God exists, and I Can Prove It.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 531
#91
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@YouFound_Lxam


Stephen,

Jesus H. Christ, as we can both see, I am going to have to hire a secretary to keep track of YouFound_Lxam's blatant and stupid Bible mistakes that mount up with every page of his comical thread!  Just like Miss Tradesecret, you take away YouFound_Lxam in proffering his opinions, metaphors, and subjective interpretations of the Bible, and where he says that you are not to take the Bible literally all the time, and he falls flat upon his proverbial face! LOL!


YouFound_Lxam the Bible fool has forgotten the following passages inspired by Jesus as God!

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6) 

  “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

Stephen, do any of the passages above state that you can have your personal OPINIONS, METAPHORS and other SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible that you want? NO, THEY DO NOT!


At least Miss Tradesecret has a pal in being as Bible stupid as she is, where they make a cute couple, praise Jesus!

.


#92
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1: The Singularity

We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing.

Singularity does not mean "popped into existence from nothing" and science doesn't make that claim. 'Something from nothing' is a religious claim, not a scientific one.


2: Design Has to Have a Designer

To show something is designed, we need something that is NOT designed to compare it to. If it is your contention that all of existence is designed, then what have you compared it to? 


We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain.
The hallmark of good design is simplicity - not complexity.


3. What Created Life?

Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.
That's a deceptive statement. We certainly have seen components necessary for life coming about in these experiments which strongly suggests there is a path for abiogenesis. 

So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.
It is not a dichotomy between chemicals or your god-concept for the origin of life. It is not even a choice between chemicals and supernatural. It is much more reasonable to embrace 'I don't know' rather than assume the most fantastical of all explanations is true.


4. Moral Law

If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God. 
The only thing needed for something to be "objectively" right or wrong is a standard. This is plain to see. Take chess as an example: we (humans) made up the rules and changed them over time. Yet, people routinely determine chess moves to be good or bad as judged against the goal of the game (win... or not lose).

Morality has changed over time too. We now eschew some acts condoned in the Bible such as slavery, rape, and genocide. If the immutable god of the Bible were the standard of morality, these things should still be moral. 


5. Human Reasoning

We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.

That's not an argument. You are making a bald assertion. I can do the same as a legitimate counter: I think you don't know what you think you know.

Also, I think it should be pointed out that we don't really know what is going in inside the brains of other species. Are all other animals really incapable of reason?
#93
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Just like Miss Tradesecret, you take away YouFound_Lxam in proffering his opinions, metaphors, and subjective interpretations of the Bible, and where he says that you are not to take the Bible literally all the time, and he falls flat upon his proverbial face! LOL!

Yet when the sandal is on the other foot , they -Tradesecret in particular - insist on that I quote only from the bible. But when I oblige,  Tradesecret in particular will  scramble for excuses claiming metaphor, subjective interpretations and "other commentators speculations and guesswork."

Stephen, do any of the passages above state that you can have your personal OPINIONS, METAPHORS and other SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible that you want?
Not at all Brother D. Those verses in particular  mean exactly what they say today as the they did the day were written.... and in any language too. And that is why it came as music to my ears when the Reverend wrote this:


TRADESECRET WROTE: Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other.  Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy.  When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity.  #139

Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is often the correct one. #116

The Reverend certainly opened the gate very wide for me with that comment Brother D. , while failing to realise he had just stuck both feet in that wide open Pastors pie hole of his.
  
#94
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik

When I say survival is valuable, I refer to human survival not everything that exists, they would still continue to exist without us, and the alternative relates to why our existence is valuable. Just to clarify I use the term valuable to mean useful, of benefit or importance.
#95
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
When I say survival is valuable, I refer to human survival not everything that exists, they would still continue to exist without us
I know what you’re referring to I’m just applying that reference to everything else to expose the inconsistency.

the alternative relates to why our existence is valuable
But if nothing is of value then that applies to everything including alternatives. Meaning in other words existence and nonexistence aren’t valuable, you’re not doing any favors by only addressing the latter especially since it wasn’t apart of the argument to begin with.
#96
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik
But if nothing is of value then that applies to everything including alternatives. Meaning in other words existence and nonexistence aren’t valuable, you’re not doing any favors by only addressing the latter especially since it wasn’t apart of the argument to begin with.

