The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Religion or Atheism Which is better?
in Religion
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 0.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, it does now, that you came up with it.
If you really want to understand God, you will have to step outside your religious belief system, that you are nothing but a evolving amoeba, that your brain creates your mind, because this will never do.
Look, when I tell my son to take out the garbage, and he is sitting there front of his computer playing, and tells me: "I can't" does that mean he really can't?
What is real to YOU?
Look at a table for instance, does the physical table go into your brain, or does your eyes digitize that table for your mind, which is YOU to be able to see it and recognize it as a table?
Now the same thing happens when I hear you say the word "table", I visualize a table.
Now tell me, which table is more real to me, the one I seen, or the one you suggested?
The same when you said: "there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe", I actually visualized a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe!
Now does what I said about:
@Sylynn So Mr Higgs has the ability to create a physical object with just the power of his thoughts?
That's how creation starts, and that's how it will end, until they figure out how to mutate, or put an entire table into your brain where you can say: "Now I believe that table exist, I can feel and see it with my brain!"
I am having a very difficult time typing here, the words trail behind, so I will cut this short, besides, the rest of your comments hang on you understanding that our existence does not rely on physics only, but you are far more than that.
@Sylynn I have to admit, I spent over 30 years as a Christian, but if I had been taught the ridiculousness you believe is true, I wouldn't have lasted a day in it.
Well said, which is why I left the Religion because I realized they did not worship the God of the Bible, but think that all gods are the same, created by the whim of man.
This is why I say that theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being "religion".
By now becoming an atheist, you didn't change anything, now you just claim you don't believe in gods theist believe in, look, I can even ask you "which god/gods don't you believe in?" and you'll most likely tell me; the God Jehovah, and if I asked,, you most likely tell me all about Him!
Can anyone give an accurate description of something, or someone that they say doesn't exist?
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
You need a Creator to create, which can be as simple as a robot that we program to create, to as complex as man, who can not only create, but dream up what he want's to create. It is THAT creator part of us that is God, for He gave us that part, our "mind" which is of, and IS God.
Look friend, it is NOT a logical impossibility, you greatly underestimate who you really are, which comes from your indoctrination.
@Coveny Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you.
Science doesn't support a Big Bang, yet look how it is called science!?
Why is the never observed, and I mean never ever observed thing like a quantum speck popping out of nothing, then Big-Banging in nothing and creates all this we observe with our senses considered science?
A bad dream after eating too many burritos maybe, but someone actually observed such a thing?
But look, even brilliant scientists will call it a "scientific possibility", yet no scientist has ever witnessed any quantum speck popping out of nothing and creating anything let alone our heavens and the earth and everything we see and can examine in it. So of course such religious science doesn't support me, because I am against religion and all the fake gods and creators they keep creating.
How can there be ZERO evidence of an uncreated Creator when your mind is it? Nothing or no one can create your Mind, it was given from and of The Creator; The Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am".
The Bible explains who our Creator is, and how He created everything, and we are so lucky because we have reached a time in mans existence where we can finally fully understand this, for never was man able to create worlds with people in it until only a few years ago. Sure we can't create men that have their own minds, this is when another human mind steps in and through a controller does the thinking for those created beings who are stuck in their created little world just as we are under this dome.
Wake up people, get out of religion, and your religious upbringing and start using your mind, not just what you've been taught.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
Me too, he was funny and what a brilliant mind, yet in all his years he couldn't come an inch closer to finding God. (nice 666symbol with his hand, can't be in the show business without identifying your allegiance I guess?)
I mean he pegged religion, that they were a joke and that none really worshipped God (except asking for things, like he said) which means none really knew God, which he didn't go far enough to see. Or that religion took over science by which he could have figured out that religion was desperately trying to hide God? That maybe that's why religions keep creating all these fake gods, and promising man to travel the universe, to go where they know no man can go to keep people from finding the One True Uncreated Creator!?
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.82  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
But why create an imaginary friend when you can communicate with your real Creator?
I mean imagine your wife telling your young 5 year old son to: "Go get your father, tell him it's time to eat!" And the boy runs into his bedroom, and brings her one of his plastic toy soldiers and says: "Here is daddy!"
That's exactly what religions have reduced humanity to, worshipping man made wood, stone and plastic gods over their real Father and Creator.
Don't you see that this is all you guys (both theists and atheists) know, is fake, imaginary gods!? And you don't see a problem with that?
I'm sure you would see a problem with your child doing that!
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you need a creator to create what created the creator? Oh look your logic is broken as usual even after taking two weeks to think about a response.
We are not friends don't patronize me. If there must be a creator, then there must be a creator of the creator, this goes back to infinity, and creates a logical impossibility. (it has nothing to do with my estimation of myself)
I don't believe in a creator god regardless of how many times you misuse the words. It's impossible to be an atheist who believes in a creator god.
Science does support the big bang theory, but it's still contested as I've already stated. It's called science because objective proofs have been peer review that support it. The big bang isn't something out of nothing, again you show your complete lack of scientific understanding.
My mind is not evidence of an uncreated creator any more than dirt is. You have to prove that your creator exists. You have to prove that he was not created. You have to prove that he created by mind. You have a prove a whole host of things you just skip over because you use faith rather than reason. Lots of animals (we are animals after all) create minds, and they create them in a wide variety of ways, as well as creating minds that come in a wide variety of structures. (octopus with their brains in the tentacles are pretty dam cool if you ask me)
You follow the bible, you are religious, and you understand nothing, you just regurgitate your childhood programing with a new spin so you can impress people.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh look Evidence communicates with the creator, record one of those conversations. ROFL
I'm an athiest I don't know (or communicate) with any gods... that's why I'm an athiest. It's like you are saying I'm dead but I talk to much or some other impossibility. Yes I see a problem with just about everything you say.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, we can create creators, I have two of my own, twins. Or I can build a robot to create things. What we're looking for here is the "Uncreated Creator", or The God, the Only One and not "a-god", which we have plenty of.
I already explained this many times now to you, but instead of using your "mind", you regress to the created part of you (your brain/memory) which has been heavily indoctrinated, like we all have been.
Jesus said (He is the co-Creator by the way): Mark 9:23 “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
Now this is extremely important for us to understand if we are to understand God, and to understand that "breath of life" which is the "god within us"
1 Crinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
It is His Spirit that was given to us by God. The statement Jesus made in Mark 9:23 is a scientific fact, we can do experiments to prove it.
Look, like this:
Take any object, like a table for instance, look at it, then close your eyes and make it as big as your NASA imaginary universe.
Now make it bigger than this NASA universe, matter of fact so big, that you could put a million "bubble-in-a-bubble" universe on top of this table, ... you see how easy it is?
You can NEVER run out of room in your mind, because like I said, it IS Infinite, and it came from our Infinite Creator.
I think I already told you this, but here again; God IS Infinite, He doesn't "go on through infinity", instead He IS Infinite.
Infinity refers ONLY to that which was created.
Infinite refers to the Only One Possible, not a being, but the Ground of Being.
The reason people cannot understand this is because "religion" has created tens of thousands of gods, and they also taken over the Bible so they can speak on Gods behalf, and God just lets them because we have all refused to accept God. Instead we accept religion created gods and even science fiction gods like the little miracle child gravity, and like Tinkerbelle, can do magical things, and his mommy and daddy Mother Nature and Father Time.
So God said: "Fine, you people rather believe in globe planets spinning and swirling through space, you can have it, and my friend @Erfisflat is awesome at demonstrating this truth, that people rather believe NASA's BS than their own Creator and His actual creation, even to the point to deny themselves, and accept some cult leader like Richard Dawkins calling them animals, evolving rats and apes mind you!?
Don't patronize you? I called "you" friend, and you are, that's how I think of you; "my debating friend", doesn't matter what YOU think of me?
Like Richard Dawkins calls us animals, evolving apes, cousins of rats, would you rather that I call you, or refer to you in those terms?
Please don't tell me how I should think of people, please respect my freedom of choice, as I respect yours. If you call me an idiot, your number one enemy whom you just absolutely hate with a passion, fine. Doesn't change how I think of you my friend.
@Coveny said: If there must be a creator, then there must be a creator of the creator, this goes back to infinity, and creates a logical impossibility. (it has nothing to do with my estimation of myself)
That's right, if there is "a creator", and not The Creator, which in Greek I just learned from another debater friend, is the Only One, .. then yes, a creator will have to have a creator, but "The" Creator does not.
Why?
Because The Creator IS Infinite, and Infinite is without boarders, and Infinite by definition cannot be created, but simply Is. Anything besides the Creator is finite, or created, even a spoken "word" is creatyed and is finite, so all things, like in "things" which are obviously created are IN The Creator; The Infinite, and Eternal conscious and creative mind "I Am".
Impossible, sheessh, come on, you know nothing is impossible, just listen to @Erfisflat, he'll show you that some Nazis who were brought over from Germany through Operation Paperclip took an idea like this old globe earth con, and through artist rendered pictures and paintings are robbing humanity of 10's of Billions of $$$ a month, and people love it! "Give us some more please, I can't afford medical for my kids, but yes, please more, and please take my children and make them Astronauts so they too can go on the USS Enterprise to go where no man has EVER gone before!
I mean come on?
.. this is crimes against humanity, just as calling our children animals, apes and evolving rats. How long will people put up with this BS?
You think these Nazis would stop short of putting a bunch of our brainwashed children on one of their fake Shuttles to Mars and blow it up and claim they got "Lost In Space"? I'm willing to bet that, that TV show was created just for this purpose, so when they do fake an actual Mars Trip, they'll just kill them all, .. and say they got "Lost In Space", .. we've lost all connection, but not to worry, the spaceship was equipped with the most up to date computer that will find the nearest habitable planet that they can safely land on". And from time to time even have a few acknowledgements from the craft that; they did find a planet, and it is beautiful, only communication is very difficult, but we will keep you up to date which will cost you another billion dollars a month, and a sew hundred billion to "send for Help", Get Them Home or some other b.s. And you know what? People will send in their entire savings to get them back, LOL.
