We argue against people whose only argument is a 2,000 year old book written by stoners. There has been zero happenings in 2,000 years that they can attribute to their god. (I'm talking all the gods on earth, not just the christian one.)
How can you have logical arguments with the brainwashed?
I haven't been able to tell if you are simply speaking sarcastically, or if you really think that stoners (whatever they are) wrote the Bible. But, if you are serious, consider that the almost 2,000 to 3,500-year-old Bible is one of the most studied books around today. And it isn't only studied by children and mentally retarded. It is studied by some of the greatest debaters around. Consider Ken Ham. Also, many scientists study the Bible. How much more popular does the Bible have to get before people will see that there is something to what this book has to say? If there wasn't any strength to the book, more than any other book, it would have disappeared into antiquity long ago. Consider Plato. Many people read Plato. Some read Plutarch. Some, Socrates, some Aristotle. But these writings, along with many others, fade into obscurity that is virtual invisiblility in the presence of the amount of Bible reading that is done. Part of the thing that atheists are missing is having something that is this strong, strong like the Bible. at the core of ALL scientific writings, there exists the great "IF." "IF" this or that happened, then we would have a universe that started with a Big Bang, one that is 13 or 14 billion years old, one where evolution by random happenstance brought us all into being, etc. Science and atheism have lots of theories, and ideas that are not even theories. But way down deep, the ideas and theories have no strength if they can't be proven. That's what science is all about... the facts. Scientifically we simply don't know many of the scientific things that are expressed in many books as fact. The Bill Nye's of the world know this. They have been debated into the corner on many occasions... if not by Christian debaters, then by their own conscience when seeking the truth. One of the strong things that the Bible has, even if the Bible happens to NOT be truth, is that it states the things that it says as though they are FACT. Even if they are not fact, they state it as such. When you have a book that you can't go out an prove is false, simply because nobody has much of the history of the Bible recorded anywhere else, the best you can do is say that it is improbable or implausible. When you stand this up against the scientific non-fact, that is expressed by the "core" scientists right in their scientific papers, what else can the result be? So, science loses by not being able to prove the things that they say. And the fact that they admit this in their core papers, proves that there is no substance to the science. While the Bible has all kinds of statements, it is from the past. So, until the scientists can virtually prove Bible statements wrong, these Bible statements stand. This is the strength of the Bible. This is the Bible strength where atheist or anti-Bible people and debaters lose.  |
|
|
|
Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants. You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument. So show me! This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with. Go ahead. Make my day  Edit: Here, I'll get you started. Premise 1: (Insert here) Premise 2: (Insert here) Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here) Therefore: Homosexuality is unnatural and bad. All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in! Shouldn't take you long. Easy to do. In fact, I have already done it. Simply go back and read what I have written in my previous posts in this thread. |
|
|
|
You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.
Actually... ...but irrelevant. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. So what if it produces offspring? There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good. For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. Which is it? Unnatural or natural? You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed." Um, no, you can't do that. I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't). Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad." If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself). The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would. The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids. Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children. No problem! That's why they invented the BJ Nobody would argue that a BJ is not designed for having kids. And in fact they usually feel about 130-190% better. Another thing that is wrong, simply because it is not using the things that exist for the use they were made for. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That would never happen short of all of humanity being in a mass hallucination, as science is nothing but observations of the world around us. Meanwhile, a religious person says the sky is pink because their holy book said so That would be one thing if every observer of a scientists writings expressed only what the scientist said. Or if the many non-scientists understood what the scientist meant. But this doesn't happen the majority of the time. Because of this, the atheists are more to be pitied than all other propagandized people. Your desire to be ignorant is entertaining really. You've come up with so many fallacies and nonsense arguments for a god, but are unable to cite a single good source that shows evidence of one, then you say that atheists should be pitied because we blindly take what we hear, even though the scientific evidence has been reviewed by other scientists time and time again. Coming from somebody that thought the Higgs Boson proved god just because of it's nickname, you really don't have room to talk there Keep trying. Or maybe start trying? Sooner or later, if you try hard enough, you will see through the haze of faith in your religion, so that you can finally see the truth. I could sit here all day and dismantle your terrible arguments for a god, but you'll just keep coming up with new ones. You proved with the Higgs Boson you literally do 0 research before spewing out false info. It's really kinda funny that you belittle the person that has proved every thing you've said to me in this thread wrong. Believe what you want, but there is no evidence. Oh, and atheism isn't a religion Again, the strong evidence is found in (among other things) these: 1. There is simply no evidence of anything other than entropy, so how did all this start? 