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.

Anyone is unlikely to prove the existence of a god. But almost everyone believes that God exists, because sometimes we have to believe that something invisible really exists. For example, water is invisible and not formed, but it really exists. also god is invisible and shapeless but really there. and I believe it.

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.

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?

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.


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 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!

^^^ 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.

The thing that shouts "God" in these 3, is complexity. Man designs things using complexity. The fact that man is even greater complexity, and that man is able to reason, shows that the designer of man understands that kind of complexity thoroughly. That is what God is all about... a greater than man, man-like (in some ways) Being. Certainly the clarity of what God is all about does not exist. But throwing out the fact of His existence just because we don't understand all about Him, is totally against science.

...or the Earth is actually a flat and motionless plane and it's really the globe and globalism that's a massive stinking pile of shit.

You smell like shit BTW, you should do something about it.

If you were starving to death, you might sell yourself into voluntary slavery just to get some food so you wouldn't die.

Consider the IRS. Voluntary compliance. Just another way of saying voluntary limited slavery.

Immortality is already technically possible by plugin ones head onto new healthy body every 100 years or so.

You can google "Sergio Canavero" or "Valery Spiridonov" for more technical details.
Whether it will become popular or widespread in the future remains an open question due to various moral and cultural implications.

A false assertion.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

See this excellent essay on this topic by John C. Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/


Also untrue. We lack any form of viable replacement. Without religion all that exists are arbitrary beliefs. Subjective choices not grounded in objective reality. This was highlighted well by an earlier poster.

For someone who claims to dislike the liberal SJW movement you sure sound a lot like them. Your statement about the founding fathers is misleading and no I do not approve of slavery.

The founding fathers were great men but they were still men and living in a society they inherited. That society was full of men and evil. As a group their actions were consistent with a desire to restrict slavery to keep it from spreading with the long term goal of eliminating it. This was well highlighted by Abraham Lincoln who finishing the job of cutting out the cancer.

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137647715/weekly-standard-founding-fathers-opposed-slavery

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, but referred only to "persons held to service." "Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution," said Lincoln, "just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time." The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.



Agreed that is why the US constitution invests the power to declare war not in the presidency but in congress. Another smart move by the founding fathers.

Dangerously congress has started to neglect it's duties in recent years and allowed the executive branch to engage in combat operations aka war without its approval. That is unconstitutional but a manifestation of corruption in the US government and the failure of the legislature to fulfill its duties.


The protest you highlight are just another manifestation of the human desire to use violence and power to force conformity to ones beliefs. Having proclaimed their the "truths" of microaggression, hate speech, racism, etcetera as a highest moral cause it is not at all surprising that attempts are then made to capture the mechanism of governance be it university administration or city governance and use violence or even better state sanctioned violence to eliminate the their ideological opposition.

Its not really all that different then your own desires to brand your own ideological opponents as criminals and use the might of the state against them. Different truth same fundamental motivation.

quickscammer has over twelve thousand posts just on their so named account:


yet manages to post on other UID's ~ 5% of the total number of QS' post count just on this one UID:


(I gave QS Red Paint ^TM before even Vod did...)

---

Tomatocage is just Butt Hurt ^TM and went offline when I made comment concerning his alts - (only infrequently returning)

If nothing else, their prolonged absence should be reason enough for their removal from DT.  (no really)

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

On the other note, there is a fine line between talking to yourself and praying.  Both are mental disorders, IMHO.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem.  When facts are not being used to argue your position you end up with a dogma that is not supported by anything but who screams the loudest.

Not just higher education has been hijacked, the same thing is happening in high-schools.  Very sad.  It does not bode well for the future.

Am quoting mdayonliner, but my question is directed towards Astargath


I only have Tomatocage removed from my trust list and this is what I see:



But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

You didn't look at the major benefit of cancer? You didn't look at what trophoblast does in the human system? When the embryo comes out of the fallopian tube into the uterus, it has to find a way to attach to the uterine wall. Part of the embryo becomes cancerous, and eats into the uterus. Then, at just the right time, the pancreas of the new fetus becomes active, and controls the cancer, turning it into the placenta.

In other words, without cancer, there wouldn't be any mammalian life on earth, and maybe no life at all.

The answer about cancer I just gave you is very simple. Yet it is way more complex than something as simple as "yes" or "no." Forget your simple y or n answer. Look at the answer that I gave, and realize that the universe is complex beyond belief. That's why Jesus did the difficult work for us, because we couldn't do it for ourselves because of the complexity involved. Because of Jesus, the only thing we need to do is believe.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

That's what I'm talking about, you should ignore untrusted feedback until it is trusted, if you are tagging people with the knowledge of that your feedback
Has weight on people's reputation, if you are not listening to reason when you are called out, you are not to be trusted. I called you out to ask your opinion.
What do you think about mprep action in this case? if you think leaving retaliatory feedback is wrong, say it. if you refuse to speak, then you will face the
Same situation someday and nobody would trust your words then.


OK I will stop trolling. you want to know my opinion on this? retaliatory feedback is wrong. if you know it, you should tell that to mprep, let him read your opinion, let him know what you think. refuse to talk and I will confront you next time when you are judging others.


This is me being a man. @mprep, I believe retaliatory feedback, positive feedback to complement each other back and forth is wrong. I also believe they
Are on to you, OP could be a bought account because his email was reset recently. they want you gone and they have the support. reconsider everything you have done and edit sent feedback if necessary. if you think you have made a mistake, correct it.

This is me weighing other factors, my support for him for whatever good he has done for this community. now if anybody else is reading here, facking be a man and speak.

First of...a person would want to be immortal.

The question is, is that a wise desicion? Seeing all your friends and relatives dies off while you live on forever?

Thats is if you want to and they do not. I can only imagine what living forever does to the brain too.

I think there will be a time the human mind will be able to be transferred into a computer like brain that will allow a person to
continue existance forever.

On my end, I think a person should allow nature to take its course and when dead to move on into the spirit world as God intended.

Then again to each his own.

I'm don't trust all DT members... being in DT1 just means Theymos trusts you - it doesn't mean you are a trustworthy and moral person...