I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 281
#151
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
And far too many sheep in Wales, for me to be worrying about Jihadists
Mffft! Wales is England for all practical purposes.

My body is unblemished.
How dare you call inking, blemish! You are going to lose your libtard credentials. Then labor will have one less vote when they again try to import thousands of backward peasants from some prehistoric culture. Be careful!

#152
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So you say without a shred of evidence.  LOL!
#153
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
No. God is not synonymous with religion. God is superior to, and precedes, all.
God precedes all?
Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?

Topic's author
#154
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

Why would any sort of jihadist keep me awake? Most of the world is not as run over with jihadists as England is. Only sheep or soldiers get killed by jihadists.

   You really are  disgustingly fkn ignorant at times aren't you. You will say just about anything for wont of a reply and  as long as it serves you as a response. You are absolutely disgusting and vile!!!

Those  "sheep" you mention also happen to be hundreds of thousands of Christians that are being murdered all over the fkn globe by jihadists.

You was bragging not long ago how Christianity was expanding in African and the east, yet here you are mocking & deriding - if not celebrating -  the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gods Christian  "sheep".  I think you are ill, I really do.

You really are  disgustingly fkn ignorant at times aren't you. You will say just about anything as long as it serves you as a response.


The perpetually outraged SJW is outraged again.


Don't try and wave this away as insignificant in relation to that vile and disgusting, thoughtless comment.


You are damn right I am "outraged", you sick little puppy! Anyone with the least of morals, and least of  empathy would be outraged by such a vile and disgusting statement.  And YOU call yourself a fkn Christian!????? You have showdown nothing but ignorance of your own faith and scriptures ever since I came across you.  



Are you saying that these poor CHRISTIAN souls weren't Jesus ' sheep!??? Are you saying that "the lord" is NOT their Shepherd!!!??  You're an absolute FKN disgrace to your god and your religion!!!!



Islamic State in Nigeria 'beheads Christian hostages'   "One captive in the middle is shot dead while the other 10 are pushed to the ground and beheaded." 

Violence against Christians on the rise in Africa.  "Bloodbath in the Church"


"Children have been “slaughtered”" and people burnt to death in violent clashes between Muslim cattle herders and Christian farmers in Nigeria according to Amnesty International



Nigeria Is A Killing Field Of Defenseless Christians "A Nigerian Christian describes the Fulani jihadist attack that destroyed his village, Ninka, Kaduna State and killed many Christian villagers

The Lord is my shepherd;

Then he led out his people like sheep.
And guided them in the wilderness like a flock.

But we your people, the sheep of your pasture,




 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.


The Reverend should be thankful that you didn't write this one up to him. You have dropped him in it quite a lot lately.


#155
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
God precedes all?
Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?
Correct.

No comment about how you were wrong? OK.


#156
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I guess it's not mocking and celebrating when the outraged SJW mentions Christians being killed. Ah, liberal logic! HistoryBuff also thought it was "spreading rumors" only when I ask  about a story.

But I see you're still managing to mention TS in every post of yours to me. Untreated obsessions get worse and worse. You know that right?

Don't try and wave this away as insignificant in relation to that vile and disgusting, thoughtless comment.
You are insignificant Stephen. What you think of my comment even less so.

You are damn right I am "outraged", you sick little puppy!
Yawn. And?
#157
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Correct.
So God does not precede all?

No comment about how you were wrong? OK
How was I wrong? By the way it will probably be better if we focus on one issue at a time.
#158
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
No. God is not synonymous with religion. God is superior to, and precedes, all.
God precedes all?
Correct.

So God does not precede all?
Sorry, I only do logic. 

No comment about how you were wrong? OK
How was I wrong?
You claimed:
[I ] would probably agree and accept what [you're] about to say in different circumstances. 
I did not agree, and there is no circumstance where God would be the same age as the worship given to Him by His creation. You were wrong.

You also said, "So yes, I’m capable of fully understanding what people believe better than they do themselves. 

Not if you were wrong and illogical in the process. You aren't capable of fully understanding what people believe better than they do themselves. 