Coveny said: I don't believe in a creator god regardless of how many times you misuse the words. It's impossible to be an atheist who believes in a creator god.
Oh come on, how can you say that an atheist doesn't believe in a creator god?
OK, look, I have personally asked many "atheists" if they believe in "a creator god", and they said no.
I said: "Do you even know what I'm talking about?"
They said: "Yes, you are talking about some gods that supposedly created the universe, like Zeus, or that Jesus-god in the Bible!"
I said: "I thought you don't believe in gods, yet you just described two creators?"
So I pointed out that it is not really true that atheists don't believe in god or gods, because they can clearly define them, and even point to the source that has more information on them. That is all that theists can do, no more and no less. So again, what is the difference between theists and atheists?
Here it is (again)
Theists admit that they believe in god/gods, and atheist deny that they do, but they BOTH do.
atheists example: "I don't believe in gods, oh Zeus, did I say Zeus? No I didn't, what's a Zeus? See, I don't believe in gods!"
I on the other hand am a true atheist, not that I don't believe in god/gods that are studied in theology (look up the word theology) but that I KNOW that none of the gods that theists/atheists believe/not believe in are the Real creator: The God (in Greek) meaning the Only One. There are gods, like "a god", but those are created gods, they are either men, or wood/stone/plastic gods, idols with stories behind them.
THIS is what Christians believe in; gods as in the Greek; theos which is why I don't say I'm a Christian. Christians are those who belong to the Christian Religion created by Constantine and the Catholic Church, they believe in the Greek definition of god/gods as in "theology". They believe in "deities" and become mediums to these divine beings who rule from the supernatural realm.
Look it up, Christians go to Schools of Divinity to get a degree in none other than "Divination". They become Dr's of Divinity, or master diviners, which is clearly an abomination to our Infinite Creator. It's all there in the Bible!
- to be continued -
Look friend, if you're not going to read all this and refer to it when asking questions, I will not respond to you. I took my time to carefully as possible answer everything you question, but you keep asking the same questions, and making the same responses when I already explained it to you, which means you didn't really read what I said.
Instead ask me, "how can you be an atheist, and believe in God?" I keep explaining it, but maybe I am doing it wrong? Please read my next post?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
First let me finish answering you this:
@Coveny said: Science does support the big bang theory, but it's still contested as I've already stated. It's called science because objective proofs have been peer review that support it. The big bang isn't something out of nothing, again you show your complete lack of scientific understanding.
First, the Big Bang is NOT a theory, it is a religious doctrine created by a very cultic and dangerous religious group called the "Popes Marines", the Jesuits, who have sworn to defend the Catholic Religion by any means.
Coveny said: "My mind is not evidence of an uncreated creator any more than dirt is. You have to prove that your creator exists. You have to prove that he was not created. You have to prove that he created by mind. You have a prove a whole host of things you just skip over because you use faith rather than reason."
Go into an "isolation chamber" and maybe you'll get the picture that 'you' are more than your physical body, actually when you get to the state of feeling, seeing and hearing absolutely nothing, you'll realize that it's just 'you' now!
It is this 'you/spirit' who dreams, comes up with ideas to create, that is who you really are. It is this breath of life/spirit in our bodies that make us living souls.
Now dream up of something while in there that you never, ever seen before (nothing that is in your memory), now how will you bring it about? This is when the 'body' comes into play. You send those dreams, those intelligently designed ideas into your physical brain/memory, then send it to all the neurons in your brain and make your body get to work.
You spirit/mind control the brain through the neurons, which we can see through fMRI and watch how from seemingly nowhere the information to the brain is being transmitted, and from there the brain sends it to the rest of our body.
Coveny said: Lots of animals (we are animals after all) create minds, and they create them in a wide variety of ways, as well as creating minds that come in a wide variety of structures. (octopus with their brains in the tentacles are pretty dam cool if you ask me)
Sure, this is why so many human heads along with the stem, brain exposed are in large jars, hooked up to all kinds of life support keeping it alive, which is hooked up to monitors receiving all kinds of new ideas coming from the brain right?
It's been tried for centuries, doesn't work. Without the mind/spirit present in the body the brain is no different than your Gluteus Maximus, and will achieve just about as much.
Look, when someone is dying, we watch until that person is "gone", right?
Gone? Gone where? The body, the brain is still there, warm, yet we know that person is gone.
Animals have that spirit of life in them too, only limited to every animal after their kind. You and I on the other hand were created for much more than a stake dinner, and I sooo wish you could see that? It is frightening to even think that another human, especially one that can handle a gun would believe he is an animal! I mean think about that for a while?
Coveny said: "You follow the bible, you are religious, and you understand nothing, you just regurgitate your childhood programing with a new spin so you can impress people."
NASA, CERN and Magicians impress, so they can deceive people and get paid for it.
Me, I'm hoping and praying to wake people up from millennia of deception we all been subjected to. It has gone far enough, look, even you believe you're an animal. My God, even a child, no, even an infant can tell the difference between an animal and a human. So what happened that a child lost this ability, .. which should be the last thing a human looses as he is dying, .. to differentiate between animals and humans?
Heavy, and dangerous MK ultra indoctrination that's what, a mental lobotomy, staring with the globe in school, then all the cartoons, movies, all that religious indoctrination till the child looses his identity and becomes a dumb animal, just as the Devil and his children the Jesuits have been planning for all these years.
From the looks, it worked perfectly, billions of people walk around thinking they are animals, and that their closest relatives are apes.
Look at the "Family pictures" that Dawkins made of that poor suburb housewife?
If I were that lady, I would sue the pants off of that devilish, insulting moron Dawkins! How dare he?
Yes, you are an atheist who knows the names, the identities, the powers and probably could even draw me a picture of all them gods you claim you don't know, or believe exist. If you can't see the serious problem with that, I'm sorry, I cannot help you?
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 24%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Coveny said: "When you say that the proof that god exists is because things exist, is disproven when you say there is an uncreated creator. If you “law” is that everything MUST have a creator, then the creator must have a creator, and the creator of the creator must have a creator, etc etc etc on into an impossible infinity. By having a uncreated ANYTHING you break your own rule of EVERYTHING must be created. And you aren’t breaking it with something simple, you are breaking it with the most complex entity in existence.
Yes, every "thing" must have a creator, God/Infinite is not a "thing", and by definition only Infinite is borderless, and Eternal .. nor is He made of "things", so He is not part of, or made up of His creation, but stands as "The Creator".
In other words, before any "thing", God IS. Not was, not will be, but "IS" as in "I Am".
Coveny said: What it comes down to is this. I say matter has always existed, you say that’s not possible someone must have created it! I say well who created the creator of matter? Your respond he’s always existed. You have been indoctrinated to believe that you MUST have a master, that you can’t exist without someone out there in “control”, so you just make up, you follow a religion that STOLE from the religions before it because it even lacks originality and creativity. Now I don’t see how you can miss the HUGE logical flaw, but I assume it must do with cognitive dissonance.
Oh man, talking about "cognitive dissonance", I have had my share of that, and my friend @Erfisflat keeps bringing more things up that changes my attitude towards reality. I mean just think about it, here I was trying to get my children to be NASA Astronauts, and Wham! He took me right out of this imaginary space, and slammed me down to a Flat Earth. But all this he did just reinforced what I already figured out myself doing scientific mind/brain experiments, and studying the book called the Bible outside of the influence of any Religion; that there is a real God out there, the Only Possible One, He is Infinite, The conscious Infinite as in "I Am".
Matter couldn't have always existed because we can measure it, weigh it by mass, and know it is finite. Something finite can grow infinitely, but can never become Infinite. Like infinite numbers, they just go on and on, but they are little finite numbers, and will stay finite. Just because there may be countless of some "thing", does not make it 'Infinite/God'.
What I was Indoctrinated by was that God was a created being, an idea like the Trinity three-in-one gods that make up the idea of God. Other Religions besides Christianity have other created gods, this been going on since right after Cain killed his brother Able.
But after leaving religion, and going more into observation (science) I realized that God, the One True Infinite God was not some idea, or made up of other Religion created gods, but was real. Yes, God is Real, but what I also found out is that it is creation that is not real, it is just that "created", made up by some rules God created and set in order.
God can change that "order/law" just as easily as a computer Game programmer can change the rules in his gaming world he created.
Like if the programmer made all the game-characters so that they can't go through walls, that's what those characters will go by, they can't disobey the laws they were created by, just as the number "1" cannot just change into a number "2" by its whim, but we can erase the number 1 and change it to number 2. This is what God can do, and when this happens, we call it a miracle, because there is no physical explanation for it.
God performed many "miracles" in my pitiful life, people were shocked by it, and I had no explanation for them either other than that they were miracles.
Yes, and if you knew my life, you would agree that I am a miracle, that I am alive today is because of many, many miracles. Even that I can reason and debate with intelligent people like yourself is a miracle in itself for me.
Coveny said: "Oh look like every other theist in this country you are quoting the holy text at me again as “proof” of something. Your text even states that this is only you hope for and there is no evidence of what you are saying is true. Hebrews 11:1. I got some bad news for you, Santa isn’t real, it was just your parents. Oh look like all the people who worship yehwah you think he’s infinite."
Awesome, you just touched upon another Bible verse that Religion grossly misinterpreted, and you, an atheist, quoting it in that Religion mutilated way proves my point, that there is no difference between theists and atheists, that they both believe/not believe in the same created gods, and understand Scripture the same erroneous way.
Here is what Hebrews 11:1 says, please read it carefully:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
And here is what the religious theist/atheist understand it saying, see if you can spot the difference?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the things hoped for, of things not seen.