2. We see no evidence of complex machinery without a machine maker, so where did the complex universe machine come from? 3. There is no such thing as pure random, so there is no way that the complex universe could have happened by accident. 4. The fact of consciousness and conscience within people defies all scientific tracking except a very external one. So, when are you going to recognize the evidence and stop parroting the no-evidence idea? Or are you some kind of a political science propagandist? 1: big crunch seems to be the leading theory right now. Lack of knowledge doesn't prove a god 2: fine-tuned universe fallacy 3: makes no sense 4: God of the gaps, and we do understand consciousness on a basic level. Soon we will understand it more C'mon, give me a challenge  See? That's precisely the point. Anybody can simply say that they don't accept what was said somewhere else. If you study the 4 points I made above, you would see God. I understand how that might scare the heck out of you. But heck is just another word for hell, and you would feel a whole lot better with a whole lot less of hell in you. |
|
|
|
I been saying it over and over.. I see god as the ALL SOUL. This could be defined as the universal consciousnous.. I dont believe we have 'seperate' soul's from each other, but that we have a PART of ONE soul, and THAT would be god, and any religion speaking in the name of god that CHOOSE's to grant THEIR member's right's over any other as a cult or sect, like say, freemasonry, rosicrucian, illuminate, judaism, bhuddism, catholic, protestant.. yeah, ya get the idea.. As for those nippy git's who think or make out that when I say I believe in god, means I believe in their's, is to make me understand why so many other religions want them dead. God willing of course Well, even the Bible says that if God were to withdraw His Spirit and breath (another word for spirit), that all mankind would perish together. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That would never happen short of all of humanity being in a mass hallucination, as science is nothing but observations of the world around us. Meanwhile, a religious person says the sky is pink because their holy book said so That would be one thing if every observer of a scientists writings expressed only what the scientist said. Or if the many non-scientists understood what the scientist meant. But this doesn't happen the majority of the time. Because of this, the atheists are more to be pitied than all other propagandized people. Your desire to be ignorant is entertaining really. You've come up with so many fallacies and nonsense arguments for a god, but are unable to cite a single good source that shows evidence of one, then you say that atheists should be pitied because we blindly take what we hear, even though the scientific evidence has been reviewed by other scientists time and time again. Coming from somebody that thought the Higgs Boson proved god just because of it's nickname, you really don't have room to talk there Keep trying. Or maybe start trying? Sooner or later, if you try hard enough, you will see through the haze of faith in your religion, so that you can finally see the truth. I could sit here all day and dismantle your terrible arguments for a god, but you'll just keep coming up with new ones. You proved with the Higgs Boson you literally do 0 research before spewing out false info. It's really kinda funny that you belittle the person that has proved every thing you've said to me in this thread wrong. Believe what you want, but there is no evidence. Oh, and atheism isn't a religion Again, the strong evidence is found in (among other things) these: 1. There is simply no evidence of anything other than entropy, so how did all this start? 2. We see no evidence of complex machinery without a machine maker, so where did the complex universe machine come from? 3. There is no such thing as pure random, so there is no way that the complex universe could have happened by accident. 4. The fact of consciousness and conscience within people defies all scientific tracking except a very external one. So, when are you going to recognize the evidence and stop parroting the no-evidence idea? Or are you some kind of a political science propagandist? |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That would never happen short of all of humanity being in a mass hallucination, as science is nothing but observations of the world around us. Meanwhile, a religious person says the sky is pink because their holy book said so That would be one thing if every observer of a scientists writings expressed only what the scientist said. Or if the many non-scientists understood what the scientist meant. But this doesn't happen the majority of the time. Because of this, the atheists are more to be pitied than all other propagandized people. Your desire to be ignorant is entertaining really. You've come up with so many fallacies and nonsense arguments for a god, but are unable to cite a single good source that shows evidence of one, then you say that atheists should be pitied because we blindly take what we hear, even though the scientific evidence has been reviewed by other scientists time and time again. Coming from somebody that thought the Higgs Boson proved god just because of it's nickname, you really don't have room to talk there Keep trying. Or maybe start trying? Sooner or later, if you try hard enough, you will see through the haze of faith in your religion, so that you can finally see the truth. |
|
|
|
Ah, the old 'kid' attack  pretending he's more of an adult by trying to belittle the people he's arguing with after being defeated by logic and reason. Come on, Lethn. Help me build those people up who have already belittled themselves by expressing their favor for something so naturally perverted as homosexuality. The only way is to show them the light. |
|
|
|
God and 'the light' are 2 seperate entities, one creating the other.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. (Emphasis mine.) Oh boy. Now we have sound added. Or was it the written Word? Nay, but that testimony of "God" termed "Jesus." Does that mean that it was Jesus Who spoke the light into existence? Or was Jesus only the Word that God used to speak light into existence? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Wow! A God guy. Here I was thinking that you were probably an atheist. Or aren't you a guy, but rather a gal? |
|
|
|
You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.