By the way it will probably be better if we focus on one issue at a time.
You were wrong first. I am dealing with each issue as it comes up. But I understand why you want to side step this issue. Carry on.
#159
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Sorry, I only do logic
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally. For something to precede, it requires time by definition. 

How’s that?

Let’s stay on one topic. Once you concede this, we can move on.
#160
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally.
I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.

How’s that?
You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.

Let’s stay on one topic. Once you concede this, we can move on.
Lol! I know you'd love me to "concede" something you said, but honesty prevents me. God is the creator of time and does not exist in it. Time rather exists in God.

God is superior to time itself, and does not need it to exist. He is eternal and immutable.

For something to precede, it requires time by definition. 
God is not a man, and does not suffer the limitations of men. God existed before time and exists outside of time. Do not confuse the limitations of human language for the attributes of God. God precedes everything, even time itself.

You will have to find your concession somewhere else.
#161
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.
I asked:

“Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?”

And this is what you said:
Correct.
You also said when referring to God:
And immutable and eternal.
It’s funny how you would nerf God when it’s convenient. 

You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.
No, it’s you also.

I’m ignoring everything else for practicality sakes 
#162
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The dragon in my garage by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! 

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. 

"Where's the dragon?" you ask. 

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." 

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. 

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." 

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. 

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." 

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. 

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." 

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. 

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

#163
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.

I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say.

I asked:
I know what you asked. The question here is what I said.

“Yet God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Correct?”
And this is what you said:
Correct.

Now, if you can show how this implies that God cannot precede everything, I would love to see it.

You also said when referring to God:
And immutable and eternal.

It’s funny how you would nerf God when it’s convenient. 
Lol. Don't be a sore loser. You are new to logic and your experience doesn't justify your confidence.

You'd have to tell us, since its you saying God simultaneously exists throughout time.

No, it’s you also.
I don't have to explain anything I did not say. We are on a board that faithfully records what we post. Don't paraphrase me, quote me.

I’m ignoring everything else for practicality sakes 
Uh-huh. Practicality.
#164
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
You haven't asked me to do anything. And while you may be enamored with Mr. Sagan, his invisible dragon is basically infantile logic for sloppy thinkers.

I don't know and I don't care about your dragon, and I have seen no reason from you how this is pertinent to our discussion. If your invisible dragon is supposed to represent God, your analogy is incorrect, for your dragon could represent "thought" or a "black hole". With this sort of thought experiment, your "dragon" must be a faithful representation of God or your entire thought experiment is bogus.

It is silly to require physical evidence for something nonphysical. It is like doubting the existence of black holes because you can't see them. Physical things can be proven with physical tests. Non-physical things cannot.

what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
Well for one, you wouldn't be sprinkling powder on your garage floor if there was no dragon.

The actual logical error Mr. Sagan makes is that he assumes that the "dragon" not being detectable by physical tests, is the same thing as the "dragon" being unable to affect the physical world. There is no logical reason for that assumption. It is a leap of logic.

Mr. Sagan misses the most logical question because of his bias, that even a high schooler would figure out.

Ask the claimant how he became aware of a fire-breathing dragon living in his garage!

This "experiment" is akin to placing a person through multiple brain scans to find out if they are thinking instead of simply asking them if they are thinking! But the "trick" in this thought experiment needs the multiple failed physical tests to divert from the obvious question not being asked.
#165
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
"How did you become aware of this dragon?" 

"My parents told me it's there."
#166
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Then he's not really "aware" is he?

And it's you answering, not him. Your experiment is as bogus as they cone.
#167
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
So you're saying he'd have to have personal experience with the dragon, something like "I can hear it whisper in the night"? WHat would suffice to make him 'aware' in your view? 
#168
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh no sir! I've asked YOU that very question, and you dodged.

What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.

I'm going by the scenario Reece set up. He said there was a dragon in his garage, but he doesn't tell us how he knows this. Now you're asking ME to tell you what credible way he can know! Lol.

The entire scenario is fake. A dragon is a physical being. There is nothing intrinsic in a dragon about being invisible, or intangible. Fire breathing might be, but then your scenario goes and makes the fire not-fire. None of this is true for the Christian concept of God.

We do not postulate a physical God and then deny the physical. Intangibility is inherent in the nature of what God is. We aren't making excuses for why a spirit God cannot be physically perceived, but that is exactly the lie your scenario attempts to substitute for the truth.

The invisible dragon is faux logical fakery, just like the FSM. It's meant to convince neophytes and poor thinkers.
#169
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.
Are you telling me that, or are you telling yourself that?

I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say
This is what I meant when I said you lack basic reasoning. 

“Everywhere, including time” is the same as “throughout time.”
You agreed with the former but not the latter. 
Can you explain how they’re substantively different because I sure as hell can’t.





#170
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
I would say speaking to the world through a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show would be valid.
#171
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@FLRW
But then ethang5 will eventually say you can’t test God.
You see, he acts in bad faith. When it’s convenient he’ll go back on his word.
#172
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
God does not go back on his word.  The one thing about God is he keeps his word.  This is what people hate. He means what he says and people dislike this immensely. 
#173
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Seriously!!!????
#174
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I’m talking about ethang5, not God.
#175
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Precision is important. Words mean things, and their order is paramount.
Are you telling me that, or are you telling yourself that?
You tried to hold me for what YOU said. I'm telling you.

I did not say God simultaneously exists throughout time, you did. Please, only what I say
This is what I meant when I said you lack basic reasoning. 
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.

“Everywhere, including time” is the same as “throughout time.”
If it was the same you would not have changed it.

You agreed with the former but not the latter. 
Yes.

Can you explain how they’re substantively different because I sure as hell can’t.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?

I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does not flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.

But then ethang5 will eventually say you can’t test God.
You see, he acts in bad faith. When it’s convenient he’ll go back on his word.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
#176
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.

I would say speaking to the world through a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show would be valid.
And I will say I'm sure God is going to hop right to it for your believing pleasure.

To the Gentle Reader:
Note that God already spoke to the world through a burning bush, and most militant atheists ridiculed it. And ask FLRW what he would say if someone he was debating used the Jim Banker show as a source.

Why would FLRW believe it was God and not a trick? He does not believe the parting of the Red Sea, or the virgin birth, or the resurrection, why would he believe that? Does he find Jim Baker credible?

Because I cannot honestly address such dishonest silliness without risking a ban, I just make a note to you the Gentle Readers whom I know see the total lack of sincerity in his reply.
#177
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Note that God already spoke to the world through a burning bush, and most militant atheists ridiculed it. 
When did that happen? I recall a story from an uncorroborated, anonymous and ancient text (of which we have no contemporary version) that God spoke to an individual through a burning bush. If there was another event, especially one witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, please let me know.
#178
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
The social communicative function of irony suggests a distinct
role for ventromedial (VM) regions within the frontal lobes, as
opposed to dorsolateral (DL) regions. Whereas DL prefrontal
regions have been associated with executive functions, VM lesions
have been shown to result in impaired social skills, such as social
judgment (Eslinger & Damasio, 1985) and decision making (Bechara,
Damasio, Tranel, & Anderson, 1998). Thus, if patients with
lesions in subregions of the prefrontal cortex differ in their deficit
in understanding sarcasm, this would suggest that specific areas
within the prefrontal cortex are crucial to the mediation of comprehension
of sarcastic utterances.

#179
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
When did that happen?
Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.

I recall a story from an uncorroborated,....
FLRW did not mention corroboration.

...anonymous and ancient text (of which we have no contemporary version)
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".

...that God spoke to an individual through a burning bush.
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?

If there was another event, especially one witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, please let me know.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?

It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!

Thanks for the validation of my point.
#180
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5

Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.
I'm not sure "exile" is the proper word. He fled voluntarily.

FLRW did not mention corroboration. 
He mentioned the act's being done in a public and visible place. I assumed that this is becuase he wanted there to be corroboration.
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".
The text is anonymous (at least Exodus is...Deuteronomy sort of has a claimed author). And thank you -- I meant "contemporaneous."
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?
Nope. But at least one would be visible by others besides the person involved.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?
The same way I know that Harry Potter ran through the column top get to Platform 9 and 3/4. A writer made a claim in print.

It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!
I absolutely would, but because I'm not looking for proof and I know that any claim of proof is doomed, including equally claims using the bible and using a TV show.