You see, they leave out the most critical parts, "evidence with substance" which can only come from actual observation, experimentation and testing, or as we call it: "science".
And what does Religion require?
Blind faith, leaving them hoping for things they have not seen or observed. This is why NASA has been so successful, we dumb Christians went on blind faith, trusting the Serpent and his lies just as Eve did.
No religion, especially not any Christian Religion understands the word Infinite, nor do they worship our Creator "Infinite", I have talked to just about all of them. They just say they worship "Infinite God", but ask them, just go and ask ANY person that belongs to the original Christian Religion (which is the Catholics) or any denomination thereof as to whom they worship, and they will all tell you that they worship "deities, or a certain special deity who reside in the supernatural realm".
I explained all this before, that God does not live in the supernatural realm, that's where the fallen angels are staying in for the time being; earths supernatural realm. These are evil spirits, ghosts, demons, and Christians go to Schools of Divinity (just Google schools of divinity), and Trinity Colleges to get a degree in 'Divinity', .. become diviners/mediums for these demons.
God, who is my God, the Only True and possible God "Infinite" lives in Heaven (I mean He, or more like His presence can live wherever He chooses, even in a tent here on earth, which He did for a while with Moses, and Joshua, remember?)
And He does not "divine" to mediums as those do that Religious people worship, but God "reveals" His will to His chosen Prophets of Old, and now that His Son Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with us, He reveals it to even a worm like me, a true nobody (how I, and the world considers me as)
Coveny said: "You state “God IS Infinite” and “Infinity refers ONLY to that which was created.” So you just said god was created. So we are back to who created your god? Oh ya this is your semantic word play BS where infinite and infinity are two completely different words rather than the same word as a noun and an adjective. Really, it’s like this “Space is infinite” and “Space stretches out to infinity”, same word different conjugation. (so maybe it’s just that you are bad at English…)"
No my friend, only "Infinite" is infinite, space is not Infinite, it may go on infinitely, like numbers can, but one is made up of quantum finite particles and the other, little finite numbers, and they can NEVER become Infinite. No "thing" can become Infinite, for Infinite IS, .. like I keep saying.
If Infinite God did not exist, none of this could happen since we need Infinite to have things go on infinitely in.
Coveny said: "“How long will people put up with this BS?” Not much longer, a few generations. It’s been proven that theists like you are dying out as science educates us to the real world rather than superstition. Every year less and less people believe your fairy tales. Your region is a receding pocket of unknown that science keeps making smaller and smaller. There will come a time when no more witches are burnt, no more children are sexually mutilated, no more hate on homosexuals, no more wars, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of your imaginary sky friend. To quote Denis Diderot “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
Oh, now I know you're just jesting. Do you mean like 666CERN and snake tongue NASA science?
Do you mean "real world" as in a "spinning globe through an imaginary science fiction fairytale space that came about from the imagination of a Jesuit Catholic Priest?" Buddy, they are the number one mutilators and molestors of children, and you want them to rule this earth with their version of science?
So true, that your Religion is making our observable reality smaller and smaller, we live in a sci-fi fairytale traveling through imaginary space vacuum with planets sitting on a space-fabric, that they make-belief that they are traveling to, .. like this Mars mission.
There will come a time when no more witches are burnt? Who, .. may I ask labeled them Believers as witches, and killed all them innocent men, women and children, throwing them alive to lions, burning them at the stake, huh? That's right, the same people who brings you Star Trek and Star Wars space, and are destroying the truth, and interpret science by some loony religious doctrine like quantum mechanics which is destroying all logic at warp speed.
"no more children are sexually mutilated", yeah, because it will no longer be considered mutilation, or rape, but men will be able to marry either young boys or girls.
"no more hate on homosexuals" - yeah, the hate is now directed at normal heterosexuals. Normal people are getting so scared, that when asked for their "sex", they put down; "none of the above" in fear of being discriminated against being "normal".
"no more wars, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of your imaginary sky friend." No more wars? You think your rich friends will stop all wars that made them rich and powerful in the first place? Look at the hand sings they make, which "Sky daddy's" name do you think they are doing it in?
No more slavery? We have all become slaves, in the old days only men went to work, but now the women have to work too in order for the family to survive, and also the children, they have to work to put themselves through college. No more slavery because we are all slaves, and when everybody is a slave, no one is.
To quote Denis Diderot “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
Taken right out of the Jesuit Training Handbook. Did you watch that video I posted of the Jesuits? Was Mr. Diderot a Jesuit? Sure sounds like one.
To be continued -
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
Did I ever say I don't believe in gods, or dragons, or Harry Potter? J. K. Rowling created Harry Potter, see, I even know that. Harry Potter exists just as Peter Pan, Tinkerbelle, and Pixy-space dust called 'redshift gasses' do. What I don't do is mix imagination with what is observed reality.
God is real as my mind is, and if you can prove that I don't have a mind, then God will no longer exist either, for me anyways.
Show me my ?
You didn't watch the video about the Catholic Jesuits have you? Especially the part where they are to take opposite sides to achieve the end goal, which was always to take our Creator Bible God out of the picture. Please watch the video, unless it's against your religion or something?
Has your dog ever woken up from his dream and run to grab a pencil and paper to jot it down under the heading: "Good ideas to wok on!" ?
The brain is NOT a biological computer, all it is, is a 3lb. memory storage unit, and a very complex 'control panel' that your mind uses to operate your body with, like cameras, pumps, muscles, and so on that makes up your body.
Wow, head transplant, sounds interesting, can you post the website this is on? Ill try it on my dog and cat, and hope to create a cat-dog
Yes, they may be able to sow one living body onto the next, Or like we have conjoined twins sharing one body. But sowing parts of a dead body to a living person has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Let's see them take the dead brain of a crippled person, keep the brain fresh on life support and put it in a dead athletes skull, kick start it, and see what happens? You think that once the brain starts functioning, that it will "create a mind"? It should if the brain creates the mind, right?
Huh? I'm not sure I understand?
Yes, "they" that person in humans is gone, left the body, but the body is still there. We can keep the brain alive, but if the spirit left it, the brain will not create a mind, nor will that body be ever called a living being. The ant is still there too, only the life force is gone, back to the Creator who gave it.
I agree, and not only that, but Christians will drop bombs even on children who worship YAHWEH the exact same way as they do!? Well, actually all religions do that. That's why I say "Get out of her (religion) my people"
Woah there, as a species? That's coming from the Evolution belief system! How on your globe earth does Mother Nature who took an amoeba that fell off a rock into a puddle of muddy water, and evolved it for the past 4.2 billion years through unintentional, unplanned, no will of anyone or anything random selection, all the way to us here great apes say that what our brain reacts to (evolution) could "cause so much harm"?
In evolution we are NOT the most important creatures in existence, just evolving amoeba at different stages. The ape-man's brain may hallucinate until a lion comes over, knocks it down and eats it. That's evolution, every book written, every thing man thinks he intelligently designed and created, every religious belief like "that we are the most important creatures in existence, that everything revolves around us" is just our environment and the food we ate reacting on our brain! How, I mean how can that cause any harm? Are you now trying to direct evolution, you think you are special and can somehow interfere with the careless Mother Nature? Who is crazy now?
Evolution can cause me to create a car, and cause you to be a NASA astronaut, it is NOT OUR CHOICE, selection, purposeless, no will of anyone or anything selection does that, what causes these different hallucinations on our brain, or so the evolution story goes.
And how can your Minister Dawkins who claims he believes man came about by purposeless evolution, go out in public and say things like this?:
I heard him explain that man thinks he has free will, but that's just an illusion, a malfunction in the brain as it is creating the mind. So why ridicule Believers, they are evolving monkeys just as he is, and as the story goes, they too will eventually run out of grazing ground forcing them to change their environment and the type of food they eat, and Pooff the brain will start hallucinating something else!
If the brain is creating the mind, then there is no right or wrong thoughts, or beliefs, it's just part of evolution. So stop being a hypocrite evolutionists, and just accept we are all evolving. What else should evolution look like than what it is?
Coveny said: "I get you are scared of death. I get that you are scared of this life you know ending, but the harm your fairy tales cause is far reaching. You indoctrinate your children so they believe your fairy tales. You teach children lies, and you are SUPPOSED to be the people who helps them. They trust you, and you fill their head with nonsense and betray that trust. Santa is NOT real. Yes it is affecting billions of people, just as it is affecting you. How dare anyone tell you the truth though, how DARE they!"
You mean there is harm in the hallucinations caused by my environment and the food I ate on my brain? Is that even possible?
You really should study evolution more, listen to your Pastor Dawkins in which you'll learn to accept your fate graciously like a good ape. Stop complaining or trying to direct evolution, if we run out of grazing ground, or the tectonic plates move changing our environment and our diet, so will these hallucinations coming from our brain change.
What is evolutionists problem, always fighting, complaining about others evolution!? You see your cousin apes complaining about the chimps? If they get in their way, they simply tear them limb from limb, and eat them.
Does other apes teaching their young about Santa Claus bother you, does it limit your food, or is forcing you from your environment? Don't worry, your instinct for survival of the fittest will kick in, take a machine gun and mow them all down. Hell, it's evolution, she kept you alive and evolving for over 4 BILLION years, she will not let you die out now just because some other apes believe in Santa Claus, so trust her.
And he actually accepted this thought to where he even wrote it down, .. what an idiot!?
Coveny wrote: "Anyone can describe something without believing in it, as you have just shown by describing zeus, and not believing in zeus."
Look, again, I said I believe in Zeus who was created by an ancient Greek religion, he is the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter.
If I can describe it, how could I deny it? Again, I believe in Zeus, in Santa, in Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle and even Harry Potter, they are make belief characters of fairytales, and others of Religion-created stories which people got so attached to, that they created huge statues, idols of them, worshipped them to a point they even sacrificed their children, their own flesh and blood to these idols.