Actually... ...but irrelevant. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. So what if it produces offspring? There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good. For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. Which is it? Unnatural or natural? You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed." Um, no, you can't do that. I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't). Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad." If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself). The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would. The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids. Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children. |
|
|
|
God and 'the light' are 2 seperate entities, one creating the other.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. (Emphasis mine.) Oh boy. Now we have sound added. Or was it the written Word? Nay, but that testimony of "God" termed "Jesus." Does that mean that it was Jesus Who spoke the light into existence? Or was Jesus only the Word that God used to speak light into existence? |
|
|
|
God and 'the light' are 2 seperate entities, one creating the other.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. (Emphasis mine.) Oh boy. Now we have sound added. Or was it the written Word? |
|
|
|
Going to be kinda pointless... Rather ignore this ridiculous idea
Each religion had to start somewhere. Look on the bright side, there's always someone dumb enough to believe. Just look at how many religions are out there and how many "believers" they have. It all starts with someone wanting to start it. Yeah. Especially the religion of atheism, which doesn't even have a readily recognizable god. |
|
|
|
No gift is too big.
Would you accept a billion bitcoin gift? |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. First off, do you read anything that is not in the bible? In particular, my earlier post's that clearly state I am not an athiest? I am a searcher. I have yet to choose. I believe in god, but not YOURS. Mine is superior in that he allows me to show you, your bible is the one that is in fact backwards. I mean c'mon.. God is the light, yet light existed only after how many other event's of actualisation, or day's? You try to belittle me, whenever I come up with a genuine scientific FACT that MAY prove or disprove the existance of god. In that when I speak for god, your right there preaching with me, but when I point out all the things that existed before god, like the WATER god moved over, you call me an athiest? You dont understand the reason people like me dont go to church is not fear of god, but people like you who just wont acknowledge that god's light is staring you in the face, and you deny him? When I said god said to remind them (people like you) that he is the light, all that happened here in my house, is I went to make coffee, and the thought occured to me that if god is the light, then he was created in the 3rd sentence of genesis. The fact he SAW the light prove's he cannot BE the light, for then light would exist. I like these argument's/debates with you, and hhope you can be just as thorough in your defense of god, just dont use the book, cause as I said.. for me to ask you, god must also work through me too, in order to point out these thing's no? What if god really did speak though me to ask you these points personally? It seems, and not only to me, that when things are from the bible, your there, but if it's not the christian bible, then it's crap? Let's try my style without making you cry: Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Fair call, so they say etc.. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Earth (soil/dust) clearly existed, it just had no form, and hence is negated. darkness was on the face of the deep. This state's that the deep reflected darkness on it's face like a mirror. Now here if god was/is the light, he could not, scientifically exist. Note the 'spirit' of god, but NOT god, moved upon the face of the water. Now unless that water was 'contained', it would be spread over so vast a space that scot's mist would be a downpour compared to how fine the water particle's would be.. to move ON the water is to suggest the water was either ICE or CONTAINED. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Proving no light existed previous to the act of the eternal thought that grew in the abyss, which evolved into SOUND. Now, how's about stopping trying to belittle someone with a greater understanding of SCIENCE in this search for YOUR god, that even YOU probably need, just to comprehend that YOUR god answer's to mine? Relax, Decky. You are way ahead of the atheists, simply by recognizing that God exists! Sfunny.. am way ahead of genesis already.. I better put your book away.. just dont be taking anything I say personally.. But I did get ya all with the light.. No, Decky. All it proves is that you can read and think some. I realize how hard it is to hold a lot of thoughts together at the same time, and try to juggle where they fit. Keep trying, though. You just might make it sometime. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That would never happen short of all of humanity being in a mass hallucination, as science is nothing but observations of the world around us. Meanwhile, a religious person says the sky is pink because their holy book said so That would be one thing if every observer of a scientists writings expressed only what the scientist said. Or if the many non-scientists understood what the scientist meant. But this doesn't happen the majority of the time. Because of this, the atheists are more to be pitied than all other propagandized people. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. First off, do you read anything that is not in the bible? In particular, my earlier post's that clearly state I am not an athiest? I am a searcher. I have yet to choose. I believe in god, but not YOURS. Mine is superior in that he allows me to show you, your bible is the one that is in fact backwards. I mean c'mon.. God is the light, yet light existed only after how many other event's of actualisation, or day's? You try to belittle me, whenever I come up with a genuine scientific FACT that MAY prove or disprove the existance of god. In that when I speak for god, your right there preaching with me, but when I point out all the things that existed before god, like the WATER god moved over, you call me an athiest? You dont understand the reason people like me dont go to church is not fear of god, but people like you who just wont acknowledge that god's light is staring you in the face, and you deny him? When I said god said to remind them (people like you) that he is the light, all that happened here in my house, is I went to make coffee, and the thought occured to me that if god is the light, then he was created in the 3rd sentence of genesis. The fact he SAW the light prove's he cannot BE the light, for then light would exist. I like these argument's/debates with you, and hhope you can be just as thorough in your defense of god, just dont use the book, cause as I said.. for me to ask you, god must also work through me too, in order to point out these thing's no? What if god really did speak though me to ask you these points personally? It seems, and not only to me, that when things are from the bible, your there, but if it's not the christian bible, then it's crap? Let's try my style without making you cry: Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Fair call, so they say etc.. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Earth (soil/dust) clearly existed, it just had no form, and hence is negated. darkness was on the face of the deep. This state's that the deep reflected darkness on it's face like a mirror. Now here if god was/is the light, he could not, scientifically exist. Note the 'spirit' of god, but NOT god, moved upon the face of the water. Now unless that water was 'contained', it would be spread over so vast a space that scot's mist would be a downpour compared to how fine the water particle's would be.. to move ON the water is to suggest the water was either ICE or CONTAINED. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Proving no light existed previous to the act of the eternal thought that grew in the abyss, which evolved into SOUND. Now, how's about stopping trying to belittle someone with a greater understanding of SCIENCE in this search for YOUR god, that even YOU probably need, just to comprehend that YOUR god answer's to mine? Relax, Decky. You are way ahead of the atheists, simply by recognizing that God exists! |
|
|
|
Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature. Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing. Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends. Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives. No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being. Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption. Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child. You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect. You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children. It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result. God's children -- Born to Hate. You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. "Blue" is a hallucination. Scientists hallucinate a lot! |
|
|
|
There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair. Nope. The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing. It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else. Consent of the governed is impossible. It is like saying agreed to be raped. If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape. And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary. Voluntary means not governed. This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists. Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is " the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically) Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread. The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution. The vesting of authority was in the government to do exactly the things that were expressed in the vesting. Inside those things there is way out for people not of the government, to get out of the authority of the government any time they want. It is not implied. It is stated. You can find it if you almost literally look up the meanings of every word in the constitution, within the context of their meaning at the time they were written. If you don't want to do that, take the shorter route of perusing the website I provided where it will be shown to you - http://1215.org/. There is no authority from the past that is binding on anyone of the present in any way. Dead people don't jump up and do anything. The authority of the present is according to what people of the present accept as authority. And they accept it voluntarily, or by force when someone stronger than they forces it on them. Otherwise, they don't accept it. Constitutional history that applies to us only applies in the context of how the people of the present use it. Government people take an oath that essentially states, among other things, that they will use the application of the past. That application doesn't apply to any of us who haven't taken the oath. That's why government is so adamant that the schools make everyone from childhood pledge their allegiance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
