^^^ There are many translations of that passage (Job 37:18), I chose the NIV version because it references the colour and the fact it's a mirror.
If I claim to have a heart of gold are you going to call me out because it's mussel tissue you absolute faggot? Learn to reading comprehension; the passage is clearly making a comparison.
If those passages were so clear you wouldn't have 100 different translations, was god not smart enough to leave no room for interpretation? Also, how come most religious people do not believe in a flat earth? Don't you see your delusion? But hey, if it's a mirror, it should be really easy to prove, a telescope or a rocket and a camera can easily prove it. ^^^ I've proven the Earth is motionless using physical experiments already on the books (Michaelson & Morley, Airy, Sagnac and Dufour & Prunier) and it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the globe and heliocentric model are physically impossible.
If you want photographs of the dome go ask the US military as they took plenty during Operation Fishbowl; my cellphone camera with its LED flash just isn't up to the task. Another way abybody can know there's a mirrored dome is by looking at rainbows, they can't form without a mirror and their curvature proves the mirror is concave.
So there are always indirect ways to check it but never direct, I don't see how hard it is to photograph a mirror or prove its existence directly. Why do I have to ask the military lol. And for fucks sake, learn how a rainbow works, my god, don't you have google? https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/rainbow2.htmI call bullshit faggot! If what this (((MSM))) propaganda outlet says is true then there should be some kind of proof the theory they're promoting is true. Since I'm a Google imbecile show me some examples of a rainbow being created indoors under artificial light with nothing but water droplets, no mirrors, no sunlight/daylight, because I can't fucking find any.  How do you expect to reproduce those conditions indoors? [2]It would be extremely hard just to get a bright enough light without, I don't know, burning your house down? [3]If your claim is that we live surrounded by a fucking huge mirror dome, go ahead and fucking prove it, such an outrageous claim would have extremely evident proof. [4]Send a rocket to hit the top of the dome with a camera or go to the edge with a plane where you don't need to fly too high to encounter the supposed dome.
1.
CLAIM: "When white sunlight hits a collection of raindrops at a fairly low angle, you can see the component colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet -- a rainbow." Source: https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/rainbow2.htm --> https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/rainbow-raindrop.jpg
Archive: http://archive.is/MfepYConditions needed to reproduce CLAIM indoors: a) White light @ 10,000 lumens. b) Water droplet.
2.
Your claim that it's hard to get a bright enough light indoors without involving the fire department is demonstrably false. EXAMPLE:  Source: eBay.
3.
The fact rainbows require a reflective surface to be produced is "extremely evident proof" of a giant mirror. PROOF:  Source: http://onetimethrough.com/how-to-make-rainbows-at-home/ --> http://onetimethrough.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Mirrors-in-Water-Make-Rainbows.jpg
http://archive.is/Vppji
4.
How the fuck does a burger flipping goyim slave ever hope to build/buy a rocket and launch it 3,000 miles into the sky? Also, what about the fact the air gets so thin at around 1,000 miles that only a giant balloon could hold up a few pounds at that altitude. Rockets don't work beyond a certain altitude as there's nothing to push against but air that's too thin to hold up a multi-ton object.
