-->
@ethang5
Have you wondered why he needs to repeat himself so many times.
Because SOMEONE clearly isn't absorbing the information.
God and Dreamtime stories.
Posts
Total:
117
-->
@Checkmate
Have you wondered why he needs to repeat himself so many times.
He doesn't need to. His post was addressed. He pretends to be obtuse of the reply.
Because SOMEONE clearly isn't absorbing the information.
I don't spam when he pretends not to see my posts. Stephen just enjoys posting hateful stuff about God and Christianity, and often cannot resist his impulse to respam. I aggravate him because I was trained to deal with.... shall we just say,.....posters like him.
For example, this is the 3rd time he's said, "This is the last I am going to say on the matter" and then keeps "saying" on the matter! He won't heed your advice to stop replying, but will later claim that I should "leave him alone."
What you should know about me is that I am impervious to taunts, goad, insults, or peer pressure. I don't get angry, tired, or bored. I never insult first, or simply to hurt someone, and if I cared any less (but for my mom and His Royal Highness, King Jesus) for anyone's opinion of me, I'd be arrested for caring too little.
If you find me aggravating, perhaps you too should heed your own advice.
-->
@Checkmate
Absorbing only the information that we want to absorb is the human condition...Especially for oldies, rapidly approaching senility.
Me and Joe Biden...We're the exceptions to the rule.
-->
@ethang5
Impervious.
On a computer.......... yes.
But in the real life....... NO.
-->
@ethang5
If you think obsessive walls of texts about another poster is "having something to add" then I think I'll just stay being that one person thanks.
You have the memory span of a louse.
It was you that returned to the forum repeatedly speaking on the behalf of "another poster" after your lengthy ban "following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment"#17.
You wasn't invited and certainly wasn't asked to speak on behalf by Reverend Tradesecrete to the point of embarrassing her, was you? She is more than qualified to speak for herself. You have contributed nothing to the topic at all and have simply embarrassed a fully qualified person into distancing herself from you, and unfortunately, the forum.
But I suppose your track record for a "pattern of sexual harassment", didn't go down too well with her either.
-->
@ethang5
Stephen just enjoys posting hateful stuff about God and Christianity
Such as? I only question the "hateful stuff about God and Christianity" that is wide spread through- out the Old Testament and the unreliable and ambiguous half told stories in the New . You just don't like me highlighting what an absolute "hateful stuff" that spews from almost ever page of the OT.. such as...
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.Psalm 137:9
HAPPY !! ? it says. That y don't teach em that HAPPY jolly verse from god at Sunday school do they, Ethang5 ? Will that be because it is a "hateful" thing to say?
What about the real truth that Jesus came ONLY to save Jews ?
Jesus said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.". Matthew 15:24 Them poor little Christian children must be wondering why they too cannot be "found". Are you going to explain to them why? Are you going to tell them the truth? Of course your not. You have admitted to being a spinless coward that would let someone else take the blame for your own mistakes even if it cost a life. #8
-->
@Stephen
Two posts in a row. You must be miffed. And neither on the threads subject. But at least you didn't spam your post #53 again.
It was you that returned to the forum repeatedly speaking on the behalf of "another poster" after your lengthy ban "following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment"
How is your pal dee dee?
Every lame charge you keep regurgitating has been addressed. Make a thread for your new complaints. In this one, address the topic. Or else your lamentations later that someone else derailed the thread will seem like hypocracy.
Hope you are feeling better.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Impervious.On a computer.......... yes.But in the real life....... NO.
Divine revelation deb?
-->
@Stephen
Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant.The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.To satisfy the burden of proof:
- the party with the burden of proof
- must prove the alleged fact
- to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof. https://hallellis.co.uk/burden-proof-balance-probabilities/#:~:text=Burden%20of%20Proof%3A%20How%20it,%2D%20first%2C%20before%20the%20defendant.
- Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend?