I know what these stories are, what these idols are, so I make sure my children know them too, so they won't go and believe that they are something more, .. something some whacked out Religious Priest tells them they are. Just like the religious sci-fi stories like the Big-Bang, and Evolution, sold as actual science. Now these are very dangerous, because they are forced on our children as science, not what it truly is, a religion. Sneaky these BB-Evolutionist, aren't they?
Coveny said: "We as a people have created labels we call words for objects, ideas, concepts etc. It is impossible to disagree with something if you don’t know what that something is. This is what I mean when you create logical impossibilities. You can describe both a round and a flat world, yet the world cannot be both can it?"
I know you mean a flat spheroid, not round and flat, right?
No, God created words, starting with His Son "Word". We destroy even the languages that God created. No human can create a workable language, it is way too difficult.
Besides, what I have been saying is that for an atheist to say: "I don't believe in god", and yet they obviously do, is wrong. And then on top of that go and join a religion that claims not to believe in gods, like atheism is, and call themselves atheists is well, ridiculous.
Both theists and atheist believe these gods exist, you showed me that you do, what neither of you realize is that both atheists and theists been duped.
Here, please listen carefully: It's not about believing or not believing in gods that actually exist, that were created by religions, we all agree they do, it's about whether these gods are God our Creator or not?
I mean hey, who am I to tell people not to believe in some gods, some cool looking gods like Thor, Odin, Zeus etc. go ahead, have fun, exercise your God given freedom of choice, BUT PLEASE don't make them into something they are not!
They are NOT our Creator God, the Infinite and Eternal "I Am" OK? None of the created our world, and us. Matter of fact they can neither hear, nor speak, let alone create something.
That's when problems start, and if not put in proper perspective can get way out of hand, like when millions of people in poverty, where their children are dying of hunger and yet they go and give their last morsels of food to some rats in a Rat Temple, there is a big problem there?
Did those rats really do anything for anybody? I think not.
But our One and Only Creator God "I Am" did create us, and shown over and over again how He loves us, He is real. He is in you and me, He is the life-force of every animal too, He is the One that gave you "you", your mind/spirit which He breathed into an incredible body that He created out of dust, from tiny quantum dust particles from each atom, to cells to bones and flesh and skin that is perfect in every way.
Now why should we let these religions slowly rob us of even the knowledge of our Creator with such cheap imitations and the children's fairytale that goes along with them?
Why do you keep saying that you don't believe any god exist when you admitted you know they do? That you know everything about them.
Why don't you say what you mean, that you don't believe a Creator God exists, don't believe that a God could create the heavens and the earth and everything in it, right?
Then we can go on to the next question like:
* Then who, or what do you think created the heavens, the stars, the Earth and all plant and animal life in it, and us humans who rule over the earth?
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hello @RollTide420 a pleasure to debate with you.
Yes, I get what you are saying, only you take in things that haven't been even witnessed by science as facts, and like my other debaters on this subject, you have the wrong definition of Infinite, like you keep mentioning infinity and liken it to Infinite.
Infinite cannot be both finite (like a number, a speck of sand, or a star in heaven) and the actual Infinite which is; without boarders. In other words, just because we have countless number of grains of sand, they each are finite, and no matter how many finite grains of sand we have, the sand cannot ever become "Infinite", do you agree there?
RollTide420 wrote: All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that
a) everything must have a cause,
b) a cause must precede its effect) and
c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe.
Yes, I agree that "in our universe, meaning in the created finite heavens and on earth, all finite things must have a cause, and do have a cause. It's simple logic.
Infinite on the other hand does not, nor cannot have a cause, I am not talking about finite things going on into infinity, (Like Cantors attic) I am talking about "Infinite" itself.
There is an infinite difference between finite "things" going to infinity (like infinite numbers), .. and Infinite itself.
Modern physics, because it is based on the Big Bang theory, and imaginary universe/universes has just about denied the existence of 'Infinite', just as they did "nothing", claiming "nothing is not nothing anymore" in hopes of hiding God, "The God" the only possible One, not "a god" which there are many of.
So first off, let's go with what we have scientifically observed, which is that we have a Flat Earth, and an obvious curved dome over it. Above the firmament, or the Dome, we see stars. The stars we see is NOT planets like what NASA's artists painted, so unless you have been outside the dome and can show some actual photos of planets, we'll go by what we all can observe, which is a space above the firmament with billions of stars, and then a dome, and then an obvious flat earth.
So we have finite (heavens and the earth with all that we see in them, including clouds and birds and then up above, the stars, and the earth, and whatever we have found below the earth, what the max dig is like 8 miles, and no great-balls-of-fire core found, that too is just wild imagination.
I have found evidence of Infinite.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also the word "a" in English is always singular, so A God would indicate one God, and not many. If it were meant to imply many the suffix "s" would have been added and the word "a" would have been dropped.
Also I am not promoting multiple universes, the key word in observable universe is observable. I only use the term universe because, while I believe in a flat earth with a dome, I don't want my argument to hang on that, so I use wording that clicks with ball-earthers. In saying that my point is to show that existence goes beyond what can be observed, as indicated by multiple paradoxes created by a world with no creator, not that there are other universes with other rules.
While I will agree the infinite exists, what evidence do you have that the anything infinite exists in our the observable universe? You gave no reason why I should believe there are limitless numbers of grains of sand. Also, how do you know that the stars are outside of the dome? I see stars but when the first ones come out with some daylight left they seem to me to be inside the dome, not outside.
Also, I agree with your point about things "going into infinity," as that was the basis of my point of infinity only being a problem with negatives, I just didn't word that well.
Finally, modern physics is not based on the Big Bang or multiple universes, as it predates both of these theories. Its based on experimentation and the scientific method, which these theories don't properly utilize. However, hard science, like what engineers use, is based on "proven in a lab" science. Lab testing is nothing more than proving a cause effect relationship, and we've yet to find the uncaused in anything we can observe. I acknowledge that the uncaused must exist, because of the paradoxes otherwise, but it cannot exist within the same restrictions that everything in the observable universe must follow, and therefore exists beyond our observable universe.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh look a "those theists are true theists" has joined the debate. Christ is yahweh, and yahweh killed a lot of people in the bible. I don't believe the book, but if you do, it didn't preach love and peace, and let us not forget chris wasn't even all love and peace. Matthew 10:34
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh, thank God you're a Flat Earther, that save us explaining a lot, or puts us closer to "one mind".
Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, but would never become Infinite, do you see and agree with that? Or am I missing something?
Since you are a FE'r also we can throw a lot of fiction out of the way and help each other figure where, who and how we exist. I believe that my faith should be built by seeking, and knocking for evidence with substance Hebrews 11:1 amd that God want's us to seek Him to come to know Him as He is.
Lets suppose the expanding Big-Bang universe was real as they claim? (it's possible, if that is how God would have made it, but obviously He didn't) Now let's use that as an example; where would this universe exist, or be expanding in?
Or, where is our heavens, the dome the stars and all the earth in?
In Infinite:
"the infinite mercy of God"
some five years ago as I studied all the different definitions of Infinite, and how our Creator in the Bible is described, .. His Infinite qualities, and when Moses asked as to who He was, His answer "I Am who I Am" suddenly made sense. It all came together, and it is so simple, yet so awesome which we can see an example of in ourselves, in us humans who were created in His image.
It was this, that Infinite is not just a quality of God, but Infinite IS God, and Infinite is conscious, because He said it right there to Moses: "tell them " Am" has sent me to you".
Infinite by definition, using logic is Eternal, can be nothing less. And if Infinite is conscious, Her must be intelligent. If He is intelligent, He can create. If He can create, everything that He creates has to be finite m(obviously since it was created) and reside nowhere else, but IN Infinite, or God, and this is also Biblical.
Please let me know what you think so far, because the Bible reveals everything else as to how God created things by, and what was the first thing that He created.
Thank you.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
With that being said, its the media and various false teachers within religion that negatively influence people's voting. The world's religions may be part of the problem, but the Bible itself is not what influences the voting of religious people. The religious right just in this last election voted overwhelmingly for a man who didn't know how to pronounce 2 Corinthians and claimed he didn't need to ask God for forgiveness. He is the antithesis of a Biblical lifestyle, yet the Religious right chose him overwhelmingly, not because he fit their views but because the other people they were associated with convinced them he was their guy. You also mentioned the priests who live in relative discomfort, but this practice is man-made and no such requirement can be found in the Bible that's given to all religious leaders in general.
Also, you claim people use religion to want abortion banned for dubious reasons but is really fair to just assume they're not alive if the status is "questionable." People aren't against abortion because the Bible prohibits abortion and there is nothing else to it. People are against abortion because they consider it a form of murder. At very first cell formed in the wound already exhibits all 8 requirements to be alive, and it has the genetic makeup of a human, and therefore is by definition a living human. You can argue about whether its acceptable to kill it or not before a baby has any consciousness, but you can't just say people who disagree are a problem because religion influences them, especially since you gave no more reason to assume there isn't a God than religious people have to assume there is one. You say our reason may very well be imaginary, but it also may very well not be imaginary and you gave no reason to assume it isn't and in fact its more logical to assume there is given what we know.
Religion needs no scientific grounding as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science. With that being said principles used in science do actually suggest a creator who exists outside of the observable universe. Said evidence was explained in the following post that I've made previously.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
No person, regardless of religion should accept responsibility for the actions of others. I don't hold you responsible for the actions of Kim Jung Un, or Stalin, or any of the other atheists who have committed atrocities, I only bring them up is to point out the problem exists across the board, not just amongst Christians or religious people of any kind.
And also the reason I think most theists are doing it wrong is because the Bible teaches that most theists are going to do it wrong. Jesus literally says most people who claim to worship him are in fact not saved. Therefore my claim to have it better than most theists is based on the Bible, which claims there is a right and a wrong way to worship God.