CONCLUSION:
Those claiming to be Jews control all major media propaganda sources such as (((science.howstuffworks.com))) and use it to promote and support their lies. "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." -- Revelation 2:9You need sunlight to create a rainbow outdoors, no one said anything about 10.000 lumens, you just made that up. 3. The fact that there is no physical or photographic evidence of a fucking huge mirror above our heads for thousands of years is proof it probably isn't there you knucklehead. 4. There are hundreds of rocket launches, they never hit the mirror. |
|
|
|
I think, there are some reasons why people are religious but don't believe in God. 1. Ignorance. For some people it's very hard just to think about it. They were told that God existed and they had to go to church or mosque for praying or something like that. And that's all. They can't even make an effort to make their brain work and realize that God is working and showing Himself in nature all around them. 2. Weakness. Nobody easily accepts the fact that they will die someday and it will be the very end for them in this life. So, they don't look for a life after the death in the Heaven or in the Hell. Also, everyone encounters with problems and not everyone can solve them. Some people think that praying, going to church or something like that will miraculously help them. Sometimes such religion works like a placebo. But a strong or, at least, clever person clearly understands that even he, himself, cannot help himself, and the One his life depends on is God, alone... not he, himself, or even other people. Everybody should understand it - nobody, but only God rules your life through cause and effect. 3. Hypocrisy. Some people don't do bad things only because they are afraid of God's punishment. Some people do good things just because they wait for be awarded by God. But many others realize that the only reason why they make good things, is because God "wrote" His laws in their hearts, and confirmed them in religious books, especially the Bible. And all you need for not doing bad things is your conscience and moral rules that God wrote in your heart starting with Adam, the first man He made, and handed down through procreation to all people, in their hearts and minds. But certainly not the rules that were written by people in governments, starting today, and going back to antiquity. 4. Indoctrination. People are born into religion of their parents. Religion is taught to them since birth. Culture and religion build a worldview that is unshakable for most people. Only intellectually strong individuals can break the chain, think for themselves and destroy the good morals taught by their parents and religion in the world, and start to follow the evil religion of their own imagination, and of the imaginations of others who think the same way they do.  1. Hiding in the bushes, right? God shows himself on the parts of the bushes that we can see. Now that we have microscopes, we can see more of God in the parts of the bushes that were hidden before we had microscopes to see them. There are still some parts of God hidden in the parts of the bushes that microscopes are not powerful enough to reveal to us. To unbelievers, God is hidden everywhere. At the judgment, He will force them to see Him.
2. If god rules my life then I should not be held accountable for any of my actions
He rules your life according to the strength of your faith in Him, in which faith He allows you to exercise some free will. Every living person has some faith in God, even if they don't know it... just to remain alive.
3. ''God "wrote" His laws in their hearts, and confirmed them in religious books'' God confirms that killing someone in the sabbath is ok, that's not on my mind. God confirms slavery is ok, that's not on my mind either. You sure about this badecker?
God being the Owner of everything has the right to do with His property whatever He wishes. You, being an unbeliever, act like you know what God's wishes are, but you really don't.
4. Or start by acknowledging that slavery is wrong or discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.
Since God set down freedom for people to act in good ways, and then He told the people that homosexuality and forced slavery is wrong, He is right in making such rules and laws, because He set everything up, and He owns everything. He has the absolute right to do with everything that which He wishes to do, because He owns it all. You, on the other hand, would attempt to take God's property away from Him, even if that property is simply to follow His laws that He has the right to make. God offers you some freedom for now. But ultimately, you will lose all freedom that is of any importance... if you don't turn to Jesus salvation in faith. 1. garbage 2. makes no sense 3. ''act like you know what God's wishes are, but you really don't.'' You claimed this: ''God "wrote" His laws in their hearts, and confirmed them in religious books'' You said god wrote his laws in our hearts yet we all know slavery or discrimination against homosexuals is wrong and yet the bible does not. 4. God, as you claim only leaves us with a really small amount of free will. ''in which faith He allows you to exercise some free will'' Therefore someone being gay is something he didn't choose, it was all written by god. Now if you really think that just because you ''own'' something you can do whatever you want with it, you are deeply misguided and have 0 morals. We don't allow people to kill their dogs or children just because they ''own'' them, didn't your parents teach you anything? You might be a psychopath. |
|
|
|
I think, there are some reasons why people are religious but don't believe in God. 1. Ignorance. For some people it's very hard just to think about it. They were told that God existed and they had to go to church or mosque for praying or something like that. And that's all. They can't even make an effort to make their brain work and realize that God is working and showing Himself in nature all around them. 2. Weakness. Nobody easily accepts the fact that they will die someday and it will be the very end for them in this life. So, they don't look for a life after the death in the Heaven or in the Hell. Also, everyone encounters with problems and not everyone can solve them. Some people think that praying, going to church or something like that will miraculously help them. Sometimes such religion works like a placebo. But a strong or, at least, clever person clearly understands that even he, himself, cannot help himself, and the One his life depends on is God, alone... not he, himself, or even other people. Everybody should understand it - nobody, but only God rules your life through cause and effect. 3. Hypocrisy. Some people don't do bad things only because they are afraid of God's punishment. Some people do good things just because they wait for be awarded by God. But many others realize that the only reason why they make good things, is because God "wrote" His laws in their hearts, and confirmed them in religious books, especially the Bible. And all you need for not doing bad things is your conscience and moral rules that God wrote in your heart starting with Adam, the first man He made, and handed down through procreation to all people, in their hearts and minds. But certainly not the rules that were written by people in governments, starting today, and going back to antiquity. 4. Indoctrination. People are born into religion of their parents. Religion is taught to them since birth. Culture and religion build a worldview that is unshakable for most people. Only intellectually strong individuals can break the chain, think for themselves and destroy the good morals taught by their parents and religion in the world, and start to follow the evil religion of their own imagination, and of the imaginations of others who think the same way they do. 1. Hiding in the bushes, right? 2. If god rules my life then I should not be held accountable for any of my actions 3. ''God "wrote" His laws in their hearts, and confirmed them in religious books'' God confirms that killing someone in the sabbath is ok, that's not on my mind. God confirms slavery is ok, that's not on my mind either. You sure about this badecker? 4. Or start by acknowledging that slavery is wrong or discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. |
|
|
|
^^^ There are many translations of that passage (Job 37:18), I chose the NIV version because it references the colour and the fact it's a mirror.
