100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I keep going onto religion boards and trying to spark up conversations... i should know better by now all the same old replies... it hurts my head. I should know all the answers by know, and i do... but i still ask the questions. One does get tired of "dancing w/ morons"... The phrase "pearls before swine" comes to mind. There is nothing so hard as to get a true believer to admit the possibility that they may be wrong. I find a lot of irony in being told that I'm arrogant for not believing this billion galaxy universe was "created" just for us. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that Sam Harris said it best:
"Atheism is the sound reasonable people make when faced with religious dogma." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I understand the feeling, we have the one poster who constantly bangs the "Only a theory" drum, after having it explained to them multiple times, by multiple people.
The reason I keep going back isn't for the fundies we have to argue with, it's for the person on the fence, who's reading the posts, but not replying to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
false prophets would be someone who says something will happen and not truely meen it and or intentionally told you this to cause scare. that's called spreading false rumors... wouldn't a false prophet be someone that claim they have predict without receiving the prediction from God prophet=100% correct false prophet=not 100% correct Nastrodamus... Hisler, Hitler? Hard to say... Very convincing, but lacking the 100% part... Definetly something to ponder... Do I have "faith" in the translation or not? It's not hard to say, he never actually predicted anything, people give him too much credit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
false prophets would be someone who says something will happen and not truely meen it and or intentionally told you this to cause scare. that's called spreading false rumors... wouldn't a false prophet be someone that claim they have predict without receiving the prediction from God Yes, if they indeed did not recieve that prediction from God. so wouldn't your "taking a dump" prediction be that of a false prophet ... only if i claimed that God gave that prophesy, otherwise it's just that, a prediction. if it didn't come from God...it's not a prediction...it's a guess ...calling it a prediction is you trying to be a false prophet prediction is just another word for hypothesis. And a hypothesis is an educated GUESS. The word prediction doesn't just pertain to God. I predict that you will post something in this forum sometime after this......... holy crap am i gonna be one of Gods prophets? No, it is just a GUESS, a PREDICTION, a HYPOTHESIS. and to beat you to any word games, nottice it says i made a prophecy of you post SOMETIME in THIS forum. That meens anytime on any thread. Any time in Any thread is not a prophecy. Try giving an EXACT thread, and an EXACT date (with time included.) 1. a. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will. b. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration. c. Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing. 2. The vocation or condition of a prophet. 3. A prediction ------- Nottice 3, a prediction. Prediction is not an exact time or anything of anything EXACT. and even other then that, no where does it say EXACT of anything that has anything to do with time. and now he's probably gonna take a looooong time to post anything else as to not prove my point. But i'll always remember this and bring forth when the time comes. Using definition #3 is a cop-out. Since definitions #1(a,b,and c) and 2 have to do with a prophet, and/or divine help, getting the exact thread title and time of the post shouldn't be that hard. In all honesty, your "Funches will post in this forum, in any topic, at any time" 'prophecy' (your word) is the equivalent of me saying I'm gonna get out of bed tomorrow, or I'm still gonna be breathing tomorrow. Sure, they might not happen, but as of right now there is no reason to think they won't therefore, the 'prophecy' isn't prophetic at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
false prophets would be someone who says something will happen and not truely meen it and or intentionally told you this to cause scare. that's called spreading false rumors... wouldn't a false prophet be someone that claim they have predict without receiving the prediction from God Yes, if they indeed did not recieve that prediction from God. so wouldn't your "taking a dump" prediction be that of a false prophet ... only if i claimed that God gave that prophesy, otherwise it's just that, a prediction. if it didn't come from God...it's not a prediction...it's a guess ...calling it a prediction is you trying to be a false prophet prediction is just another word for hypothesis. And a hypothesis is an educated GUESS. The word prediction doesn't just pertain to God. I predict that you will post something in this forum sometime after this......... holy crap am i gonna be one of Gods prophets? No, it is just a GUESS, a PREDICTION, a HYPOTHESIS. and to beat you to any word games, nottice it says i made a prophecy of you post SOMETIME in THIS forum. That meens anytime on any thread. Any time in Any thread is not a prophecy. Try giving an EXACT thread, and an EXACT date (with time included.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The World Cup?
|
|
Altidore had a great run. England looked strong. We have a tie. Hopefully no more starts like that.... Yes, Altidore did have a great run, but he lacked "class" and "finesse". Football, is won and lost in the mid-field. While the United States dominated the mid-field in the first half, it just couldn't keep up that momentum in the second. That was why we had a tie. ....well and a GIFT from Green!  at least we were hanging in there...but better not count on any more freebies!!  Soccer is a team sport, and at the world cup level, every goal is earned. If the defense held, that shot isn't taken. You live and die as a team. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
little proof of Jesus/God
|
|
To use some of Bill Maher's words: We can agree that the Old Testament came before the New Testament, correct? The only thing that proves is that the New Testament came after the New Testament. I find it MUCH more likely that those who wrote the NT, read the OT, and made the prophecies fit. that is plausible ,,,,though it would require outright LYING about the miracles Christ performed while he was here, or his resurrection [sarcasm]yeah, and we all know that people don't lie[/sarcasm] I dont believe the authors of the bible/gospels did. God would not have allowed them to do so. Just like god wouldn't let priests molest and rape children. Oh.. wait.. no that is what is called false prophets, which God warned us of ahead of time. It's not helping your case when the guy appointed as "God's rep on earth" has (and continues) to shelter the offenders from the justice the deserve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
little proof of Jesus/God
|
|
To use some of Bill Maher's words: We can agree that the Old Testament came before the New Testament, correct? The only thing that proves is that the New Testament came after the New Testament. I find it MUCH more likely that those who wrote the NT, read the OT, and made the prophecies fit. that is plausible ,,,,though it would require outright LYING about the miracles Christ performed while he was here, or his resurrection [sarcasm]yeah, and we all know that people don't lie[/sarcasm] I dont believe the authors of the bible/gospels did. God would not have allowed them to do so. Just like god wouldn't let priests molest and rape children. Oh.. wait.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
intent is the heart of the definition and makes quite a bit of difference,,, I have no problem with this at all Msharmony. However, let's face it, the Ten Commandments does not say: "Thou shalt not kill without good reason". It simply says, "Thou shalt not kill". So, if God is so wise, then why couldn't he write his commandments with a tiny bit more clarity? It wouldn't have taken all that much for an all-powerful God. A book that claims to be the "Word of God" should not be so full of ambiguity that its words can't even be trusted to mean what they say. That would just leave generations of people arguing with each other over what God actually meant. And guess what, that's precisely what we now have! Do you think that a God who was going to write a book woudln't have been wise enough to figure that one out? Again, just more reason to reject this book as being the "Word of God". It's too unclear, ambiguous, and self-contradicting. well, that is taking a position that God should have spoken in every tongue to every person in every language, current and future. The original gospels do take translation, because they were not in our English. That is why it is best to study the bible (as we were taught, but perhaps others werent) as a TRANSLATION of Gods gospel. To understand in depth, one should logically, go to the original text and learn all they can about the history of the words and the context in which they are used. In fact, some things are more confusing when taken in their literal translation to english. These are things I would recommend people take the time to dig into further by referring to the original text. ,,,for whatever my opinion is worth Shouldn't be too hard to do for something that is supposed to be all knowing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know an atheist believes there is no god of any sort without any evidence. Thats not what atheists believe - thats what 'strong atheists' believe. What's a 'weak atheist' then? An agnostic? Someone who isn't sure and admits they can't know? Why not just confess to being agnostic and leave it at that? Because "Agnostic" is an actually an adjective, and not a position. (Many people who are agnostic are actually atheist, just don't realize it.) There are four "Major" divisions. Strong Theism- the Gnostic Theist. "I believe there is a God, because I know there is a God" Weak Theism- the Agnostic Theist. "I don't know if there is a God, but I believe there is a God" Weak Atheism- the Agnostic Atheist. "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe there is a God. (This is where I sit, though I am VERY close to the line between AA and GA) Strong Atheism- the Gnostic Atheist. "I don't believe in god because I know there is no god" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God created hell for Satan's punishment and the angels that followed after him. That is why no human person will ever go to hell, hell was not made for man. Was made for a holding cell for Satan till the end of times when he will be cast into the lake of fire. Why wait until the end times? Surely a god would be able to do something like that whenever he wanted. So, why wait? because Satan and everyone that followed after him will be thrown into the lake of fire. Hell is a punishment for Satan and his wrong doings in heaven. Would be to easy on him to just through him in the lake of fire immediately, that would be little pain for just a time being. In hell there is pain and torment all the time for him. I'm assuming that the Lake of Fire is meant as Capitol Punishment(Death Penalty), you can't kill something that you plan on torturing something "for all time". But that still doesn't answer my question. Why play this game? Why not make the checkmate move as soon as possible? I don't understand the waiting.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
little proof of Jesus/God
|
|
To use some of Bill Maher's words: We can agree that the Old Testament came before the New Testament, correct? The only thing that proves is that the New Testament came after the New Testament. I find it MUCH more likely that those who wrote the NT, read the OT, and made the prophecies fit. that is plausible ,,,,though it would require outright LYING about the miracles Christ performed while he was here, or his resurrection [sarcasm]yeah, and we all know that people don't lie[/sarcasm] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God created hell for Satan's punishment and the angels that followed after him. That is why no human person will ever go to hell, hell was not made for man. Was made for a holding cell for Satan till the end of times when he will be cast into the lake of fire. Why wait until the end times? Surely a god would be able to do something like that whenever he wanted. So, why wait? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
little proof of Jesus/God
|
|
To use some of Bill Maher's words:
We can agree that the Old Testament came before the New Testament, correct? The only thing that proves is that the New Testament came after the New Testament. I find it MUCH more likely that those who wrote the NT, read the OT, and made the prophecies fit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read the Bible! We are commanded to do so in writing my friend! Unsound once again without knowledge. Peace! I retire! Well, of course it's gonna be in the "holy" book that you must read it. That is the only way to increase the number of sheeple. The one thing that you are missing here, though, is a great number of non-religious, and/or non-christians HAVE read the bible, and know a great deal more about it than their christian counterparts. And they still haven't "found jeebus". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, the post was made that it was 'not the LEAST bit scientificallty accurate' and the first sentence 'The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible.' which is different than saying science SUPPORTS everything in the bible,,, If I say I am not aware of my brother smoking,, it wouldnt be the same as saying my brother doesnt smoke (at least not to me,,but I am sure many who dont pay much attention to semantics might take it that way) Really? You aren't aware of the Scientific Evidence that contradicts the bible? You obviously aren't reading many of the posts then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Some are without "sin"
|
|
I am not very religious but everybody sins. Seems to be just an overblown term for making a mistake. Nobody is perfect......  That is true ONLY if you are defining "sin" as "making a mistake." That Is not the definition of sin according to the religious community that owns the term. The definition of 'sin' is disobedience to the almighty Lord thy God. If you are not religious, sin does not apply to you. You are not obligated to obey the All Mighty Lord unless you claim to follow him and expect to go to his heaven. sorta yes sorta no........ denying the lord thy God is the only unforgivable sin. So all other sins you make are pretty much pointless anyways if one continues on the denying the lord cause there is only one fate for that. If there were any proof that God existed or proof that Jesus was God no one would deny it. Therefor, the only thing a person is denying is the unproven lies perpetrated by the religious authorities upon the people. They found it necessary to threaten people into believing their lies with the penalty of death. For if denying their claims is translated as "denying their God" and denying their God is translated as "sin" and "sin" is punished by "death" (The wages of sin is death) then they are practicing extortion and spreading fear. To be a spreader of fear is to be a terrorist. Therefore, logic proves that the religious authority, including the Pope himself are terrorists. I already want to see him arrested for covering up, and continuing to shelter the priests involved in the sex scandal. I have no problem adding terrorist to the charges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Sun 06/06/10 08:56 PM
|
|
Your argument needs a major revision, when you continue to be intellectually dishonest, in the face of evidence against your view. how is anything i have said intellectually dishonest? All i've stated is that it is a THEORY, theories are not fact. I have explained to you EXACTLY what a SCIENTIFIC Theory is. Yet you still run out the "only a theory" card. That is the height of the Creationist Intellectual Dishonesty. you stated they are a combination of hypothesis.... a hypothesis is nothing more then an educated guess...... still not factual. Again, a Fact is anything that has been observed. An Hypothesis is an educated guess based on what has been observed A Theory is something that ties together several Hypotheses. but still a theory, theories are NOT facts nor are the accepted as facts even in the science world. Read the Bold. Then make (another, failed) attempt at saying you aren't being Intellectually Dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Sun 06/06/10 08:50 PM
|
|
Your argument needs a major revision, when you continue to be intellectually dishonest, in the face of evidence against your view. how is anything i have said intellectually dishonest? All i've stated is that it is a THEORY, theories are not fact. I have explained to you EXACTLY what a SCIENTIFIC Theory is. Yet you still run out the "only a theory" card. That is the height of the Creationist Intellectual Dishonesty. you stated they are a combination of hypothesis.... a hypothesis is nothing more then an educated guess...... still not factual. Again, a Fact is anything that has been observed. An Hypothesis is an educated guess based on what has been observed A Theory is something that ties together several Hypotheses. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