It was a rhetorical question. Given what followed that should have been obvious.
I have read my Bible, cover to cover, multiple times and it does not teach that people come back as disembodied spirits. They get new "Spirit Bodies" which are improvements upon their old bodies, which were corrupted by sin. You seem to define a person by their physical chemistry, when a people perspective defines personhood, in terms of personality, and the Bible teaches that your personality comes back in an improved immortal body and does not float around disembodied (1 Corinthians 15:44).
First off, your dog is not back. Clones are not the same person as what was cloned. Identical twins are considered to be clones, yet they clearly have distinct personalities. Again you define a person by their chemistry (although clones have mutations oh even by this standard clones are still different people). Now if that exact same dog that died could be brought back, remembering who he was, we would have an entirely different situation on our hands, which would be more analogous to the situation the Bible describes.
Also you claim that the harm in killing someone is that you killed someone. That doesn't answer my question at all and it is the epitome of circular reasoning. The only explanation given as to why killing is always bad, even when it was the original giver of life, who has the power to return life, is your dog analogy, which is not truly analogous to the biblical resurrection where the same personality gets new bodies. Your analogy was the opposite with the same body and a different personality. (actually its not even the same body it just has similar chemistry.)
Yes but my point is the reason people burn. Most claim that the Bible teaches that everyone who doesn't accept Christ in this lifetime you will burn, to which many people claim that people shouldn't be punished eternally for not believing in God when there isn't adequate proof. If you read into the Bible it indicates that people are judged when they receive the Holy Spirit, and Christians being judged in the Flesh (1 Peter 4:6). In Old Testament prophecy (the part of the Bible most Christians haven't read) it talks of a time in the future will be poured out on all flesh and then God will judge the nation. The bible speaks of two resurrections. The first is for people who are saved, the second is for everyone else. But when God talks in Daniel about the last resurrection he doesn't say everyone will be condemned, he says some will raise to life and others to condemnation. Given this alongside other prophecies regarding the holy spirit being poured out on ALL flesh, the Bible seems to indicate that everyone in the 2nd resurrection (the people who weren't saved) will be given the holy spirit at the resurrection, and will then be judged. Judgement doesn't begin until you receive the holy spirit and God sees what you do with it, as we are all sinful by our nature and without the holy spirit we are hopeless. After God has raised everyone from the dead, revealed himself to everyone, and given them a piece of his spirit, anyone who at that point still refuses to do what is right DESERVE to be thrown into a lake of fire. What the Bible teaches is that people will be cast into the lake of fire for rejecting God outright, not failing to understand his existence or nature. When Christ says that those who blasphemes the holy spirit will receive no forgiveness in this life or the world to come. Why would someone need separate forgiveness in the world to come if all wrongdoing is handled in this life with judgment being nothing more than an analysis of this life? The answer is they wouldn't.
Actually Ephesians 6:5 doesn't condone slavery, it acknowledges slavery and tells believer to accept their circumstances even if some things aren't right. Just like Jesus condemns the actions of the Pharisees and Sadducees but tells his followers to submit to their authority Matt 23:3. Believers are instructed to temporarily accept illegitimate authority, and to work with the world they are in for the sake of spreading the Gospel, but that doesn't mean that everything Christians accept should be engaged in by Christians themselves.
Also, in reference to the killing of the children of Egypt as if its SOLE purpose was to punish, which it wasn't. First off, all of the firstborn died natural deaths, the Israelites were not instructed to kill anyone during this event. And second off the killing of the firstborn was a way of God showing his superiority over the Gods of Egypt, and convince Pharaoh to let his people go. It was a necessary step in bringing about the nation based on his ways, and the long term goal it went towards was providing eternal life to all willing to accept it. So again while killing may not seem like the best way to prove a point when you assume a priori that there is no life after death, or that all who disagree burn forever, but when you consider the ultimate plan with the resurrectionS (emphasis on the plural), it really isn't that bad, as all of those people who died still have a chance and morally this can't be distinguished from a natural death. In fact in this case it actually was a natural cause of death.
You mention the incestual rape incident involving Lot as proof that the Bible condones sex with children. There are many problems with this assumption. First off you seem to have the story backwards. Lot didn't rape his daughters, Lots daughters raped him. Also, just because it happened in the bible doesn't mean the Bible condoned it, in fact, incest is specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18. The fact that they had to get him blackout drunk to pull it off is an indicator that they were aware that what they were doing wasn't approved of. There are several examples in the bible of people doing things that the Bible prohibits. Just because it happens in a Bible story doesn't mean the Bible doesn't have a problem with it. Acknowledging the existence of some evil doesn't mean you are condoning it.
The definition of inherent is according to Mirriam-Webster: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. The fact that our value is given to us by another being wouldn't make it any less permanent, essential, or characteristic, and therefore wouldn't make it any less inherent.
Yes, the problem of evil. It doesn't really matter if he let it happen or if he made it happen, it was necessary for his ultimate plan which was to create a perfect world without taking away free will.
God could have made the world 4 different ways. All Good with free will, Flawed, with free will, or both of those options, but without free will. In order to have actual people and not just robots free will was necessary. However, with free will, God can't make you do right, as that would violate free will. So he tested his creation in a world where evil did exist to see who would choose good (evil doesn't stop to exist until the heavens and earth melt away, which takes place AFTER the final judgement). God's ultimate plan is a world where no evil or death occurs but temporarily giving evil a foothold on people was necessary to avoid violating our free will, as God wants us to be like his children, not robots. Without us having lived in an evil world, what would stop someone in the next world from deciding "you know, I don't see why we should have to obey God." But after living in a world separated from God and then being in his presence nobody would ever want to return to the old ways. You can know something, but you can't understand until you've experienced it. God doesn't want us to simply know why evil is a problem, he wants us to fully understand.
First off, most of these resurrections took place with a deity which did not have human flesh, as opposed to Christ who did have human flesh. Also, the witnesses to resurrections in other religions weren't so adamant that they were spreading their message in an environment where it was commonplace for them to be killed for doing so. Also the writers of these mythologies do not themselves claim to be eyewitnesses, but merely that there were eyewitness. This is in contrast to Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul all of whom claim to have seen the risen Christ. Several of Paul's writings are recognized as authentic by even the strongest believers that the Bible is a myth. Also, they didn't just say these things. They were so adamant that they had seen the risen Christ that even death did not deter than from spreading their message. They literally transformed some backwoods teacher's message into a world-changing phenomenon at the risk of both death and torture, based on these claims and some of these people such as Paul can be definitively proven to have existed and written books of the Bible.
How does this go against anything I said? I stated myself that when natural death occurs its because God lets it occur. I said that its not because God is unable to prevent death. The fact that natural death didn't start until after they were kicked out of the garden favors my point, it doesn't oppose it. My point is that since natural death is a result of Yahweh letting you die, how is a killing that he commands any different morally than a natural death, and you seem to miss that part of the point completely. First off strife is not violence, Strife can lead to violence but its not the same thing. Strife mean very strong disagreement, violence means using physical force. Also, I am not doing mental gymnastics, you seem to not understand what an exception is. Just because something is usually wrong, doesn't mean its always wrong. For instance its usually wrong to kill someone but if they break into your house in the middle of the night with a gun, you have a moral duty to protect your family and that could mean killing the bad guy. Exceptions are not the same thing as contradictions.
The idea that something is ok for one person, but not another isn't unheard of at all. For a grown adult to drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana isn't really bad, but for a 3 year old to do these things is an entirely different story. Also, for a Private to issue a retreat order is pretty problematic, but for a Sargent to do so is usually entirely acceptable. The idea that different rules might apply to different people in different situations shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Most importantly however, there is a huge difference in acknowledging something will happen and condoning it. My claim is that Christ's point was to warn them that he wasn't bringing peace on Earth YET, and that strife would be what his believers would be facing in the near future. Not that strife is his long term goal. Warning people of what they are going to face is completely different than advocating the behaviors mentioned. Saying the effects of his message would bring strife, while advising his followers to refrain from violence is not mental gymnastics, its two entirely different statements with different meanings that you have conflated.
Jesus doesn't specifically speak of killing when its against the law, but he does condemn it through his actions. On the occasion in John 8, the Pharisees tried to trap him by getting him to condone stoning a woman who was guilty of death under Roman law, while it would be illegal under Roman law. They assumed Jesus would tell them to follow God's law over Roman law, but he didn't. They thought he would do the same on the tax issue, but he said obey Roman law. Peter tells Christians to submit to governing authorities, which would be a command to avoid vigilante justice. Also, if vigilante justice were ok I don't see why Christ would have a problem with Peter cutting that guys ear off, seeing as how they were trying to wrongfully seize Jesus.
I never said the only way to worship Yahweh was peacefully. I said that the general lifestyle Christians should live should be peacefully. There are however room for exceptions. Ecclesiastes chapter 3 talks about how everything has its time and place and even says "a time to love, and a time to hate, a time of war and a time of peace." Peaceful living at all times is not required for worshipping Yahweh, however, refraining from violence UNLESS ITS NECESSARY is.
The truth is you are cherry picking. The Old and New Testaments alike say to "love your neighbor", and in the New Testament Jesus even goes as far as to say "love your enemies." there and every now and then when exceptions are made that is the part you latch on to. The reality is the commands for violence are always situational in nature, and worded in ways where its only allowed for those circumstances. However, commands to live peacefully are not only much more common, but are also typically worded in a general, non-situation specific way. If you can read verse like 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Corinthians 14:16, 1 John 4:8, 1 Peter 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, or the sermon on the mount and claim that the "Bible says nothing of the sort" in regards to Christians living peacefully, then how are you not cherry picking? You can live a generally peaceful lifestyle without being so naïve as to refuse violence in form to the point that you just let anyone and everyone take advantage of you in any situation in which they want to do so. There are exceptions to the Biblical requirement that Christians live peacefully, but there are a whole lot more places where peaceful living is emphasized than there are exceptions listed.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, the claim that spreading the Bible enables violence is fallacious and absurd. The nature of causality is such that a cause MUST precede its effect. Since the violence in the world today predates the Bible, the Bible CANNOT logically be construed as the cause of the violence in the world today.