If I claim to have a heart of gold are you going to call me out because it's mussel tissue you absolute faggot? Learn to reading comprehension; the passage is clearly making a comparison.
If those passages were so clear you wouldn't have 100 different translations, was god not smart enough to leave no room for interpretation? Also, how come most religious people do not believe in a flat earth? Don't you see your delusion? But hey, if it's a mirror, it should be really easy to prove, a telescope or a rocket and a camera can easily prove it. ^^^ I've proven the Earth is motionless using physical experiments already on the books (Michaelson & Morley, Airy, Sagnac and Dufour & Prunier) and it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the globe and heliocentric model are physically impossible.
If you want photographs of the dome go ask the US military as they took plenty during Operation Fishbowl; my cellphone camera with its LED flash just isn't up to the task. Another way abybody can know there's a mirrored dome is by looking at rainbows, they can't form without a mirror and their curvature proves the mirror is concave.
So there are always indirect ways to check it but never direct, I don't see how hard it is to photograph a mirror or prove its existence directly. Why do I have to ask the military lol. And for fucks sake, learn how a rainbow works, my god, don't you have google? https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/rainbow2.htmI call bullshit faggot! If what this (((MSM))) propaganda outlet says is true then there should be some kind of proof the theory they're promoting is true. Since I'm a Google imbecile show me some examples of a rainbow being created indoors under artificial light with nothing but water droplets, no mirrors, no sunlight/daylight, because I can't fucking find any. How do you expect to reproduce those conditions indoors? It would be extremely hard just to get a bright enough light without, I don't know, burning your house down? If your claim is that we live surrounded by a fucking huge mirror dome, go ahead and fucking prove it, such an outrageous claim would have extremely evident proof. Send a rocket to hit the top of the dome with a camera or go to the edge with a plane where you don't need to fly too high to encounter the supposed dome. |
|
|
|
^^^ There are many translations of that passage (Job 37:18), I chose the NIV version because it references the colour and the fact it's a mirror.
If I claim to have a heart of gold are you going to call me out because it's mussel tissue you absolute faggot? Learn to reading comprehension; the passage is clearly making a comparison.
If those passages were so clear you wouldn't have 100 different translations, was god not smart enough to leave no room for interpretation? Also, how come most religious people do not believe in a flat earth? Don't you see your delusion? But hey, if it's a mirror, it should be really easy to prove, a telescope or a rocket and a camera can easily prove it. ^^^ I've proven the Earth is motionless using physical experiments already on the books (Michaelson & Morley, Airy, Sagnac and Dufour & Prunier) and it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the globe and heliocentric model are physically impossible.
If you want photographs of the dome go ask the US military as they took plenty during Operation Fishbowl; my cellphone camera with its LED flash just isn't up to the task. Another way abybody can know there's a mirrored dome is by looking at rainbows, they can't form without a mirror and their curvature proves the mirror is concave.
So there are always indirect ways to check it but never direct, I don't see how hard it is to photograph a mirror or prove its existence directly. Why do I have to ask the military lol. And for fucks sake, learn how a rainbow works, my god, don't you have google? https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/rainbow2.htm |
|
|
|
^^^ There are many translations of that passage (Job 37:18), I chose the NIV version because it references the colour and the fact it's a mirror.
If I claim to have a heart of gold are you going to call me out because it's mussel tissue you absolute faggot? Learn to reading comprehension; the passage is clearly making a comparison.
If those passages were so clear you wouldn't have 100 different translations, was god not smart enough to leave no room for interpretation? Also, how come most religious people do not believe in a flat earth? Don't you see your delusion? But hey, if it's a mirror, it should be really easy to prove, a telescope or a rocket and a camera can easily prove it. |
|
|
|
^^^ I have reason to believe the dome (firmament) is made from a nickel-iron damascus type steel with a reflective crystalline oxide "glass" layer that's gold in colour. The following is a cross-section piece of the dome that fell out of the sky, both the extra-long steel grains and parts of the oxide layer can be seen:  "Can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?" -- Job 37:18 Rofl, you have reason to believe its made of nickel-iron but the passage you quote clearly says bronze, how does that make any sense? You take some things literally and ignore others... Just as Genesis does, the book of Job is speaking metaphorically, for example, windows in the heavens (Gen. 7:11) which wouldn't mean there are literal windows there. ''27 For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his amist in brain,'' You think god himself is making rain? |
|
|
|
From your link above " It has been estimated that tens of thousands of people were executed for witchcraft in Europe and the American colonies over several hundred years. Although it is not possible to ascertain the exact number, modern scholars estimate around 40,000–50,000" 50,000 people dead pretty messed up I agree. Now let's look at the track record of secular atheism. 1) " In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million." How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill? http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789?amp=12) " According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with -- by execution, imprisonment or forced famine." The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murderSo yes 50,000 is a big number but what you seem to be unable to grasp is that this is a drop in the bucket. Religion in the form of Christianity dramatically mitigates the murderous and evil nature of humanity. It does not eliminate it nor are religious institutions free of human evil and corruption. As humanity turned away from God in the 20th century that restraint was lost and the death toll unsurprising climbed from the thousands to the millions. BTW, in the US it is a political suicide to be openly non-religious. How many atheists do you have in your congress?
Talk about under representation, LOL.
We are very fortunate. There is still hope in my opinion that the US can halt its secular decay. People are starting to wake up to the downsides of the secular nihilistic worldview. You keep mentioning the scientific revolution and the secular worldview in the same sentence in an attempt to give credit to the latter that belongs with the former. Those terms are not synonyms and science is entirely compatible with non secular beliefs. You really need to go back to school if you think science is compatible with religion. Science uses the scientific method to discover what is true, religion just states what is true. A big difference. Science discovered that your Christian ideology is wrong by discovering that the Earth is not flat and that Earth is not in the center of the universe, that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as did chimpanzees not from dirt in case of a man and rib bone in case of a woman. Your comparison of atrocities done by Christians to those done by Communists tells me you are scratching the bottom of the barrel for arguments. I hope you are not justifying murders with other murders that will happen in the future. This 'argument' is the same argument Islamists are using to justify atrocities done in the name of their religion. "Look Christians did crusades so why are you singling us out?". That is not a defence. It is like saying to the judge: "Your Honor I killed the lady because my neighbor killed her husband. I am not so bad you see..." Lack of responsibility for the damage religion did in the past and is doing today is appalling. You literally object when I say don't teach children nonsense from the Bible. Not only you object, you think you are justified. Your logic follows the same rationalization the prosecutors of Giordano Bruno followed. Another big difference is that science is evolving, sometimes is wrong and scientists accept that, that's why some scientific theories are changed sometimes almost entirely. On the other hand religion is not evolving, it's the same books as before, there is nothing new to it and theists never EVER will admit they are wrong on ANYTHING. Even though it is proven beyond a doubt that ghosts, demons or witches are not real they still wont admit it. |
|
|
|
I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check. No need to coerce them with religion.
As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.
You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings. That is just childish.
You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children. My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner. The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984. Honestly I don't really know what to say. I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia. In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism. You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. Why can't you answer questions about the Bible? Too close to the foundation of your bubble? Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable. I answered them all. Religion is all about coercion. Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL. Talk about bubbles... The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things. The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does. Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened. Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof. Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible. You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says. Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week. ''The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.'' Well, define ''answers'', you mean claims. I can find a ton of books who answer questions about creation of the universe and life, plenty of gods and supernatural beings are said to be creators of it. I can find books talking about advanced aliens creating us too. Unfortunately just because a book says something, doesn't mean it's true, specially when there is no evidence for it. God creating the universe is not known to have happened - no evidence Thank you for admitting that science doesn't have the answers, and that believers in science are part of their own bubble. The Bible has a miraculous format of existence that I have pointed out to you several times in the past. The Bible is divinely inspired. The other books don't have this. No it doesn't, you claim it does but there is no evidence that the bible is divinely inspired, otherwise the morals and teachings of the bible would be superior and they aren't as we already discussed here many times. |
|
|
|
So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.
You first claim:
''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''
My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.
Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''
Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.
Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.
You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.
Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition. The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL. So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol. ''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence. Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right? You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument. Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man. That makes no sense, you lost. Deal with it like a man. Actually, it is you who make no sense. You accept the dictionary definition that tells yo something, and in the same breath deny the thing that it tells you, all at the same time that you are using the thing that it tells you. Keep it up. At that rate, you will deny yourself right out of existence. A dictionary defines unicorns and minotaurs too, it doesn't mean they are real, are you dumb or are you trolling. You have to prove the existence of the soul, remember? You haven't done that yet. |
|
|
|
So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.
You first claim:
''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''
My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.
Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''
Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.
Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.
You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.
Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition. The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL. So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol. ''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence. Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right? You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument. Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man. That makes no sense, you lost. Deal with it like a man. |
|
|
|
I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check. No need to coerce them with religion.
As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.
You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings. That is just childish.
You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children. My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner. The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984. Honestly I don't really know what to say. I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia. In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism. You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. Why can't you answer questions about the Bible? Too close to the foundation of your bubble? Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable. I answered them all. Religion is all about coercion. Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL. Talk about bubbles... The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things. The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does. Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened. Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof. Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible. You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says. Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week. ''The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.'' Well, define ''answers'', you mean claims. I can find a ton of books who answer questions about creation of the universe and life, plenty of gods and supernatural beings are said to be creators of it. I can find books talking about advanced aliens creating us too. Unfortunately just because a book says something, doesn't mean it's true, specially when there is no evidence for it. God creating the universe is not known to have happened - no evidence |
|
|
|
So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.
You first claim:
''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''
My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.
Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''
Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.
Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.
You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.
Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition. The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL. So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol. ''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence. Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right? You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument. |
|
|
|
So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.
You first claim:
''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''
My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.
Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''
Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.
Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.
You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.
Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition. The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL. So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol. ''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not an expert at this by any means but I am free and I can literally answer questions within 1-2 hours, I can basically be online 24/7. I have seen a lot of campaign managers that take days to respond to the participants. I would always answer at least in the same day.
Quick info about me
- I can be as strict as you need when it comes to accepting participants or reviewing their posts
- You can use an escrow or send the coins/payments yourself
- As I said I can reply very fast (1-2 hours)
- We can negotiate rates, feel free to pm me
Services I can provide
Signature and bounty campaign management including twitter, facebook and youtube.
Requirements
-ANN thread ready
-Website
|
|
|
|
~
His account has solid connection with scammer. ''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.
Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.
I'll quote something which I received in PM recently: Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account. All "users" are connected recently. Do you see this as mistake? Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too. |
|
|
|
it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.
but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.
there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.
Are you sure you are pointing only at me?  i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example. to reiterate: never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly. Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work". i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example. No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now. anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly. Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position? Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did. ''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating. Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it. |
|
|
|
|
So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.
You first claim:
''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''
My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.
Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''
Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.
Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.
You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.
|
|
|
|
~snip~
So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.
So he didn't want us to be unhealthy but he made us unhealthy, so what happened did he fuck up somewhere along the line? Ok I guess another contradiction from you and god is consistent! I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.
If only god was so powerful and smart that he could have made a way for humans to pro-create without the need to involve cancer?
Look around in nature. You don't find handguns anywhere. But you find the materials to make handguns in many places. God didn't make handguns. Mankind did. Same with cancer. The form of cancer that God made wasn't bad, but it was good. Mankind messed his whole life up, and set in place methods for the good that God made to become evil. Cancer is good, but mankind turned it into evil. On top of that, 100% of cancers could be healed using the things of nature and life style changes. But people don't want to know this. They continue to go on their way. I worked with an atheist who got brain cancer. I told him about natural cures. He liked the idea of the doctor and poisoning himself with chemo. So, that's what he did, and he died from it, not from the cancer. So, it was he, himself that did it... not God.
Mildly ironic that what you post as evidence of a creator is much stronger against one and strong evidence of evolution. Also ironic and appreciated btw, that you continue to help illustrate the logical fallacies of an omnipotent creator.