Tradesecrete wrote: Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin. Are we in the criminal or the civil court room? but we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion. What are the rules here?This didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;
LOL@ your continued sleight of hands. In the first place - I never introduced legal advice. I simply drew on legal principles in relation to b of p and that was when you were accusing me and I indicated that it was on you because you were making assertions. I chose not to answer you save and except to say I don't have to answer. Hence why I referred to "no comment" and as to my counsel to my clients.
Here in this thread, I did not EVEN introduce legal principles. As far as I can recall, that was you. Checkmate indicated about the burden of proof and my response was not on a legal basis or a courtroom basis but on this forum and in circumstances relating to "tradition" or the default position of a philosophy or doctrine. As far as I concerned - the differences between a court room discussion and a discussion about a default positions are not at all comparable. Yes, I do agree that those making assertions ought to prove them. Yet this can be distinguished when we are talking about traditional and default positions. There are assumptions that are made that do not need to be proved. For instance - the axiom of reason or logic DOES NOT need to be proved despite it being asserted. It is assumed to be correct and it is up to the person wanting to do something different that needs to be provide their reasoning for why logic or reasoning ought not be the default position. Even in a court room there are assumptions that are assumed, and where the burden of proof is reversed. And it does happen frequently.
Tradesecrete wrote: #15Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.Suited you then didn't it, Reverend. And yes , if you prefer, we are in a court opinion so to say to anyone " “ who are you to question this old belief” is simply YOU attempting to gain the high ground and wield your imagined authority on the subject matter.
I think that when there is a default position - that it is person who wants to propose something other than the default position who needs to establish that such default position is no longer required. Axioms do matter. I am allowed to take the high ground here. Just as you want to take the high ground. And don't try and pretend it is otherwise. You know whoever has the high ground succeeds. Why do you think you are so condescending at the moment? For all intents and purposes you cannot afford to be wrong.
What are the rules here?Deary me. Don't you know Reverend lawyer? Facts & Proof are the rules. Like the FACTS & Proof of law written and universally accepted law that I have shown you in my quote that states actual FACTS about where the Burden of Proof actually lays and not what ones “ attitude to is" towards where the Burden of Proof lays. You can't simply dismiss facts because they don't agree with you, Reverend. Like me, facts don't care about your feelings, Reverend.
Of course I know. I don't ask questions of others I don't know the answer too. B. of P. changes even in the court room. And when there are assumptions - these can be questioned - but not unless there is a significant reason to do so. Imagine if every assumption based on science and statistics were questioned? They are frequently - and often demonstrated to be false - yet, continued to be used. Why? Because the alternative is too frightening.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!
I am sorry - this post is not about theists making a claim about God being true. It is about an atheist wanting to know about evidence. Quite a different thing.
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .
My job is not to defend and prove God exists. That is your opinion based upon your assumptions. I don't have any need to prove God exists- just like I don't have any need to prove oxygen to breathe. I see no reason to prove God exists - God does a pretty good job himself. And everything - established the existence of God.
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.
We don't have to prove God exists. LOL! it is not us with the eye problem or with the unbelief.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .I only ask that you support and prove your claims. But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.
Do you even read what you write? I talk about God. You continually assert that "you have not seen any evidence for God's existence". That is your assertion. That is your positive assertion. Except you are too afraid to own it. Like every atheist - you are all wind. But the fact is - you have never actually looked for evidence because - of your unbelief. I have never looked for fairies. I don't believe in fairies. But I don't call myself an afairist. I don't go to fairy sites and make it my life's ambition to prove to people who believe in fairies that fairies are not true. Nor do I ask for people who believe in fairies to prove that they exist. I don't need too.
Tradesecrete wrote: I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived. I do not have an agenda. I really don't. #20Indeed, which as to be one of your most contradictory statements that you have ever made on the forum. Why ? Because you do have an agenda, or have you forgot what your god commanded you to do? Here's a reminder for you Pastor, Mark 16:15 You are a minister aren't you and a Pastor? you claim you are here>>
Why would I have an agenda? You would be better of using Matthew as opposed to Mark. Nevertheless, that is a commission for the apostles. Is it able to be extended to others in the church? Possibly. But is it a command to others apart from the apostles? The church would not make such an assertion? SInce it is your assertion, I wonder if you will attempt to prove it?