You can speculate all day about how much better things would be without Christianity, but the reality is the only example we have to compare it too was far worse. Every society except Israel had a formal class system where certain people were considered fundamentally superior to others. The idea that racism or discrimination in any form is bad came from Christianized societies, in fact in east Asia, where Christianity hasn't permeated, its still the norm to consider your race superior to all others. In India, another place where Christianity has gained little foothold, they still have a Caste system and people can be beaten alive if they are a lower Caste person and they let their shadow touch an upper caste person. The Romans had very brutal punishments, it was the Romans, not the Jews, whose system of slavery was mimicked by the South (I'd be happily to elaborate on this if you would like). The idea that "because I can," isn't adequate justification to invade a country, comes from a Christianized culture. The emphasis on giving to charity comes from a Christianized culture. There was far more violence in the pre-Christian world than there is today, and there is far more violence in places where Christianity hasn't heavily permeated the culture, such as Asia, than there is in parts where Christianity has had a massive cultural influence, such as America and western Europe. So not only does your claim that the Bible is what enables violence not only defies the nature of causality, but also defies the observational evidence as well.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your mistake is that you are "pi" to refer to two different things. The NUMERIC VALUE of pi is distinct from the number of digits needed to express that value in decimal form. The first is finite and does not go into infinity, the other is infinite and does go into infinity. However, infinity is merely a conjugation of infinite which is the root word.
I'll agree with God's infinite nature being important to understanding his name and his "I am what I am" statement. I also agree that Infinite is God, but this would suggest that the world is finite(neither infinite nor infinity), as it is separated from God by sin. In fact the use of the statement by anyone else was considered blasphemous (the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he said it) indicating that God alone is inherently infinite. The world he created is separated from him by sin, and is finite, although God will eventually grant us more infinite properties at the resurrection. Also Infinite doesn't exactly mean the same thing as Eternal, although they are related. Eternal means Infinite specifically in regards to time. Eternity is a time reference, we wouldn't refer to space and matter as eternal unless we were referencing how long it had been around, not how much of it there is. (the rest of this paragraph I agree with).
God may have created some things infinite, but those things exist outside of the confines where the laws of physics apply (this boundary is probably the dome, but that is speculation). However, time exists within that boundary, as I've observed it myself, as have you and everyone else whose ever been alive. My claim then is that time itself is finite and has a beginning, which creates the paradoxes which disprove atheism. (I'm aware you aren't atheist, I was debating your premise, not your conclusion).
I agree whole-heartedly, which is why you will never here me say things like" you just got to have faith" or "He may not exist but it comforts me to believe he does." The Bible teaches faith, not BLIND faith. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence and looking for answers. The idea that there is something wrong with this is one of many examples of how Satan has infiltrated the modern church, in order to make Christians come off as closed-minded, or anti-intellectual. Such ideas are taught in the church, not the Bible and that an important difference.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.
This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.
I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.
Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.
What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles suggests otherwise.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
RollTide420 Said: From a biblical perspective man-made religions are harmful as they are in defiance to God's religion. In fact the Bible only uses the term religion in 5 places and 4 of them are in a negative context. Only in James 1:26 where James associates good religion with helping widows and orphans is it mentioned in a positive context, as opposed to most peoples idea of religion which involves a lot of meaningless rituals.
Yes, yes and yes, .. finally I found someone who took notice of that too!
So I will even further that, that not only is 'man-made religion harmful' but that the Bible is actually against "organized Religion", yes true and I can prove it from Scripture both OT and New.
But, .. who with a sincere heart could not be 'religious' about spreading Christ's message' to the whole world, to the point of even giving up his life for it!?
Jesus literally mocked organized Religion that established itself over the nation of Israel starting with their leaders; the Pharisees, Scribes and the Teachers of the Law! Mathew 23:14 calling them all kinds of names starting with: "hypocrites!"
I would love to debate this further with Believers AND atheists here, and with Gods help start a new Debate Topic labeled: "The difference between organized Religion, and being religious".
Then you said something else that is also a very critical to understand Topic, .. what you said here;
RollTide said: "Religion needs no scientific grounding as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science. With that being said principles used in science do actually suggest a creator who exists outside of the observable universe. Said evidence was explained in the following post that I've made previously."
Now look what you said above about organized religion, then you say this, which comes from an "organized Religious" standpoint. Please hear me out?
(I will from now use a capitalized R for organized Religion, to distinguish it from the word "religious" like "being religious about something", just like @Erfisflat is about the Flat Earth reality for example.)
I would like to pointy out that being religious does not have to include God or gods, we can be religious about taking a walk for an hour every morning, and not believe or worship any God/gods, or as you quoted the Bible as to what true religion is: visiting the widows and the orphans!
Spreading the Truth/Christ:
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Spreading the TRUTH like @Erfisflat doing, like what you and I are doing, and if Erfisflat didn't have evidence of what he is revealing here, who would listen to it?
The same with Jesus, he shown signs and wonders, he healed the sick, raised the dead to show 'evidence' of who he was. The EVIDENCE of God is right there in the Bible, starting with Exodus Moses, and the next is in John 1 starting with verse 1. and the rest is throughout the Bible, and what we observe through science.
Now back to what you just said about science and religion, you are correct in saying: "Religion needs no scientific grounding", and I'll even add to that, that Religion (capital R as in organized Religion) is actually 'against science'! That the greatest enemy of ANY Religion is scientific evidence! The Constantine/Catholic created Christian Religion has even gone as far as to take over science and succeeded, one evidence of that is the "Pontifical Academy of Science" a Jesuit takeover of all sciences and placed the two largest, most funded pseudoscience organizations in charge: snake tongued NASA, and 666CERN which has corrupted real science beyond recognition. For example it was the Catholic Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre that invented the Big-Bang theory, and if you are following the Catholic News:
you can see that the so called "Church" is very much into science, it was the Jesuits that started putting globes into every classroom! And not too far from me near Tucson AZ lies one of the Vatican's biggest and most powerful Telescopes called LUCIFER operated by the Jesuits.
You went on to say: ".. as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science."
This is EXACTLY what the Vatican (Organized Religion) want's us to think, that you don't need any evidence of God, He is way beyond you little pitiful evolving creatures lost in the vastness of our sci-fi space we created just for you. So kick back, enjoy the CGI, fake photographs and artist rendered pictures, and the senseless rhetoric that comes from CERN which is way over your little evolving animal ape head, and just take our word for it! Yep, we'll tell you exactly who God is, and we'll even handle science for you:
So no, no and no, God is NOT outside the realm of science, we have the tools both our physical eyes and our spiritual ones. We need evidence to build our faith by, starting with who God is! Otherwise we could end up (as you can see in that video) worshipping Lucifer as God, or the Muslim Allah, or any of the tens of thousands of Religion created gods/goddesses and not even know it. Without evidence we will just blindly accept whatever is presented to us, which is exactly what EVERY Religion requires of their shleeep, to sleep and blindly follow!
Look:
Hebrews 11:1
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
and what have we been taught? Ask yourself or any other Christian? They will tell you that; "you only need faith, and not evidence to believe in God. Why? "Oh because He is just way beyond your human understanding" is what they told us.
Matter of fact I remember in my younger rebellious days (or so I was labeled) being warned for even thinking to ask evidence of God! That this insolence showed lack of faith on my part, and I was to just "listen to the preaching, and God (not what the preacher was telling me every Sunday), but God will reveal Himself to me!" .. and oh yeah, just pray, .. yep keep praying, a hundred hail Maries or at least five times bow your head between your legs facing Mecca etc.
Just ask yourself? "Has the endless prayers brought any of the poor Catholics any closer to our One True Creator God "I Am"? Or the 2 billion Muslims, Hindus?
Yeah right, .. what my Religion was telling me is to trust THEM. Here is how they interpreted Hebrews 11:1 to us, and is exactly how Christians understand it today:
"1 Now faith is of things hoped for, the things not seen." completely leaving out the most critical parts: "evidence with substance"
Now ask yourselves my friends, what better place to start looking for evidence of God than an object, a being, a living, reasoning, creating soul who was created in Gods Image?
WE are the greatest evidence of God, this is why God doesn't come down like He did with Moses, He is here, in you and me, through our souls yelling and screaming, only we cannot hear Him because we have been heavily indoctrinated which is like a heavy wool over our eyes, too busy with the world, with Religions listening to the same "Old Time Religion".
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
We have 2 things, two ways to seek God and find Him: One, with our physical senses, with our body, and Two with our spirit, with our "mind". We are NOT just physical as we been taught, but we have a mind/spirit within us as quoted above. So HOW do we seek God? Both ways, observing the world around us which includes reading anything and everything like good little scientists, especially books relating to God, observing the things we didn't create, and most importantly we search with our spirit/mind: Actually this is what God considers "worship", this searching and seeking, this desire to KNOW!
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 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.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.96  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
OK, never mind the Pi, I was simply referring to something going into infinity, like if we count from 1, and on; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, going on through eternity (again, not Eternal, but throughout eternity) Simple, I don't want to complicate things and confuse myself.
Another example (and please don't go into the complicated side of this like someone once mentioned about that the "light" will eventually die out" and so on) so, like if we take a mirror and look behind us into another mirror, with the right angle tilt, we see our head going to infinity, we understand that this does not mean we become infinite, but "going on to infinity", do you see what I'm getting at?