Mildly ironic that you call the proof for God an example of proof for evolution. You hadn't looked at evolution theory? Twisting the proof for God into something that could cause evolution, would make evolution theory millions (trillions?) of times more complex than people could imagine it. Come on. Evolution people are having a hard enough time twisting evolution theory into something that matches reality, without making it millions (trillions?) of times more difficult for them. Show a little compassion! Yeah, I'm sure a baby uses his freedom to give himself cancer or be born with some bad disease, what the fuck are you even talking about lmao. I'm sure that you have never been forced into anything that some other, evil person forced you into. What are you even talking about lmao? Let me say it again so your tiny brain can understand it. You said: ''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.'' I said: it's impossible for a baby or newborn to use his freedom to make himself unhealthy, there is no way for a newborn to give himself down's syndrome or to be born without an arm on purpose. Your argument is retarded. God doesn't make us healthy. Notice that you quoted and even bolded the part that says "we use." The word "we" means us, collectively. Look it up in the dictionary to confirm it to yourself. I wasn't talking like a baby did it to himself. However, we don't understand enough about the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer. Or do you know it for a fact somehow. So we collectively give diseases to babies? ''the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer.'' what the fuck are you even talking about dude, why do you keep making shit up. The bible says nothing about our spirit doing things that we are not aware of and why would a baby give himself cancer. Your delusion is amazing. Badecker arguing on how a baby gives himself cancer, you are batshit crazy mate. Thanks for the explanation of your great Bible knowledge. In your quote of my posting, you forgot the part "we don't understand." So, why do you bring the Bible into it? Everything that you posted has nothing to do with the fact that we don't know that babies aren't responsible for their own health to some extent, via aspects of the soul and spirit that we don't know about. Maybe babies are responsible for their own health to some extent, via their soul and spirit. We don't know. Or do you know? Show us how you know one way or the other if you know. If you don't know, but suggest that I am "batshit crazy" for suggesting that we don't know, you are simply badmouthing me. Are you trolling? Or are you simply envious that I can provide explanations for things that I say, and you can't or won't for the things that you say? Back at the time of Darwin, there were several people who were talking about evolution, like Darwin. Yet, most people in general understood that life came about and progressed through creation. Now you want to suggest that I am "batshit crazy" because I say that we don't know how much the soul and spirit play in the formation of a baby? Scientific people are trying to find out all kinds of science about how the soul and spirit play into the lives of people, and what the soul and spirit really are. Darwin's "batshit crazy" stuff is okay for you. But I am "batshit crazy" when I say that we don't know about something. Sounds like you are a "batshit politician" of some sort. What a nice argument, we don't know therefore you are wrong, astargath. Amazing argument there buddy, then god might not exist because we don't know enough about other dimensions or things outside the universe or even if it's possible to exist ''outside the universe'' check mate. I win. All you are posting is something that has nothing to do with what you or I said previously. The point is, that science being in its infancy, and by direct expression of many of its adherents, is essentially a religion. Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do as well as how they express their feelings about things, and since it is outside the arena of scientific expertise at this time, religion rules. This means that any method we use to affect our health is a religious method. ''Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do'' Rofl, yeah, every scientist says that mate, we all know souls and spirits are real, give me a break, you have 0 evidence for this, stop making shit up. The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit. What the soul and spirit are made up of is the thing that has not been proven. Take a simple automobile for example. A car exists. You can see it. You can handle it one way or another. But you would have to dismantle it and scientifically examine each part to scientifically determine what it was made of. Stating that the car doesn't exist because you haven't dismantled and examined it, shows that you would be in extreme scientific denial. Or take a black hole. We know that something exists that we have dubbed a black hole. Yet we haven't handled or examined even one of them in any way other than to examine electromagnetic radiation disturbances in the BH area. We don't know that our scientific theories about a BH are correct. In the same way, souls and spirits exist, even though we can't scientifically do much in the way of scientifically handling them, yet. Come on out of your denial. ''The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit.'' I don't possibly see how that's proof for soul's existence. There is 0 evidence, scientific or unscientific of the existence of a soul or the spirit. You keep making shit up, again, as usual. Come out of your denial dude, in the same way, the flying spaghetti exists, even tho we have 0 scientific evidence for it, everyone being alive is proof that the flying spaghetti made us, it's obvious, duh. |
|
|
|
~snip~
So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.
So he didn't want us to be unhealthy but he made us unhealthy, so what happened did he fuck up somewhere along the line? Ok I guess another contradiction from you and god is consistent! I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.
If only god was so powerful and smart that he could have made a way for humans to pro-create without the need to involve cancer?
Look around in nature. You don't find handguns anywhere. But you find the materials to make handguns in many places. God didn't make handguns. Mankind did. Same with cancer. The form of cancer that God made wasn't bad, but it was good. Mankind messed his whole life up, and set in place methods for the good that God made to become evil. Cancer is good, but mankind turned it into evil. On top of that, 100% of cancers could be healed using the things of nature and life style changes. But people don't want to know this. They continue to go on their way. I worked with an atheist who got brain cancer. I told him about natural cures. He liked the idea of the doctor and poisoning himself with chemo. So, that's what he did, and he died from it, not from the cancer. So, it was he, himself that did it... not God.
Mildly ironic that what you post as evidence of a creator is much stronger against one and strong evidence of evolution. Also ironic and appreciated btw, that you continue to help illustrate the logical fallacies of an omnipotent creator.
Mildly ironic that you call the proof for God an example of proof for evolution. You hadn't looked at evolution theory? Twisting the proof for God into something that could cause evolution, would make evolution theory millions (trillions?) of times more complex than people could imagine it. Come on. Evolution people are having a hard enough time twisting evolution theory into something that matches reality, without making it millions (trillions?) of times more difficult for them. Show a little compassion! Yeah, I'm sure a baby uses his freedom to give himself cancer or be born with some bad disease, what the fuck are you even talking about lmao. I'm sure that you have never been forced into anything that some other, evil person forced you into. What are you even talking about lmao? Let me say it again so your tiny brain can understand it. You said: ''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.'' I said: it's impossible for a baby or newborn to use his freedom to make himself unhealthy, there is no way for a newborn to give himself down's syndrome or to be born without an arm on purpose. Your argument is retarded. God doesn't make us healthy. Notice that you quoted and even bolded the part that says "we use." The word "we" means us, collectively. Look it up in the dictionary to confirm it to yourself. I wasn't talking like a baby did it to himself. However, we don't understand enough about the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer. Or do you know it for a fact somehow. So we collectively give diseases to babies? ''the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer.'' what the fuck are you even talking about dude, why do you keep making shit up. The bible says nothing about our spirit doing things that we are not aware of and why would a baby give himself cancer. Your delusion is amazing. Badecker arguing on how a baby gives himself cancer, you are batshit crazy mate. Thanks for the explanation of your great Bible knowledge. In your quote of my posting, you forgot the part "we don't understand." So, why do you bring the Bible into it? Everything that you posted has nothing to do with the fact that we don't know that babies aren't responsible for their own health to some extent, via aspects of the soul and spirit that we don't know about. Maybe babies are responsible for their own health to some extent, via their soul and spirit. We don't know. Or do you know? Show us how you know one way or the other if you know. If you don't know, but suggest that I am "batshit crazy" for suggesting that we don't know, you are simply badmouthing me. Are you trolling? Or are you simply envious that I can provide explanations for things that I say, and you can't or won't for the things that you say? Back at the time of Darwin, there were several people who were talking about evolution, like Darwin. Yet, most people in general understood that life came about and progressed through creation. Now you want to suggest that I am "batshit crazy" because I say that we don't know how much the soul and spirit play in the formation of a baby? Scientific people are trying to find out all kinds of science about how the soul and spirit play into the lives of people, and what the soul and spirit really are. Darwin's "batshit crazy" stuff is okay for you. But I am "batshit crazy" when I say that we don't know about something. Sounds like you are a "batshit politician" of some sort. What a nice argument, we don't know therefore you are wrong, astargath. Amazing argument there buddy, then god might not exist because we don't know enough about other dimensions or things outside the universe or even if it's possible to exist ''outside the universe'' check mate. I win. All you are posting is something that has nothing to do with what you or I said previously. The point is, that science being in its infancy, and by direct expression of many of its adherents, is essentially a religion. Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do as well as how they express their feelings about things, and since it is outside the arena of scientific expertise at this time, religion rules. This means that any method we use to affect our health is a religious method. ''Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do'' Rofl, yeah, every scientist says that mate, we all know souls and spirits are real, give me a break, you have 0 evidence for this, stop making shit up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