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.
You lie again. You do care. You like most atheists put the lie or misconception that you don't care - but you do. Otherwise you would be of doing something different. But no - instead - you are here trying to prove your case. Because you do care.
It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case.You are not a lawyer at all are you
More ad hominin attacks. If we removed these from your responses, perhaps you might have room to add something positive.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Most of modern biology is based on the fact of observation and scientific methodology.
-->
@Checkmate
Stated by TS a few posts back in this forum.My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself. Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged?
Absolutely and I hold this position because it is a good and right position. A default position - or axiom - if that helps you understand more clearly, does not need to demonstrate over and over again its purpose, strengths or weaknesses. A default position does not get to be a default position unless it has sufficient support in the first place. My point about the newcomer was not suggesting - or opposed to the notion that the person asserting does not need to prove their position. It is however noting that a newcomer is the one making the assertion and that the assumption ought to hold weight until the newcomer provides a significant reason for their new assertion before placing a new burden on the default position.
For instance imagine if I came to you and said - prove that reason and logic is reasonable. Reason and Logic is of course an axiom but it is also a positive assertion. Do you need to prove everytime that reason and logic is reasonable? The answer is no. And what is more - it is an axiom - in other words its own proof is its own circular reasoning. It is unprovable in other words. Hence, if I came to you and said - checkmate, I have seen no evidence that supports your proposition about reason and logic, therefore we should chuck it out and use my axiom, revelation. You would say - sorry old chap.
God exists is not just a positive assertion it is an axiom. Axioms use circular reasoning to prove themselves. If an axiom is proved by anything else except for itself - it is by definition not an axiom. Hence to place - the burden of proof on such an axiom is nonsense. It is an absurdity.
hi.
-->
@Tradesecret
didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;ThisLOL@ your continued sleight of hands. In the first place - I never introduced legal advice.
But you did. When I asked you to answer a simple yes no question you told us that in your capacity as a lawyer that you advise your clients "never to answer a Yes or No question" #15 thereby introducing legal advice and lawful practice into a thread. I am not interested your pathetic semantics. You just love your double standards when they suite you, don't you Pastor?
I simply drew on legal principles in relation to b of p
Not in that thread I pointed out.#15. It was all legal and lawful then to do so then wasn't it? You used legal practice to avoid answering a simple yes or no question. My point was that suited you then but here you are wanting to over turn the universally accepted code of law accepted by all legal practices that the B Of P rests with YOU, the one that brings the claim.
and the legal principles are : Burden of Proof: How it Works
In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.
It's a fundamental principle.: which you are trying to deny
I did not EVEN introduce legal principles.
That is because it clearly suites you not to. To do so would blow your B of P argument clean out of the water.
But look at what you AGAIN state yourself here on this thread BECAUSE IT SUITES YOU>>
I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it. None of this would pass a court room test. #11
So again, you are refusing evidence presented on this thread because according to you "None of this would pass a court room test. #11" <<<,,this is you introducing legal and lawful practice and "principles" into a thread when it SUITES YOU!!!!. You should fire whoever is writing your script for you because whoever it is they making you look even more ridiculous for someone that claims to be a wo/man of letters AND a lawyer!!!!! Or at lest get them to read all of your comments on this thread before answering on your behalf.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!I am sorry - this post is not about theists making a claim about God being true. It is about an atheist wanting to know about evidence.
That's correct. Is about asking for evidence concerning the existence of god because the Burden of Proof in on the theist. And you have been arguing - against the universally accepted law that the B of P is on s/he brings the claim. And it has turned out then that you can't even prove your claim.
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .God does a pretty good job himself.
Does he? Then lets some some solid and satisfactory evidence for that claim - YOUR claim.
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.We don't have to prove God exists. LOL! it is not us with the eye problem or with the unbelief.
Well you do if you insist that god exists. And you really need to fire your script writer. He / they are doing you absolutely no favours and are making you look amateurish and appear to be very retarded when compared to all of the quantification that you claim to have. And of late your posts certainly don't become a wo/man or letters.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .I only ask that you support and prove your claims. [A]But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.Do you even read what you write? I talk about God.
Actually you - write words about god - and I have to wonder why if "words are just words" according to you? I mean, whats the point of writing anything at all? << can you answer that question?
But did you read what I have wrote above at [A] in that quote of mine? " But you don't have to. No one is forcing you".
And makes no difference to me. HOW MANY TIMES!!!?? I ask a question you don't have to answer it. In fact I prefer it when you don't or can't, I usually suspect the latter when it comes to my questions?. I am quite content to just keep highlighting the ambiguous biblical half stories and posing my questions, especially to people such as yourself, Reverend ; a qualified person that claims to have "I studied and was tutored by academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91 and all those I honestly find it all a great experience , but I would have also preferred it to also be a challenge too.
You continually assert that "you have not seen any evidence for God's existence". That is your assertion. That is your positive assertion. Except you are too afraid to own it.
See this is where you are making GIANT, GIANT assumptions and "assertions" about what I believe. So show me just one single place on the whole of this forum where I have said I do not believe in the existence of god/gods or have even said that I - " have not seen any evidence for God's existence". <<<<<<<<< these are your assumptions and "assertions". You just love you double standards when they suite you don't you.
would I have an agenda? You would be better of using Matthew as opposed to Mark. Nevertheless, that is a commission for the apostles. Is it able to be extended to others in the church?Possibly
Then what exactly is your function as a Pastor and a Chaplin. What is the point of you and your ILK at all if not to spread to the world "the word of god" ? <<<< do you see how silly your sounding Reverend? Do you see how contradictory you coming across. Do you not see how in your desperation to be contrary you are denying that you have no religious function !?
But is it a command to others apart from the apostles?
I don't care. And you should know. I have simply quoted your own scriptures where Jesus tells his followers to go out and "preach the gospel" whatever it it was. Did these followers simply preach and not teach others to be teachers and preachers, so that they in turn would also carry on the teaching of Jesus? Do you not see how fkn stupid you are sounding.
The church would not make such an assertion? Since it is your assertion, I wonder if you will attempt to prove it?
I think my "assertion" is proven by the BIBLICAL fact that Jesus tells his followers to go out and preach to the world,Mark 16:15 or are you going to deny that too?
Now if this is not your "agenda" <<< your word, then what is your purpose? And why did you spend all of those years of training into becoming a minister of the church doctrine? You tell us that you "studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91.
You tell us that you also qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation to lecture student at universities" where you charge for the privallage.#20. You further tell us " I study the original languages, translate them to English" #25.
And to round it all off, and this is the relevant part of your academic history where the particular point here is YOU not having an "agenda" is YOU TELL US >. "I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived".#20 <<<<<<<< So what is it that you are "passing on" to all of those university students with all those years of religious academia under your belt, if its not the "word of god"Reverend? Do you see what a nonsense you are creating for yourself (or someone else is).
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.You lie again. You do care.
You really are desperate to be right about something and anything, aren't you.
You like most atheists put the lie or misconception that you don't care - but you do.
Prove it?
Otherwise you would be of doing something different. But no - instead - you are here trying to prove your case. Because you do care.
What I trying to prove???
You are not a lawyer at all are you?More ad hominin attacks.
It was a question.
And "words are just words" aren't they Reverend? How could my question ever cause you to feel like that you are being attacked?
-->
@STVLTVS
hello.
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, with the basis of evolution, as my sources demonstrate.
-->
@Tradesecret
You are not a lawyer at all are you?
It most certainly is your profession that bothers him.
Here is a theory. He thinks theists are dumb, and certainly dumber than he. But he finds that belief difficult with you being a theist AND a lawyer. So he soothes his cognitive dissonance by convincing himself that you aren't really a lawyer.
I wonder what he does for a living?
-->
@ethang5
It most certainly is your profession that bothers him.
Do you not understand humour? The joke is that the lawyer doesn't understand the law, hence they cannot comprehend how the BoP works.
-->
@Checkmate
Do you not understand humour?
Lol. Stephen doesn't have a sense of humor.
The joke is that the lawyer doesn't understand the law, hence they cannot comprehend how the BoP works.
TS understands how the BoP works just fine. The humor is you and Stephen doing logical contortions on the BoP. (Well with Stevie its just contortions)
The logical fact is, the one making a positive claim holds the BoP for that claim. You want to choose TS' claim for him. Why? And if you do, why can't he choose your claim for you?
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it. These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume. If you wish to debate TS, it will happen on terms you both agree on, not just your terms. If you don't like that, TS has told you he's not interested.
You're liberal, so you think others have to do what you like. You will learn better.
-->
@Stephen
didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;ThisLOL@ your continued sleight of hands. In the first place - I never introduced legal advice.But you did. When I asked you to answer a simple yes no question you told us that in your capacity as a lawyer that you advise your clients "never to answer a Yes or No question" #15 thereby introducing legal advice and lawful practice into a thread. I am not interested your pathetic semantics. You just love your double standards when they suite you, don't you Pastor?
You wanted me to answer with a simple yes or no. I told you to grow up and realize that the world and God are more complex than that. You insisted because you don't like people proving you that you are a simpleton. And that got right up your nose. So you continued to insist. You insulted me. So I merely threw back at - that such expectations by you were attempting to lead me into a trap. Something that lawyers do when they cross-examine opposition witnesses. I indicated that lawyers advise their clients to make no comment statements and I also indicated that I would always counsel my clients to answer as broadly as possible and not to give a yes or no answer. I spoke from my experience. And from that point on - despite the fact that I was attempting to demonstrate WHY I DID NOT NEED TO answer with a yes or no, not give legal advise or precedents - you decided - you would hook into me - and try and make yourself a hero. And perhaps now you are in the eyes of those who already agree with you. Despite the fact that you have not actually proved your case on B of P.
I simply drew on legal principles in relation to b of pNot in that thread I pointed out.#15. It was all legal and lawful then to do so then wasn't it? You used legal practice to avoid answering a simple yes or no question. My point was that suited you then but here you are wanting to over turn the universally accepted code of law accepted by all legal practices that the B Of P rests with YOU, the one that brings the claim.and the legal principles are : Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.: which you are trying to deny
I used my experience in that point in relation to answering a Yes or a NO. I explained to you why I would not do it because I was not going to fall into your semantics traps. You fall into your own trap all of the time. This is why people laugh at your so called logic and reasoning.
I am not denying the B. of P. You don't want to see my point. And let me prove that to you. If you understand what I am saying - put it back to me in your own words with a positive spin. And if you cannot do that - without sarcasm or negatively- then you prove conclusively you do not understand.
I did not EVEN introduce legal principles.That is because it clearly suites you not to. To do so would blow your B of P argument clean out of the water.But look at what you AGAIN state yourself here on this thread BECAUSE IT SUITES YOU>>
I love how you cut of half of the paragraphs. You cut and delete and post. You are sneaky.
I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it. None of this would pass a court room test. #11So again, you are refusing evidence presented on this thread because according to you "None of this would pass a court room test. #11" <<<,,this is you introducing legal and lawful practice and "principles" into a thread when it SUITES YOU!!!!. You should fire whoever is writing your script for you because whoever it is they making you look even more ridiculous for someone that claims to be a wo/man of letters AND a lawyer!!!!! Or at lest get them to read all of your comments on this thread before answering on your behalf.
Let me repeat myself - I agree with the burden of proof - on the person who makes the positive assertion. What part of that don't you understand? Are you a lemon?
Your problem is - you don't understand the appropriate and normal exceptions to the rule. And yes, there are exceptions to the rule. One of those exceptions is when the default position is an axiom. Or in some jurisdictions, a tradition.
Learn the principle, dear Stephen, learn what it applies to. Then see if there are exceptions to the rules. And see why those exceptions apply. If you want to use a legal example - look up the rule on Hearsay. Find out what it means. Then see how it applies. Then go and see if there are legitimate exceptions to the rule. And see how they apply.
You treat yourself like a fool over and over again. The B. of P. is a rule. It has exceptions. You should at least give the semblance that you have done your homework before pretending that you understand it.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!I am sorry - this post is not about theists making a claim about God being true. It is about an atheist wanting to know about evidence.That's correct. Is about asking for evidence concerning the existence of god because the Burden of Proof in on the theist. And you have been arguing - against the universally accepted law that the B of P is on s/he brings the claim. And it has turned out then that you can't even prove your claim.
Ding dong. Is there anyone at home? If this post is about atheists asserting positively that they have found no evidence for the existence of God, then the b . of p is on them to demonstrate their positive assertion. Personally, I don't think ANY Atheist recently has looked for so called evidence. They recently are trying to rely on a flawed understanding of the B .of P and figure that if theists don't prove it - they don't have to do any work themselves. After all, since the atheist has not got a clue what sort of evidence they are looking for - when they are confronted with it - they would not know what they are looking at. For them - it is easy. Reject. Reject. Reject. They have fooled themselves into believing a lie.
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .God does a pretty good job himself.Does he? Then lets some some solid and satisfactory evidence for that claim - YOUR claim.
Yes, go and read the Bible. One thing I notice when I read the bible - is that NOWHERE in any page in that book - is there even one attempt by anyone to reason or prove that GOD exists. This is pretty significant given they are all so ignorant - according to you. If they were that ignorant - then perhaps there would even be a semblance of such an attempt. But lo and behold -no where. Now that leads to a great question. Why don't you attempt to answer that one? Why does not one person in the bible attempt to prove God's existence? The answer is straightforward.
-->
@Stephen
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.We don't have to prove God exists. LOL! it is not us with the eye problem or with the unbelief.Well you do if you insist that god exists. And you really need to fire your script writer. He / they are doing you absolutely no favours and are making you look amateurish and appear to be very retarded when compared to all of the quantification that you claim to have. And of late your posts certainly don't become a wo/man or letters.
Christians don't generally come into places like this to debate the existence of God. Atheists are the ones who do that. Atheists are the ones with the problem. Or with the lack of faith. Or with the background issues that make them hate God. You hate God - so clearly and you don't even believe in him. That is sad and pathetic. To spend many hours a day spitefully trying to destroy God or the thought of him or to make him look bad.
It is the Atheist who is the predominant assertionist on these pages. He is the one constantly demanding answers. I provide answers when I have one. And I don't when I don't. I live and I learn. I make mistakes and when confronted I try to educate myself so as not to do it again. I am not perfect - I don't find it necessary to have all answers. But nor will I change my entire worldview because one person comes up with something I had not thought of before. And that is the intent of your posts. When you start to actually want real answers and to learn - it will be the first time.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .I only ask that you support and prove your claims. [A]But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.Do you even read what you write? I talk about God.Actually you - write words about god - and I have to wonder why if "words are just words" according to you? I mean, whats the point of writing anything at all? << can you answer that question?But did you read what I have wrote above at [A] in that quote of mine? " But you don't have to. No one is forcing you".And makes no difference to me. HOW MANY TIMES!!!?? I ask a question you don't have to answer it. In fact I prefer it when you don't or can't, I usually suspect the latter when it comes to my questions?. I am quite content to just keep highlighting the ambiguous biblical half stories and posing my questions, especially to people such as yourself, Reverend ; a qualified person that claims to have "I studied and was tutored by academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91 and all those I honestly find it all a great experience , but I would have also preferred it to also be a challenge too.
You really are tiresome. You think if you nail me about one comment I made six months ago - that gives you a right to bring it up everytime you talk to me. And you think this is a knock out punch for you. Well goody for you. My comments to our resident local OC priest was for him. I answered him. It is none of your business. And I am not going to give private information on this post no matter how much you troll me and try to manipulate me. What part of I am not going to give you any more private information about my life, do you not understand? I think you are a Creep with a capital C.
You continually assert that "you have not seen any evidence for God's existence". That is your assertion. That is your positive assertion. Except you are too afraid to own it.See this is where you are making GIANT, GIANT assumptions and "assertions" about what I believe. So show me just one single place on the whole of this forum where I have said I do not believe in the existence of god/gods or have even said that I - " have not seen any evidence for God's existence". <<<<<<<<< these are your assumptions and "assertions". You just love you double standards when they suite you don't you.
Are you an atheist? Yes. What is an atheist? An atheist is one who denies the existence of God. No it is someone who says that they have found no evidence for the existence of God. Earlier on I was not sure whether you believed in God or not. Yet you have on countless occasions confirmed that are an atheist.
would I have an agenda? You would be better of using Matthew as opposed to Mark. Nevertheless, that is a commission for the apostles. Is it able to be extended to others in the church?PossiblyThen what exactly is your function as a Pastor and a Chaplin. What is the point of you and your ILK at all if not to spread to the world "the word of god" ? <<<< do you see how silly your sounding Reverend? Do you see how contradictory you coming across. Do you not see how in your desperation to be contrary you are denying that you have no religious function !?
My function as a pastor is in relation to my local church. It is not in relation to you or to anyone else who is not a member of my church. On this site - my pastoral functions are irrelevant except when it relates to my own person experience.
But is it a command to others apart from the apostles?I don't care. And you should know. I have simply quoted your own scriptures where Jesus tells his followers to go out and "preach the gospel" whatever it it was. Did these followers simply preach and not teach others to be teachers and preachers, so that they in turn would also carry on the teaching of Jesus? Do you not see how fkn stupid you are sounding.
You have quoted one verse out of many - of which you simply rip it out of context - yes that old hairy chestnut. Given you don't even understand what context is - as your reference to some dodgy cartoon recently demonstrates - that does not surprise me. But you don't have any authority over me old boy - just like I don't have any over you. You don't know how to interpret the bible - if you did - then everyone would agree with you - or at least some would. But you are a novel interpreter. You are our very own website's David Koresh. You make it up as you go along and BERATE anyone who does not agree with you.
The church would not make such an assertion? Since it is your assertion, I wonder if you will attempt to prove it?I think my "assertion" is proven by the BIBLICAL fact that Jesus tells his followers to go out and preach to the world, Mark 16:15 or are you going to deny that too?Now if this is not your "agenda" <<< your word, then what is your purpose? And why did you spend all of those years of training into becoming a minister of the church doctrine? You tell us that you "studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91.You tell us that you also qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation to lecture student at universities" where you charge for the privallage.#20. You further tell us " I study the original languages, translate them to English" #25.And to round it all off, and this is the relevant part of your academic history where the particular point here is YOU not having an "agenda" is YOU TELL US >. "I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived".#20 <<<<<<<< So what is it that you are "passing on" to all of those university students with all those years of religious academia under your belt, if its not the "word of god"Reverend? Do you see what a nonsense you are creating for yourself (or someone else is).
Mark 16:15 is disputed by most scholars. But I am sure you know that. Jesus tells his disciples - in that particular case - Apostles to go out. You will need to do more than just refer to this verse. It simply is not good enough to try and make a doctrine up out of one verse. You do it a lot - which is why your views on the bible are so warped.
My personal reasons are my own personal reasons. They are none of your business. I am not going to give you more fuel to try and burn me. Passing on what I have learned is what teachers do. Scientists for example - pass on the information they have learned. It is the basis of learning and education. You do realize how scary you sound when you reject the learning of the past. I said "in most parts" by the way. Not in every part. And not in ALL Parts. This means not only do I respect what has come before - but that I do my own work. The only nonsense is your words - words which suggest that any learning but Stephen's is acceptable. As I said - David Koresh.
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.You lie again. You do care.You really are desperate to be right about something and anything, aren't you.
LLO@ you.
You like most atheists put the lie or misconception that you don't care - but you do.Prove it?
I don't need to. You do by returning to repost. If you did not care - you would never respond to me. Proof - absolutey. But I can't wait for your denial - again.
-->
@Tradesecret
Did you know humans and dogs share 84 percent of their DNA? My dog is an Atheist (well, he probably is an agnostic) and he is pretty happy.
-->
@FLRW
Did you know humans and dogs share 84 percent of their DNA? My dog is an Atheist (well, he probably is an agnostic) and he is pretty happy.
Hi FLRW,
thanks for your comments. I typically enjoy your thoughtful replies.
It is good to know that dogs and humans share 84% of their DNA. Are you suggesting that they both have the same designer?
Your dog is an atheist? Well - how do you know? An agnostic? Hmmm???
Jesus once said that if people stopped worshiping God, the rocks would ring out. I wonder if Jesus is suggesting that rocks are theists.
-->
@ethang5
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it
Just like how you are incapable of proving God is real.
These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume
But surely you have to look into why the things is considered true in the first place. Why was God even considered to be real? Can you provide any evidence? The only thing you seem capable of doing is shifting the BoP.
You are clearly a very confused individual. If you are accused of murder and are facing a court system, do you have to a) provide evidence that you are not a killer and risk being charged or b) rebut all allegations thrown at you and maintain the status quo. Perhaps the lawyer can help us out here.
-->
@Checkmate
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it
Just like how you are incapable of proving God is real.
Proving "to you" is not the same as proving. Every week in my church we convince people that God is real. Your disbelief doesn't make our proof false.
These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume
The only thing you seem capable of doing is shifting the BoP.
The BoP is never "shifted". If you make a positive claim, you have the BoP. Unshifted from anywhere. This is equally true for both of us
Why was God even considered to be real?
For the same reasons anything is considered to be real. People can feel His effects in their lives, in their environments, or it makes logical sense.
Can you provide any evidence?
Sure I can, but the question is, are you capable of accepting the evidence? But whether I can or not, you are not the final arbiter of my evidence, and it doesn't need your validation. You may accept or reject it, but the evidence itself remains unchanged by your acceptance or denial.
You are clearly a very confused individual. If you are accused of murder and are facing a court system, do you have to a) provide evidence that you are not a killer and risk being charged or b) rebut all allegations thrown at you and maintain the status quo. Perhaps the lawyer can help us out here.
You don't have to do either. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a killer. Short of that, you go free without having to rebut anything. Allegations do not become true simply because you do not rebut, the prosecutor must prove his allegations, not simply make them.
So you see, I'm not confused at all.
-->
@ethang5
He probably eats for a living.
Being a lawyer is just another way of maintaining a constant food supply....And being a lawyer won't stop one developing cancer or alzheimer's.
And apparently, neither does being lawyer prevent one from believing in fantasy tales.
For every jibe there is a counter jibe.
-->
@zedvictor4
He probably eats for a living.
If he soothed his angst by over eating, he wouldn't have so much on the board, though history says he's probably obese.
And apparently, neither does being lawyer prevent one from believing in fantasy tales.
And apparently, being true doesn't stop one from calling them fantasy tails. Some people are convinced that what they think - is reality.
For every jibe there is a counter jibe.
And for every truth, there is a counter lie.
-->
@ethang5
And for every assumption there is a counter assumption.....It's the inevitability of the unknown.
Notwithstanding common sense, of course.