I am hoping to establish the big difference between Infinite (God) and some-"thing" going on to infinity. The point I am trying to make is that a finite thing going into infinity is not "Infinite", and never can be, just as Infinite/God can never be finite. (I think we already agree on this!?)
Also, to establish that, in order to have any "thing" going on to infinity, we need Infinite. Do we agree on this (I think you did that too, just making sure?)
@RollTide420 said: I'll agree with God's infinite nature being important to understanding his name and his "I am what I am" statement. I also agree that Infinite is God, but this would suggest that the world is finite(neither infinite nor infinity), as it is separated from God by sin. In fact the use of the statement by anyone else was considered blasphemous (the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he said it) indicating that God alone is inherently infinite.
Exactly! There can be Only One Infinite since "Infinite" is borderless, two Infinites cannot exist or one would not be Infinite.
We also have supporting evidence that Infinite is God;
Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Yes again, as you said the world, and everything that has ever been created is finite, but since only God is Infinite, and that there is no one besides Him, all things created are In Him.
RollTide420 "Also Infinite doesn't exactly mean the same thing as Eternal, although they are related. Eternal means Infinite specifically in regards to time. Eternity is a time reference, we wouldn't refer to space and matter as eternal unless we were referencing how long it had been around, not how much of it there is. (the rest of this paragraph I agree with)."
Agreed, what I was pointing out is not that the word Infinite means Eternal, but since we established that Infinite is God, then God must be Eternal also.
I'm sure you agree that God doesn't live throughout eternity, or that He stretches to infinity, but that He IS both Infinite and Eternal, right?
In other words; it would be improper to ask: "How big is Infinite, or how much time is in Eternal" because both Infinite and Eternal is outside of time and space. There is nothing, or no "thing" to measure, there is no boarders, so there is nothing to even start measuring.
This is critical, because this establishes Infinite/God as the Only Possible One.
RollTide420 "God may have created some things infinite, but those things exist outside of the confines where the laws of physics apply (this boundary is probably the dome, but that is speculation). However, time exists within that boundary, as I've observed it myself, as have you and everyone else whose ever been alive. My claim then is that time itself is finite and has a beginning, which creates the paradoxes which disprove atheism. (I'm aware you aren't atheist, I was debating your premise, not your conclusion).
Yes again, we agree, but not that God "may have created somethings Infinite and Eternal" because that would be God, and He cannot create another Himself, or another Infinite/Eternal. One is all that is possible.
What God can and did create is Angels, and Spirits that do live eternally, the First of this was His Only Begotten Son Word. And as you said, man was created to live forever too, only he fell, sinned, brought time upon himself, a countdown to his death.
Only God 'IS' Infinite and Eternal, the rest of His creation can only "live forever" according to Gods will. In other words, everything, and everyone outside of God can be subject to time, like Adam and Eve were to live forever in eternity, but because they sinned, they were sentenced to death, this is when time counts, and man oh man I feel it clicking.
Otherwise, like when we're in Heaven with God, why count time since we are assured to live forever, tight? We could I guess, but why? I don't believe time is some entity, or something real. In Heaven, if we chose we all could invent our own time I guess, like a clock that clicks one digit every thousand years. The thing is, since there will be no more sun, nor moon, how would you know what length a thousand year is? Hmm, .. it would be almost senseless to make a timepiece, what would we set it to? What would it keep?
God bless you, love to hear more for sure!
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.
This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.
I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.
Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.
What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.
This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.
I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.
Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.
What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
"The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing." ????? I think you mean the opposite. Distinctions were made. It's called a caste system. Maybe it doesn't fit your definition, but here is the best one on the internet: any class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially distinct. Israel had castes.
No I never said all religions were bad (even if I meant it). I meant that as an actor upon the modern world and history religion has made a bad net contribution. Let's not name call bad organizations do you really want to bring up the kkk, crusades etc. And if you are thinking "the KKK? That's not true Christianity", then none of the countries you chose are true Atheism.
My basis is that it results in misinformed decisions, and it needlessly draws manpower and money. Huh, ironic isn't. You know that the bible criticizes social hierarchy and the needy, but if those who followed it (specifically Catholics) just sold their 8 billion dollars worth of church assets, and then gave that money to the UN, we would be almost 1/3 closer to the end of world hunger. Or maybe the UN would just use the money to make better photoshopped images of earth.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
You know, growing up going to various church denominations I heard quite a lot about this original sin, and how we were all just the victims of what Adam and Eve did. Then I actually did read the Bible, cover to cover and couldn't find a thing about it. I then read it cover to cover 4 more times making a total of 5 times and I'm currently going through number six and I still haven't found it. I've read verses such as Romans 3:23 which say that everyone has sinned, not just Adam and Eve. I've even seen where it says they introduced sin by being the first to commit it. But nowhere does it say that people are guilty of sin before they ever do something wrong of their own accord, which is what "doctrine of original sin" claims. Just because most churches teach something doesn't make it Biblical. There are many examples of things churches teach which are unbiblical, such as the Sabbath being on Sunday, Christmas, Easter, and original sin.
With that being said I do recall reading the human sacrifice you refer to, which was needed to cover OUR OWN sins, not someone else's original sin. I also remember reading about how Yahweh himself took on the ugly task of being the victim of said sacrifice ( You yourself equated Christ to Yahweh), instead of forcing someone else to be the victim, and how he forbids human sacrifice in all other situations except for that single exception. You seem to not be understanding the nature of exceptions, and the exception he made regarding human sacrifice that you mentioned is easily justified by the fact that he himself chose to be the victim. Also you refer to a murder weapon, could you please clarify who the victim and who the perpetrator of this murder was?
Actually I haven't changed my tune at all and there is nothing contradictory about "spirit bodies" and "coming back." Coming back refers to the location we will be in while spirit bodies refers to the bodies we will have. In saying we will come back I'm stating that eternity will take place where we are now, not some far away land or other dimension. The fact that we'll have bodies which can defy the laws of physics and are in that sense be not physical doesn't contradict the idea that it will all come back to the place we are at now.
Also, you say "by my religion your spirit never leaves." And how do you know that that is what my religion teaches. Could you please state my what my religion is and where you got your information regarding what we believe? The bible doesn't say your body never leaves and that your spirit body just leaves its mortal coil, nor does the church I attend teach that so your statement that my religion teaches that was made out of pure IGNORANCE. Some churches may teach it but it can't be found in the Bible and developed out of Greek ideas that influenced early Christians. I'm starting to wonder whether or not you've actually read the Bible or are just attributing ideas to it based on 2nd hand accounts from people you know that have read it.
My explanation for Ecclesiastes 12:7 is that spirits are not immortal, but that we die, fully lose consciousness, and our spirits are brought back at a later time by God.
How exactly are you harmed if your brought back exactly as you are now? Doesn't harmed mean that you're worse off than you are now? Also you say I have no morals because of the Bible. Could we please stick to intelligent arguments and avoid fallacies such as ad hominem? You also claim I wouldn't put my self in harms way to protect innocents. Could we please stick to facts instead of assumptions made on pure speculation, as you have never met me and have absolutely know way of knowing how I would react in such a situation. You don't know what you are talking about, and by pretending you know a person you met online yesterday that intimately is ignorance in its finest form.
I stop at red lights and go to the doctor because I have value given by god and therefore it is wrong for me to kill anyone including myself without just cause. There is nothing wrong with self-preservation to an extent and I never said I couldn't understand why you wouldn't want to die. What I said was your belief that death is unjustifiable rests on an a priori assumption that there is no afterlife.
Actually its not for what you did in the span of a hundred years. You seem to have missed the part where I stated that their ultimate choice of right and wrong didn't come until after the resurrection, and how only believer are judged for this lifetime. Here it is for reference
Its not just what they did ,but the level understanding they had when they did it that merits the punishment. My claim was not until after someone has the holy spirit and fully understands who God is and understands the consequences of sin chooses to still be evil, then they will be punished, not people who did bad things when they lacked understanding in this lifetime.
It's not morally wrong to be a slave. The institution itself is morally wrong, not the victims of it. Also everyone is a slave, either to sin or to righteousness. By serving God, you can escape to crueler bondage of sin.
Furthermore, I never said the incestual rape incident was ok, in fact my exact words were
Also the verse you reference uses the term young girl in some translations and virgins un other, as the Hebrew word can mean either. Also, even if the girls mentioned were young it doesn't say you can immediately have sex with them when if they're pre-pubescent. It just permits them to marry women from nations they war with as long as those women are virgins.
Actually life didn't always exist at all, and it had no value whatsoever prior to its existence, as value requires existence. When God created humans, he created them with value, and since life has had that value since it was created, it is inherent or intrinsic, as it never existed without value, the only time it lacked value was prior to its existence.
First off I never said he COULDN'T do anything about it, I said he CHOSE NOT TO, because he wanted us to be truly free agents, not robots. As I stated, he allowed this world to become an evil world after mankind did evil, and the evils you refer to are part of living in an evil world. Its all temporary and necessary for an adequate understanding of what evil is, so that we do not reintroduce it in the world to come. I know what all powerful means, and never said he couldn't stop evil. Temporarily allowing evil to give us full understanding of the nature of evil was a logical way of creating free will agents who choose to do good. Atheists love to complain about how God shouldn't force his way on them or shouldn't expect them to just accept what he says, but when he gives them the free will to disobey and introduces evil into the world to show them, instead of simply telling them, what the problem is, and you complain about that too? So should God have forced us to accept his way without any reason why, or should he have shown us why before allowing us into his eternal kingdom?
First, the dieties may have been part human but not fully. Most ancient polytheist viewed the God's as a separate race from mankind, and so a diety could be part human and part diety, but not fully human and fully diety, as Christ is described in the Bible.
Second, not all religions have dealt with persecution for spreading their religion. In the ancient world the norm was that when a nation conquered another nation, they adopted the pantheon of the conquered nation into their own. With the exception of the Jews, whose religion prohibited them from worshiping other Gods, the religions of the ancient world were pretty compatible with each other. Many of the dieties on different pantheons were fused. Nobody cared if you worshipped your own God's, as long as you worshipped theirs too. So if all religions have dealt with persecution, what time period was this for polytheistic religions of ancient Babylon?
Third, have you actually done research into this topic, or did NatGeo tell you that the Gospels were oral accounts written many years after and so now you know its true? I wrote a 10 page paper regarding the authorship, relationship and dating of the synoptic Gospel in college so I spent quite some time researching this topic, so I'm well aware that many scholars believe them to be oral accounts written after, but there main reason for believing. This is that the destruction of the temple is mentioned, which didn't happen until 70AD, which is when the scholars in whom you have blindly placed your faith in, date Mark, as the destruction couldn't have been known of before it happened. The problem with this is it COULD have been known of before it happened, and the idea that it couldn't is based on throwing out the Bible a priori, as the Bible states claims its ability to predict the future.
Furthermore, the reason I specifically mentioned Paul's letter's being authenticated is because 7 of them have been confirmed beyond any question to have been written by Paul. So we do have at least one person who claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and who was willing to die for a cause that he once persecuted, whose letters have been undeniably confirmed by scholars.
You seem to misunderstand what death is. De is to life, what cold is to heat. Cold is not really its own thing, its merely the lack of heat. Likewise, death is not its own thing, it is merely the lack of life. Since God is the source of life, separation from God naturally leads to death. Since sin separates us from God, sin leads to death. Getting mad at God for death is like if someone gives you a jug of water, you refuse to drink, but then blame the water for the fact that you are going to thirst to death.
Yes I'm well aware that words mean something different, have you bothered to look this verses meaning up in Greek? You don't have to answer that because I know you haven't. The reason I know you haven't is because there is no verb found in that verse which would possibly be construed as a reference to any form of violence or contention. The word translated as strife in some translations is "a sword" which is a noun that could metaphorically refer to these things, and a sword is the wording I addressed previously, since its the actual wording used.
Strife isn't an exception to peace? May I invite to look the word exception up in a dictionary?
The things we must undergo before receiving our reward are to show us what we don't want in the world to come. Instead of just saying "evil sucks, don't introduce it," he let us see for ourselves how bad it sucks. I like to be shown why I should believe something, but if you would prefer to blindly accept things, that's your business.
Clearly condemns what? I said some things are ok for people in certain positions but not others, and are you seriously going to tell me there is no difference in a private giving an order, versus a sergeant giving one? And when did I indicate that we should emulate others?
Yes, because violence is the use of physical force. The use of physical force is sometimes justified. Can you really not see the difference between killing in self-defense and killing out of anger? Killing in self-defense is still violence but it is justified violence. Its wrong to kill someone WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, but it is not wrong to kill someone in any circumstances. You really seem to not understand what an exception is. The Hebrew had separate words for killing (takin life) and murder (taking life wrongfully). The commandments in the Bible use the Hebrew word for murder, not killing. The American legal system today, as well as most legal systems around the world make this same distinction, and it amazes me that you can't seem too. Violence may come from true Christians because violence is not ALWAYS wrong, but unjustified violence should not be coming from true Christian.
Actually I acknowledge the things you consider bad, I just don't consider them bad. Sometimes part of maintaining peace is getting rid of those who refuse to be peaceful. If violence is never justified, then how do we prevent the rule-breakers from engaging in violence? If everyone were peaceful, peace would always work. But everyone is not peaceful, so peace doesn't always work. God wants a world where it will, so as a general practice he promotes peace among his people, but he made exceptions because in an unpeaceful world, your ability to maintain existence might depend on you acting unpeacefully as a temporary means of survival (as a culture or as an individual).
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
Actually children are born violent tendencies, they simply lack the strength to do anything with them. However, as they grow they have to be taught not to hit, not to be selfish and to play nice. In fact one of the parents not being present when a child is raised can be demonstrably shown to have a clear correlation to violent tendencies through data gathered by criminologists.
Religions however cannot be shown to play anywhere near as large of a role. When the Bible started to be produced in many languages during the 1600's, what followed was an increase in political equality, charity became more popular, rape came to be viewed in a far more negative light than it had prior, and slavery finally came to an end for the first time in recorded history, all in Christianized societies.
How have attempts at atheistic societies gone? PPeople marching around France with heads on sticks, people starving to death in North Korea and the Soviet Union, and overwhelming numbers of Cubans fleeing to America to escape. China came out the best, although they still have a terrible human rights record, and also the Chinese government operates churches so they can't really be said to be atheistic any more like they were in the Cold War era.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was by accident, I was having technical difficulties.
A penal code to the system of crimes and their respective punishment. Within the list of crimes and their respective punishments in the Bible, no distinction is made based on social class. Please point me to the place in the Bible where you found a different punishment listed for a crime if its committed by a Levi'im as opposed to an Israelites. There are several groups of people in the United States who are perceived as socially distinct. Is the United States a caste system?
So do you mean it or not? You could probably make your point better if your stance wasn't ambiguous.
Also, I acknowledged that those examples were not proof that all atheists are bad and brought them up to address your points that I hadn't said anything against atheism, while also claiming that religion is bad based on your observation that religious societies to bad things. I made that argument to compare to the argument that you were making to show that it was fallacious, and if you agree that that is a bad argument, then what is it that proves religion is what causes the problems in society?
I have admitted that some religion is bad and am the first to admit that the Catholic Church as an institution is corrupt. But some religion has a net positive effect. Religion is not a single entity that can just be jumbled together to have a single effect.
Also, what good is giving money to the UN going to do? What have they done to solve our problems. Between violating counties' national sovereignty and forcing treaties on warring countries that don't address the underlying issues that resulted in war, resulting in years of an artificial peace where tensions built and built until war eventually broke out, only to be ended by another treaty that doesn't address the underlying issues. What great peace the UN has brought to the Middle East. Israel and Palestine haven't been at war since the early 90's. What a great job the UN did keeping that peace and addressing those issues! Israel is such a peaceful place, right? (sarcasm intended)
Also, the UN wouldn't need to photoshop pictures of Earth because they don't claim to take them, NASA does.
You keep saying religious people are "misinformed, yet you have yet to address a single piece of my argument regarding the proof that God exists. So are you going to tell me why I'm wrong? Or are you just going to keep saying religious people are misinformed, and not backing it up? Here it is for the 3rd time.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, in regard to your point about infinity, I understand the difference between "infinite" and "going into infinity", but I don't see the difference in infinite and infinity themselves except one is an adjective and the other is a noun. Also, I wouldn't say infinite and God are the same in meaning, although I will agree that God is the only being which is infinite, or in other words he is the only being which possesses that quality.
In fact this is an important point I've made. If there were two beings of infinite power, then one could limit the others power. If you said he can't that would be a limit and therefore he isn't infinite. But if you say he can, then the other isn't infinite. We have a paradox, and so there can only be one infinite.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't need to prove anything, as I made no statement regarding what I would do, you did. I haven't died saving children because I've never been in a situation where children were being killed Also, I've made no statements regarding what I you would do, so I've made no statement that needs defending here. You however have. You made the comment, so the burden of evidence here is on you. If you honestly believe you know what I would do, having not met me then you are displaying a level of ignorance that doesn't belong in any sort of an intelligent debate. If you can't stick to facts and evidence, then your point is wrong. You cannot prove your statement, therefore you have no proof whatsoever of any point you were trying to get across with it. You statements regarding what I would do in any given situation is pure speculation and in the world of logic, pure speculation is the equivalent to bulls***. By assuming that much without anything to back it up you showcase your ignorance.
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have made a statement on what you didn't do, and shown proof that you haven't done it. Saving children is just the example I used, it really doesn't matter what you use to die, you have been (like all adults) in or around situations where you could have attempted to protect people, and you didn't. You've admitted you don't trust yahweh, but instead go to the doctor. This is evidence to back up of your lack of faith. If you had intelligence you could see this, but all you have is ignorance. But hey I'd rather have an ignorant theist, than a fundamentalist any day of the week. The further you distance yourself from your religion the better of a person you become, so good job.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again if you talk s*** don't cry when I retire fire. Go have a look at how I made @Erfisflat cry after he started in with the insults and ridicule. So here is your false dichotomy for the sake of smack talk. Either you stop with the ad hominem then you have a case to say something about my ad hominem, OR you continue with the ad hominem and don't cry when I make you look like a fool. Any questions?
  Considerate: 17%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
How old are you?
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ah the ad hominem by proxy isn't ad hominem angle. I don't see that very often. Sound really complicated. I name call your statement, rather than you then I don't have to take responsibility for attacking your character... man that's a super difficult thing to figure out. Let me try it. Your statements sound like they come from a 3 year old. ooo I like it, and by doing it this way it's not ad hominem? Why isn't everyone doing this, you can be as mean as you like and never take any blame for it? /sarcasm off
Look dude, you lie to yourself all you like, I mean theist eat and breath that s***, but don't peddle it to me, and expect me to buy it. You aren't fooling anyone with the ad hominem by proxy.
I'm 45. There is a picture of my by my last name, had you spent have a second thinking you could have gotten a close answer yourself, but you don't think so good do you? It's not an ad hominem to say that though because you've show that you do not have adequate intelligence... like I do. (you know the by proxy stuff is SO tough to do...) Look logic and intelligence aren't your strong suit, that's why you're a theist, but of course because of the dunning-kruger effect you don't see it yourself. (you know because you've show you don't have adequate intelligence)
Smack talk all you want, I can make you look like a fool if with facts, or like this. Pick your poison.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 6%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.therealafrican.com/2017/07/ancient-confession-found-we-invented-jesus-christ-to-brainwash-and-dominate-africans/
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 15%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra