
Atheists believe like a faith / religion that something came from absolutely nothing, which goes against those laws of physics. So which side is more scientifically sound? A creator, or something from nothing, even though something had to precede the start of time and space to set it into motion?
 
rogue said:
Post 441

It's just an internet forum. One of millions. I enjoy the banter ad I have learned a few things along with way.
One does not grow by talking to people that agree with them all of the time. Stirring the pot leads to new discoveries.
Click to expand...

I have posted a number of critiques of WHAT YOU SAID, which are not necessarily tied up with a critique of YOU. I have yet to see you even make a surface attempt to respond, in the sense of "Tans, you are wrong because of this and this and this, and your argument fails here." If you will note, most of the others to whom I responded actually posting things of that nature. Those types of responses bring my respect and a desire to actually interact, and *I* learn stuff.

If you ever decide to go down that path, I will be here.

I have no desire simply to "win" an argument. I think it was @NKD who posted about that kind of thing boiling down to "who is the smartest person?" One thing I learned very early is there is always someone smarter than I am, AND that some people may just be more knowledgeable than me simply because they have a real interest and have studied it or worked in the field. I delight in finding people like that, as it helps me expand in one of the almost infinite areas about which I know little or nothing.

Do you know how to get deeply seated water stains out of a hardwood floor? :) If so, I could stand an education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom