Everybody Is An Atheist

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 37
Topic's author
#1
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
At last count, there are about 10,000 different Gods known to be worshipped around the world and each religious cult claims its God as being the only true God in existence.

Therefore, a religious follower would reject 9,999 Gods, which isn't that much different from a full-blown atheist who rejects just one more God.

Which begs the question (given that each religion claims their respective God is the only pathway to an afterlife and indeed do different sects within a religion claim the same thing about how they worship the same God):

Given that not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence, (and assuming that there is a God), how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?


#2
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
...how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?
Heaven is a doctrine of only one specific religion.

But I guess they feel exactly as they do about any other illogical false "facts". They don't give it any more attention than it deserves. None.
#3
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
As you say, Christians were charged with being atheists by the ancient Romans who persecuted them.


Yet, I deny that there are any true "no gods at all" atheists. 

Examine a person's life, what they chase after, strive for, what they are motivated by. There you will find that person's god.

I believe The Ultimate Reality is God, that this is The One True God.


Anything that a person shows preference to this God is the idol they bow to, the god or gods even that they worship.


In the end, even these idols have no existence on their own. They are contingent beings, while God is self existing.


To say my God does not exist is nihilism in the truest sense. Denial of absolute truth.

Topic's author
#4
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
Muslims also have Jannah, Judaists have Shamayim, Buddhists have at least six heavens, call it by any other name but, in general, every religion has its own loyalty rewards and "going to heaven" is the most universal enticement.

I have witnessed the effects that Christianity has on old people who are very near the end of their lives. Many of them are totally mortified and worried sleepless over whether or not they will make the grade.
Topic's author
#5
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
That's a fine bit rhetoric however someone who believes in a different God will call you an atheist.

And let's be a little bit realistic here shall we?
"Examine a person's life, what they chase after, strive for, what they are motivated by. There you will find that person's god."

Surely you are making a futile attempt at the "anything goes" mentality by trying to introduce God as "anything I want to make it out to be".

Come on. Let's stick to the accepted meaning of God without making pathetic inferences that somehow God is somebody's motivation.
#6
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Salixes
Everybody Is An Atheist
I am not an atheist; claim refuted.

Therefore, a religious follower would reject 9,999 Gods, which isn't that much different from a full-blown atheist who rejects just one more God.
That's not the description of an atheist. Atheists reject all Gods, quantity notwithstanding. Theists believe in a god or gods, quantity notwithstanding.

Given that not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence, (and assuming that there is a God), how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?
First, you're going to have to substantiate how there's not a "single ounce of proof of [God's] existence." Second, that is not how probability functions. Odds aren't determined by consensus.

Topic's author
#7
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Athias
I think perhaps you missed the qualification and reasoning I gave to the subject.
Making a statement about oneself to refute a validly constructed claim is displaying both ignorance and arrogance.

it is also arrogant (if not, totally absurd) to tell somebody to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.


#8
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Salixes
I think perhaps you missed the qualification and reasoning I gave to the subject.
No, I understand your reasoning; it's just logically inconsistent.

Making a statement about oneself to refute a validly constructed claim is displaying both ignorance and arrogance.
My alleged arrogance and ignorance is irrelevant; you claimed everyone was an atheist; I refuted your claim by citing myself as an example. In order for everyone to be an atheist, everyone has to be an atheist. (Tautology.) I am not an atheist; therefore everyone is not an atheist.

it is also arrogant (if not, totally absurd) to tell somebody to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.
Once again, my arrogance is irrelevant. And you've submitted a non sequitur. I didn't request you disprove anything. I requested that you substantiate your claim, "not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence." You are affirming that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence. Substantiate. If your claim solely is informed by failure to substantiate the contrary, then you would be clearly arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

Topic's author
#9
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Athias
Your arrogance (and I'm not knocking it, it can be a quality)is pertinent to the fact that your not being an atheist refuted my claim.

In any case, I am presenting an intellectual scenario here in that for you to believe in one God makes you a 99.99% atheist since you disbelieve so many Gods. Regardless of tautology or semantics, how do you consider your God to be the right or correct one when there are 9,999 other religions whose followers say exactly the same thing? And each without any authentication or proof of their respective Gods.

I will gladly substantiate that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence if you could let me know what you require to substantiate such.
#10
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Salixes
Your arrogance (and I'm not knocking it, it can be a quality)is pertinent to the fact that your not being an atheist refuted my claim.
My arrogance is irrelevant. Stating that it's relevant doesn't make it relevant. Either my rebuttal refutes or doesn't. In this case it does. Everyone requires everyone. My contention alone invalidates your claim.


In any case, I am presenting an intellectual scenario here in that for you to believe in one God makes you a 99.99% atheist
Philosophical adherence isn't subject to proportions because it isn't quantifiable. One believes in a god(s); one doesn't believe in a god(s); one is indifferent; or one reserves judgement. That doesn't depend on any number.

since you disbelieve so many Gods.
I don't disbelieve so many Gods. I believe all gods exist.

Regardless of tautology or semantics, how do you consider your God to be the right or correct one when there are 9,999 other religions whose followers say exactly the same thing?
Because my beliefs aren't subject to the perspectives of others.

And each without any authentication or proof of their respective Gods.
You have not substantiated this.

I will gladly substantiate that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence if you could let me know what you require to substantiate such.
I require nothing. It's your argument that requires substantiation. And in order for you to understand how to substantiate your argument, you'd first have to understand your argument. You are affirming the claim: "there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence."

In order to resolve the demands of your claim, your argument must be ontological.


#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
What I am saying is not rhetoric, it is how we have understood this for thousands of years.

The Ultimate Reality is God. This is The One True God. If this isn't your God, then you naturally have another god you place before God.

To.deny The Ultimate Reality is a position of nihilism, and it is self defeating.




#12
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5


.
ethang5,

YOUR IGNORANT QUOTE AGAIN: "Heaven is a doctrine of only one specific religion."

Once again you show your complete ignorance of specific religions concering that Christianity is NOT the only religion that proposes a Heaven!
I have had to hire a secretary to keep track of all of your bible ignorant statements and lies. You act in the same manner as  president Trump! Are you related?


Zoroastrianism: It was the ancient Persians that presented an afterlife that was adopted by the Jews, Muslims, and guess who? Yes, Christianity as well!  This "faith" is interesting because unlike other religions, it claims that everyone will eventually get into heaven in due time.  On the final day one will be purified and live in a new world absent of evil and full of youthful rejoicing. Hmmm, sounds familiar, does't it? It is as familiar as Mithraism, of which our Christianity stole this religions concepts as well! Oh, well, and we thought Christianity was an original concept, NOT!

Islam: Yes, I know, Christianity and Islam have the same God Yahweh through its Abrahamic connections, but they refuse Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate. The Islamic version of heaven is a paradise for those whose good works have outweighed the bad as determined by the straight path laid out in the Quran.  Heaven within the Qu'ran is a garden where the faithful lie upon couches in a peaceful environment surrounded by beautiful virgins feeding them and answering to the males wants!  Beats Jesus' heaven where there will be absolutely NO women, praise!

Please use this information in your future, okay? I am really tiring of your complete ignorance upon religious topics. Thanks.

.


#13
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac


.
Mopac,

I don't know how many times that I have told you to use God's name instead of His "title!" Show respect for our chosen HEBREW ONLY God Yahweh, and call Him by His true name, understood?  The term "God" is a title, like president, whereas the name of a past president is George W. Bush, not "president!"  Get it?  

I know you're a Hell bound Catholic, therefore before you enter Hell upon your earthly demise, you should be calling God "Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost" as part of His Triune Doctrine, understand? Huh?

"Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more." (1 Thessalonians 4:1)

You don't please our God by calling Him by a "title," and you are to please Him more and more by calling Him by His name of Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost!!! Understand?!

Then you wonder why I call you a pseudo-christian.  :(


.



#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I do not respect your advice as coming from a Christian. 

#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Once again you show your complete ignorance of specific religions concering that Christianity is NOT the only religion that proposes a Heaven!
Sure it is Dee Dee.

Look at the description of Heaven in Revelation. What other religion calls Heaven the personal home of their God? 
What other religion posits Heaven as a spiritual place? What other religion posits Heaven as having no sun, no ocean, no night? As having rivers? The tree of Life? As lit by His Royal Magnificence Himself, King Jesus Christ? 

See, I am educated, so I know that slapping the word "Heaven" on a place does not make it the home of God in Christian Doctrine.

Then you wonder why I call you a pseudo-christian.  :(
No one wonders that Dee Dee. Everyone knows how you are.
Topic's author
#16
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
It may be what "we" have understood for thousands of years but it is still meaningless, unqualified and nonsensical rhetoric.
You have not specified what the "one true God is" as distinct from 9,999 other Gods.
Nor have you explained why being nihilistic is self-defeating. 

I say this because, on face value, what you said is no more than confused, meaningless nonsense.
Topic's author
#17
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Athias
You would very well know that of course, it is impossible, nonsensical and absurd to prove the absence of something.
You could reasonably assert that there is no such thing as pink elephants with wings.
And you would think it impossible, nonsensical and absurd (as well as pointless) if I were to ask you to disprove the existence of pink elephants with wings.

Are you in any way trying to infer that the absence of proof for disproving something in any way validates the existence of it?
In other words, what would your point be if there is no evidence to disprove something?

If one were to state the existence of something then it would be possible to prove such an existence.

You believe that there are 10,000 Gods in existence.
What is your proof?

#18
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Salixes
You would very well know that of course, it is impossible, nonsensical and absurd to prove the absence of something.
So then why are you asserting a claim that is impossible, nonsensical, and absurd to prove?

You could reasonably assert that there is no such thing as pink elephants with wings.
Not without substantiation, no.

And you would think it impossible, nonsensical and absurd (as well as pointless) if I were to ask you to disprove the existence of pink elephants with wings.
Non sequitur. No one has asked you to disprove anything. I request that you substantiate your claim. Your claim affirms a conclusion you allege to be true. Therefore, provide a consistent logical argument demonstrating how your premises--once you substantiate them--inform your conclusion.

Are you in any way trying to infer that the absence of proof for disproving something in any way validates the existence of it?
No, that would be an argument from ignorance. Are you in anyway arguing that the absence of "proof" for proving something in any way validates its nonexistence?

In other words, what would your point be if there is no evidence to disprove something?
My point is that you made a claim, and it requires substantiation.

If one were to state the existence of something then it would be possible to prove such an existence.
So then what does this implicate to you about asserting claims of nonexistence?

You believe that there are 10,000 Gods in existence.
No, I believe all Gods exist. You're the one who came up with the number 10,000.

What is your proof?
I believe all Gods exist. The proof of my belief is my belief. Now if you're inquiring as to the content of my belief, I'd be more than inclined to provide you substantiation once you stop stalling and substantiate your claim.






#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
I tolld you, The One True God is The Ultimate Reality.

You do not understand this why? You say my words are meaningless. 

Nihilism is stupid.

How is nihilism  self defeating? In denying absolute truth, it destroys everything along with itself. If there is no absolute truth, nihilism cannot be true.

And indeed, it isn't true.

#20
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


.
ethang5,

YOUR STEP IN POO QUOTE AGAIN: "What other religion posits Heaven as a spiritual place? What other religion posits Heaven as having no sun, no ocean, no night? As having rivers? The tree of Life? As lit by His Royal Magnificence Himself, King Jesus Christ? "

The simple answer to your statement above in including certain situations is the Heaven of the Islamic faith: 

“And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, ‘This is what we were provided with before.’ And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally.” (Qu'ran. 2:25)

“Their Lord gives them good tidings of mercy from Him and approval and of gardens for them wherein is enduring pleasure. [They will be] abiding therein forever. Indeed, Allah has with Him a great reward.” (Qu'ran. 9:21-22)

“Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds – their Lord will guide them because of their faith. Beneath them rivers will flow in the Gardens of Pleasure. Their call therein will be, ‘Exalted are You, O Allah,’ and their greeting therein will be, ‘Peace.’ And the last of their call will be, ‘Praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds!’” (Qu'ran. 10:9-10)

“Those will have gardens of perpetual residence; beneath them rivers will flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and will wear green garments of fine silk and brocade, reclining therein on adorned couches. Excellent is the reward, and good is the resting place.” (Qu'ran. 18:31)



YOUR COMICAL POST: "See, I am educated, so I know that slapping the word "Heaven" on a place does not make it the home of God in Christian Doctrine.

Wait, you stated the following in your post above; "As lit by His Royal Magnificence Himself, King Jesus Christ?" precludes that Jesus has to be present in Heaven to be able to light heaven!  Or, do you have another funny metaphysical construct to try and explain your statement away?  LOL

Notwithstanding, Jesus, as our Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, disagrees with you in that He is in heaven: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21)

***********. Ethang5, you say erroneously that you are supposedly educated, where with the passages that I have shown you in this post alone says you are not relative to the Christian and Muslim faith.   Maybe its time for you to try and get the money back to your parents that probably paid for this alleged education, is it not?  ************

You continue to show us what a pseudo-christian definition truly is, and I have to thank you for that! Although Jesus is probably not smiling in your behalf, of which you will have to come to terms with upon your Judgment Day.  YIKES!  :(

NEXT?
.



#21
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac


Mopac,

In prayer with Jesus last night concerning your disrespect towards Him by not calling Him by His true name of Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, you instead use the term of His Title of "God!"  Would you call your best friend "friend," or would you call them by their godly given name? Get it, huh?

When you just call Jesus "God," then the educated people you are talking to do not know which God you are talking about, understood? There were many Gods in the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages, where our Jesus was just one of them, therefore the simple math is to show respect and call our God by His chosen name of Jesus to differentiate Him from the other Gods of these eras!  

Example: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7).  As biblically shown, one does not take the “title” of God in vain, but only can do this with His name of Jesus! Do you understand this simple biblical proposition yet?

Here, let me try to explain it this way; if the TRUE Christian, which thus far is only me in this forum, says “God Damn,” they are not held to be guilty in Exodus 20:7 of disrespect towards Jesus. Now, if one states “Jesus Damn” then one is held guilty of disrespect because that person used God’s name of Jesus! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Whew, 2+2=4.


Mopac, you will pay upon Judgment Day for continually slapping Jesus in the face by only using His title of God, and not His name! Our God has a name for good reason, use it!

.
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
There is One God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

How can one confuse this God with created gods? These gods are gods in name only. 

The Supreme And Ultimate Reality is God, and this is known through The Most Perfect Image that is The Incarnate Word of Truth, by The Holy Spirit of Truth. God is One with His Word and Spirit. 3 hypostases, 1 ousia. One God.


And to say there is one God while denying The Trinity is to take a conception of God as being God.


I am not ashamed to confess the Trinity, and how it reveals how God is with us. How God is salvation.

#23
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



Mopac,

With your blatant insolence toward Jesus, you will pay upon Judgment Day for sure, praise Jesus' revenge!


YOUR QUOTE ADMITTING JESUS IS A SERIAL KILLER: "I am not ashamed to confess the Trinity, and how it reveals how God is with us. How God is salvation."

At least you admit that Jesus is the God of the Old and New Testament by mentioning the Triune Doctrine, therefore murdering His creation in great numbers throughout the Bible, good for you, you are coming around to TRUE Christianity, praise Jesus!

.
#24
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I don't recognize you as a Christian, nor do I acknowledge you as having any true knowledge concerning what it means to be one.

The fact that you would charge God with murder, or unlawful killing is both ludicrous and blasphemous.


#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



Mopac,

YOUR OBLIVIOUS QUOTE: "The fact that you would charge God with murder, or unlawful killing is both ludicrous and blasphemous."

MURDER: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.

YAHWEH/JESUS OF THE TRINITY DOCTRINE STATED: "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die." (Genesis 6:17)  

Sidebar to the word of our God above: Our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, forgot about Noah and his family not being brutally murdered in the Flood, whereas His statement of "Everything that is on the earth shall die" was a LIE, whoops! Our God screwed up again, LOL

Our Jesus, as the HEBREW God Yahweh incarnate, is obviously okay "lawfully" in His mind to MURDER His creation because He is under "His laws," but He surely enacted premeditated malice while doing so, period!

LOGIC 101: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something : sound reasoning. Therefore, without any Satanic spin doctoring of yours, the reasonable thinking is the biblical axiom that Jesus, as God, murdered His creation with premeditated malice, period! End of story!


CONCLUSION: Jesus, as the HEBREW Yahweh God incarnate, murdered His creation with premeditated malice, unlawful or not, therefore we worship a serial killer of the innocents as explained in my "As the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, Jesus creates EVIL, then drowns His creation for it? Huh?! thread within the religion forum discussions.

Mopac, for your sake amongst the members, do not try and spin doctor the obvious away again, okay? We just have to accept the fact that our Jesus is a serial killer, that's all, get it? Sure you do.


.


#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
God cannot break the law, the premise is foundationally delusional.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Mopac has a steadfast belief in something that they often refer to as the ultimate reality.

And they tend to associate the ultimate reality with a Christianesque God type. 

Which makes them by definition a Theist.

Similar but separate concepts have arisen worldwide, their differences largely due to former geographical dissociation. We therefore nowadays have multi-theism relative to ongoing conditioning rather than monotheism or more logically non-theism relative to common sense. 

I think that most atheists would run with the notion of an ultimate reality, though most would be far less steadfast in their appreciation of the unknowable.

As you can see, ongoing multi theism/theism is clearly relative to ongoing conditioning rather than to an inherent reality.

That is to say if people are taught to be theistic then they tend to assume that they are theistic. (Though Mopac will probably suggest that they are an exception to this rule).

Whereas atheists, who no doubt have all the same basic information available, never underwent the same level of enforced conditioning and therefore are not as prone to making such rash and unqualified assumptions based upon an unknowable premise.





Topic's author
#28
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I have heard this "ultimate reality" argument before and Mopac is steadfast for a reason. He has absolutely no reason or argument in defence of his idiosyncratic belief.

I say this because I have seen this pattern quite a number of times. In each case the answer is the same and on each occasion, when answering a challenge, the answer is identical.

It (stating the ultimate reality) is no more than a smokescreen to hide a weak constitution.
#29
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
Your accusations are unfounded, you are simply trying to justify your unwillingness to entertain or even come to understand what I am saying.

The Ultimate Reality is what we have always meant by God. For thousands of years. You don't understand our ways, because they are hidden from you.

If you do not know the God you worship, how can you meaningfully do so?


Or religion is worship of God in Trinity, that is, worshipping The Ultimate Reality in Spirit and in Truth. That looks like somethjng. These are not fill in the blank words that could be arbitrarily replaced with any and mean the same thing.


If you do not understand something, it is more humble and even reasonable to ask questions for the sake of clarifying. If you are not interested in anything other than to win the argument, you are no longer debating. Debate without the intention of arriving at The Truth is vain. If you are simply trying to "win" with a false position it is more beneficial to obscure what your opponents actual position is than to come to understand it and then meaningfully address it.

So yeah, if you want to simply be a mocker, go ahead. It is easy. You'll find that it is a lot easier than having a real debate. You'll find that mocking is more common than real debate.
#30
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac


Mopac,

Our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, broke the law of murder by killing His entire creation in the Great Flood and watched innocent babies drown in front of their mothers, period! No amount of psychotic reaction can take this biblical axiom away, understand?  I have had to accept this premise, others like you cannot, and are made fools when they try and spin doctor this fact away.

.