Okay, so to return to your original point “that the value of survival can only be objectively proven through God.” So what do you consider to be nature of this value that can only be objectively proven through God?
#97
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Sidewalker
science believed that the sun orbited the earth until the Copernican revolution less than 500 years ago, does that invalidate science also?
No. Science is explicitly based upon a presumption of imperfect knowledge being improved over time, whereas God is supposed to be eternal with perfect knowledge.


your commitment to materialism is a form of metaphysics
Materialism: philosophy
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

At no point did I assert that I believe this. I have made no claims on the existence of souls or other supernatural/nonmaterialistic phenomena. Technically, I haven't even made the claim that there is no God. Just because FoundLxam's arguments are bad doesn't mean that there aren't good arguments in favor of theism. I will say that I firmly believe that the Bible is so contradictory and inconsistent as to be useless as a theological or metaphysical text, much less as a source for empirical claims.

your second implied assertion, that the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge is a matter of epistemology.
No. I never implied this. When you burn your hand on the stove as a child, you don't go 'I hypothesize that touching it again would burn me again'. You just don't touch it anymore. But this is still empirical. The scientific method is just a formalized way of investigating reality with empirical observations, but it is far from necessary.
Obviously, you can't make empirical observations on metaphysics, since they aren't physical. That doesn't mean that no truth exists in metaphysics, we are able to use syllogisms and other forms of reasoning to draw conclusions about these things.
I ascribe to rationalism, not 'scientism,' by the way. And it's a philosophy, not a religion.
#98
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
So what do you consider to be nature of this value that can only be objectively proven through God?
Obviously I can’t speak for you or any other atheist (hence why your ideology still ponders me) but for me the constant fear of hell is why I don’t take life for granted, but I’m sure you could’ve guessed that.
Topic's author
#99
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Elliott
Basically yes, although evolution operates through selection rather than creation, it simply selects those traits that are beneficial for survival.
You said yourself that evolution selected those traits, but from where evolution selected those traits? Where did those traits come from.
Topic's author
#100
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Actually, I did respond to that post in post #55, if you were paying attention.
I only responded to that portion, because the rest was just you calling names. Rephrasing what I said and calling me stupid.
You still assume that I am psudo-christain, and keep bringing up arguments that I have already explained to you. At least make a counter argument.
Are you that NERVOUS and AFRAID of the biblical axioms and truths that I have shown you in the link below, therefore you have to RUN AWAY from ALL of them?  
No, I have responded to them, but you seem to just not care.

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” (Ephesians 1:11).  Key word: PREDESTINED where Jesus’ creation have absolutely no free will, period!
This scripture does not represent God making our will for us. If you look at the scripture. It says," In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” (Ephesians 1:11)."

The "we" the scripture is referring to is we the people of God, the people who have accepted his invitation to eternal paradise with him. Not all people. And if we follow his will, according to his purpose, then we have obtained and inheritance. The scripture also says "In him" meaning only through him. 

“The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the LORD” (Proverbs 16:33).  
The version I go with (NLT) states," Proverbs 16:33 We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall."

Either version has the same message, and that message isn't that we don't have free will, but that ultimately, God lives outside of time. Therefore, he knows every future possibility, and every outcome. He makes the decision, for the good of his people, who have decided to follow him. He doesn't take away from our personal decision to follow him, but he instead works and makes decisions for the good of his people.

"Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand (Proverbs 19:21).
"the purpose of the Lord..." This means that only the people who follow his purpose will stand.

"The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps" (Proverbs 16:9).
This literally proves free will rather than disprove it. 
"The heart of man plans his way..."

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope (Jeremiah 29:11).
YES! He knows the future and the good path he has for us, only if we give our hearts to him, may we see those plans.

Further passages proving that we TRUE Christians DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL, and where Jesus controls our every action!
If he controls our every move, then we would be not capable of love, because to love is to decide to love, not to be forced to love. Do you think that humans are incapable of loving?

Therefore, this statement is wrong, and the reason to use those quotes for that purpose have been proven wrong as well.




Topic's author
#101
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@ebuc
Universe has not purpose and does not design.
Literally look at biology. Things can't live, unless they work a certain way.

There is no origin since energy cannot be created nor destroyed it eternally exists in various phase-states  of fermionic matter, bosonic forces, Gravity and Dark Energy.
Well, there has to be origin, because something can't just come out of nothing, so it is ludicrous to believe that all of this has no origin. 
It takes more faith to believe that the universe has always existed, than the idea of God.

 w dont know that biologic life was created,
Yes, we do, because it exists, and scientists even claim that there was a universe, before life.

.....space(> * <) i  (> * <)space.....

space = truly non-occupied and occupied

>< = dipolar invaginations from ultra-high nummber of space-time tori, that, result in sine-wave pattern /\/\/ aka physical reality

* * = bilateral consciousness found in reality with woman being the most complex entity of Universe, barring  two or more women or man and woman or a black hole with encoding for biologic life embedded within

(  ) = postive shaped geodesic Gravity aka Spirit-3 { Meta-physical }

)(  = negative shaped geodesic Dark Energy aka Spirit-4 { Meta-physical }

i = ego identification as Meta-space concept
And yes, this is nonsense.
#102
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
there has to be origin, because something can't just come out of nothing
So where does God come from? It makes just as much sense for the universe to be eternal and without cause as for God to be eternal and without cause.
Topic's author
#103
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
So where does God come from? It makes just as much sense for the universe to be eternal and without cause as for God to be eternal and without cause.
God is eternal without a cause because he lives outside of time. Think of it like this:
In a metaphorical sense, there is a box, and in the box is all of time/space. God doesn't live in the box. He lives outside of that (outside of time and space, things he created.) 
He can stick his hand in the box and affect things, but he doesn't live inside that box.

So, he lives outside of time, therefore he is eternal. 
#104
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
me the constant fear of hell is why I don’t take life for granted,
Wow, that's a crappy philosophy.
#105
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@YouFound_Lxam

.
YouFound_Lxam,

THIS IS THE "FORTH TIME" THAT YOU HAVE RAN AWAY FROM THE POST/LINK BELOW THAT SHOWS YOU TO BE A BIBLE FOOL JUST LIKE MISS TRADESECRET!




YOUR EVER SO WEAK POST WHERE YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO MY POST #36 LINK SHOWN ABOVE: "Actually, I did respond to that post in post #55, if you were paying attention."


YES, because I have paid attention to your Miss Tradesecret runaway tactics, surely you jest that your feeble post #55 addressed my post #36?  OMG, if it does, then your post #55 doesn't even begin to address the link in question above, but only to run away from it in your embarrassment of not addressing it in its entirety!  LOL!  


If you RUN AWAY for the FIFTH TIME, I will bring said post to the forefront once again to make you the Bible Fool Runaway! Understood?!



.


#106
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@K_Michael
science believed that the sun orbited the earth until the Copernican revolution less than 500 years ago, does that invalidate science also?
No. Science is explicitly based upon a presumption of imperfect knowledge being improved over time, whereas God is supposed to be eternal with perfect knowledge.
The Bible is a collection of writings that were written over a period of 1500 years, and yes, there are references to facts about nature that were believed at the time, but in your faith, you believe it is invalid as a religious text because you think God should have told the authors about the Copernican Revolution 3000 years before it happened? 

That’s a pretty bizarre belief system you have there, but hey, if you want to see the Bible as representing a faith that is competing with your own, that’s fine, whatever floats your boat.  Most people are going to think it’s contrived and pretty weird, and completely faith based, perhaps you shouldn’t try to pass it off as a logical, factual, or intellectual evaluation of religious texts.


Topic's author
#107
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I can assume you are a "pseudo-christian" because of your Bible stupidity in NOT understanding your Jesus inspired Big Bang as I have shown you at your embarrassment in my post #23!  LOL!  Furthermore, whether you are a non-denominational, only on Sundays, or when "cherry picking" Bible passages to support your weak opinions, Christian, YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN as even your lame biography so states! Therefore, I did not spew out lies, get it Bible fool?
You have not proved my Bible stupidity; in fact, I have proved you wrong in that area of logic. 
And yes, you did lie. You called me pseudo-Christian without evidence, and you were wrong.

"cherry picking" Bible passages to support your weak opinions
You did this as well, trying to prove to me that God does not give free will, which I have proved wrong.

YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN
Yes....I am. I am a non-denominal Christian, which is not the same as a pseudo-Christian.

Pseudo-Christian: "Pseudo religion or pseudo theology is a pejorative for a non-mainstream belief-system or philosophy which is functionally similar to a religious movement, typically having a founder, principal text, liturgy and faith-based beliefs."

I am not non-mainstream. 

Listen up, when you use the "Day Age Theory" for Creation, you are proffering that the time frame of the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2 is only 6000 years in a 6 day Creation, and where comically you propose that on the 7th day, Jesus as god, RESTED for a thousand years!  ROFLOL!  Furthermore Bible fool, you also say that Adam hung around for TWO THOUSAND YEARS before God created Eve from one of his ribs?  (Genesis 2:18-22) You "Day Age Theory" does not work for the Creation stories, understood?  Are you a comedian from Saturday Night Live comedy show? LOL!
Again, you are assuming my thinking, which is not a very smart thing to do, and you are entirely wrong.

when you use the "Day Age Theory" for Creation, you are proffering that the time frame of the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2 is only 6000 years in a 6 day Creation,
I am not proffering this. I am saying that what I believe happened, is that the Gods 7-day creation didn't happen in 7 days, or 7 thousand years, but rather, the way science explained it, is the way it happened, through millions of years. 

2 Peter 3:8, "But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day."

I believe that this scripture is a metaphor and is trying to show the fact that God lives outside of time there for, a day could be like a thousand years for God, or it could be an eternity. But then again, it could have been 7 days, or 7 thousand literal years, I couldn't say for sure. That is just my take on it. 

Furthermore Bible fool, you also say that Adam hung around for TWO THOUSAND YEARS before God created Eve from one of his ribs?
No, I'm not saying this. But that could have been the case. Let me explain.
Before Eve ate the apple from the Tree of Good and Evil, there was no sin. There was no murder, and there was no death. 
It was only when Eve ate the apple, and disobeyed gods command, that sin entered the world, and the curse of death was put on us. 
So yes, Adam could have been around for a long time, (longer than the modern lifespan of a human) and God saw that he was lonely, so he created a woman a while later.

You "Day Age Theory" does not work for the Creation stories, understood?
Yes, it does. I just proved that to you.

Now listen, I want to have an intellectual conversation with you, but you are spewing out insults and making it hard for me to debate with you. That is why I haven't replied to your post until now. Trust me, I am open minded, and will listen to anything you have to say, but calling names is not going to get you anywhere. 
Half of your posts is just you, making rude remarks.
Topic's author
#108
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
  • MISS TRADESECRET!
  • Miss Tradesecret runaway tactics\
  • MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”
  • Are you trying to be more Bible dumbfounded than Miss Tradesecret?
  •  the new Bible fool YouFound_Lxam is vying to be more Bible stupid than Miss Tradesecret
  • NEXT BIBLE FOOL LIKE "YOUFOUND_LXAM" THAT WENT TO TRADESECRET'S SCHOOL OF HOW TO RUN AWAY FROM POSTS THAT YOU CANNOT ANSWER, WILL BE ...?
  •   Just like Miss Tradesecret
  • At least Miss Tradesecret has a pal in being as Bible stupid as she is 
Also, you really seem to like this Transecret person, because you are bringing them up every two seconds.

And last I checked, when you accused Transecret of dodging your questions and then leaving, well I just checked that forum, and Transecret had the last word, not you. And it was a response to your argument.







#109
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Stephen wrote: So the 7 day creation story is not to be taken literally but the  1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?
How do you know?


YouFound_Lxam Wrote: Here is the thing about the scripture. The scripture doesn't always mean something literally happened, and it doesn't mean something metaphorically happened.
All very ambiguous then.
So how do you know when to take something literal or metaphorical? Did the  illiterate  superstitious Jews and early Christians understand metaphor and idioms? 
From what I have read even the disciples of Jesus didn't understand what he was talking about most of the time, so how can you claim that you understand what is meant by something spoken 2000 years ago, when the local goatherd and fisherman couldn't?

Stephen wrote: "So the 7-day creation story is not to be taken literally but the 1 day = 1,000 years is to be taken literally?"

YouFound_Lxam wrote: Yes maybe. But maybe by the scripture saying that, it could be representing that God lives outside of time, therefore it was portrayed differently.

But then again it could have meant a literal 7 days, or 7 thousand years. Thats the fascinating thing about the bible.
"maybe it is"?    "could have meant"?

That's called make it up as you go along where I come from.  And opens the door for you take literary licence and apply any excuse as long as it suites.



YouFound_Lxam wrote, That's the fascinating thing about the bible.



And it is fascinating to me that Christians have had 2000 years to iron out these ambiguous half stories that make up the NT and with every new excuse for these biblical ambiguities comes new dilemmas and questions To put that in English, you Christians have continually been putting patches on a burst innertube for over 2000 years and it has left you holding nothing but patches..


You should actually take note of what your Christ had to say on such matters.

Matthew 9:16-17 New International Version
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”



#110
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Sidewalker
you believe it is invalid as a religious text because you think God should have told the authors about the Copernican Revolution 3000 years before it happened? 
No, I believe it is invalid as a religious text because it lies. It doesn't need to bring up the structure of the solar system, but if it does, then it has to get it right.

#111
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You said yourself that evolution selected those traits, but from where evolution selected those traits? Where did those traits come from.
From natural mutation, it is that which generates the genetic variation on which evolution depends, without that variation there would be nothing for evolution to select.
#112
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Tarik
Obviously I can’t speak for you or any other atheist (hence why your ideology still ponders me) but for me the constant fear of hell is why I don’t take life for granted, but I’m sure you could’ve guessed that.
No, I wouldn’t have guessed that, I have always found the concept of hell truly horrible. Supposedly it involves unbearable agony and it is internal, that means it lasts not a thousand or a thousand billion years it means it never ever ends; you really have to think about that one and there is no redemption, there is no way out.
 
This isn’t justice, this is monstrous with no perceivable purpose other than cruelty for cruelty's sake. No one deserves such a fate, not even Hitler or the worst serial killers, no one. It is beyond evil and therefore so is its creator.
 
You are a Christian you believe in a loving God, no loving God could wish such an abomination for those he cares about, it should be inconceivable. I have known a number of Christians, mostly Church of England and they don’t believe in hell, they believe in this “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23.” No mention of hell or damnation, simply death.

#113
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@K_Michael
you believe it is invalid as a religious text because you think God should have told the authors about the Copernican Revolution 3000 years before it happened? 
No, I believe it is invalid as a religious text because it lies. It doesn't need to bring up the structure of the solar system, but if it does, then it has to get it right.
I see, so you reject competing religions because they are not infallible about what science will learn in the future?   

I've noticed that the Bible isn't a very good cookbook either, maybe that would be another way your religion could deny competing faiths, I mean, the God that forgot to tell everyone about the Copernican Revolution for three thousand years could have at least provided us with some really good recipes, you should definately reject a God that can't cook.  
#114
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
No, I wouldn’t have guessed that, I have always found the concept of hell truly horrible.
Which is exact why attempting to avoid such a place (through valuing life for example) is logically justified, my original point all along.
#115
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@K_Michael
Religious texts are there to explain how God or gods relate to man. Whatever examples they gave to early man to try to explain how things work may or may not be accurate. You also have people writing down whatever visions they saw, in ways they understand it. It is not meant to be a science book, it is not meant to be fact, it is myth. It is stories related from the gods to men to be interpreted by the men that it was given to and then those stories have been passed on verbally and eventually written down. Each time the story is told it is accepted by the person and process the way that person understands it. I really wish you people would quit acting like somebody wrote a religious test thinking it was going to be used as a science book in a school later, that is not how it worked, that's never how it's worked. If you're an atheist and you don't believe in any religion I don't understand why you're even here talking about it, it means nothing to you. We get it you don't believe in any gods, you don't believe any religious text in any way shape or form, you're just here to fucking harass believers.
#116
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam; your Bible ignorance and stupidity is without bounds, therefore, I will use a few different posts directed to this blatant fact regarding your embarrassing post #107!

Jesus and I are so happy that my post #105 triggered you to FINALLY respond to your RUNNING AWAY 4 TIMES to my post #36 relative to your Bible stupidity, and you want to call yourself a Christian, NOT!  You as a “pseudo-christian” is more apropos! 2+2=4.


YOUR RELENTLESS ACT OF NOT ACCEPTING THE OBVIOUS FACT QUOTE: “You have not proved my Bible stupidity; in fact, I have proved you wrong in that area of logic.  And yes, you did lie. You called me pseudo-Christian without evidence, and you were wrong.”

Listen up. Bible fool, TRUE Christians do not run away from at least “trying” to defend the faith (Titus 1:9) like you did to my post #36, FOURTIMES! Get it Bible fool, therefore you are a pseudo-christian, plain and simple.


YOUR READING COMPREHENSION GOES WANTING: QUOTE: “You did this as well, trying to prove to me that God does not give free will, which I have proved wrong.”

No, you HAVE NOT proved that Jesus has given you FREE WILL simply because your pre-school reading comprehension lacks the skills to see that the Bible passages that I gave you proving that you do not have free will are true. I gave you 12 passages showing explicitly that you do not have free will, of which, your embarrassing refutation was to only 5 of them that fell flat on their face! LOL!  READ ALL OF THE PASSAGES, BIBLE FOOL!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359948


.
#117
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam, addressing your comical post #107

YOUR FEEBLE QUOTE AGAIN IN NOT BEING A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN:  “Yes….I am. I am a non-denominal Christian, which is not the same as a pseudo-Christian.”

You remain a PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN because you ran away from my post #36 FOUR TIMES, and you are still RUNNING AWAY from the following posts that I have made to you, understood Bible fool?

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359946
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359948
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359955

You are still running away from the 3rd portion of this post!:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359759



YOUR RUNAWAY RESPONSE QUOTE TO MY DAY AGE THEORY IN MY POST #36 THAT YOU ARE UNGODLY USING: “Again, you are assuming my thinking, which is not a very smart thing to do, and you are entirely wrong.”

THEN SIMPLY PROVE IT WITHOUT YOUR SUBJECTIVE SATANIC “OPINIONS” THIS TIME IN GOING AGAINST JESUS’ DIRECT INSPIRED WORDS! 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)


.


#118
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam, addressing your comical post #107

MY QUOTE TO YOU: “when you use the "Day Age Theory" for Creation, you are proffering that the time frame of the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2 is only 6000 years in a 6 day Creation,

YOUR FEEBLE QUOTE IN USING YOUR “OPINIONS” OVER GODS DIRECT INSPIRED WORDS:   “I am not proffering this. I am saying that what I believe happened, is that the Gods 7-day creation didn't happen in 7 days, or 7 thousand years, but rather, the way science explained it, is the way it happened, through millions of years.”

Where do you get the authority to say things like “what I believe happened” in this instance over what Jesus’ inspired words say in the creation narrative that a day is a day of 24 hours, get it Bible fool? The Hebrew term “yom” used in the Hebrew creation narrative means a 24 hour day, period! Understood this time? Huh? Maybe? Do your research before you remove one foot to insert the other!



YOUR BIBLICALLY UNFOUNDED QUOTE AGAIN!:  “I believe that this scripture is a metaphor and is trying to show the fact that God lives outside of time there for, a day could be like a thousand years for God, or it could be an eternity. But then again, it could have been 7 days, or 7 thousand literal years, I couldn't say for sure. That is just my take on it. 

OMG, STOP, STOP!!!!  Look at all of your 8 comical “opinions” in one paragraph alone within your quote above, that are not vouchsafed Biblically! ROFLOL!!!  

Jesus H. Christ, what a fool you are in front of the membership where you are guilty of the following godly passage: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Seriously, you are funny, whether you wanted to be or not! THANK YOU! LOL!

.
#119
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.

YouFound_Lxam, addressing your comical post #107


MY LOGICAL QUOTE TO YOU IN YOU USING THE UNGODLY DAY AGE THEORY: “Furthermore Bible fool, you also say that Adam hung around for TWO THOUSAND YEARS before God created Eve from one of his ribs?”

YOUR UNGODLY OPINIONATED QUOTE RESPONSE: “No, I'm not saying this. But that could have been the case. Let me explain.
Before Eve ate the apple from the Tree of Good and Evil, there was no sin. There was no murder, and there was no death. 
It was only when Eve ate the apple, and disobeyed gods command, that sin entered the world, and the curse of death was put on us. 
So yes, Adam could have been around for a long time, (longer than the modern lifespan of a human) and God saw that he was lonely, so he created a woman a while later.”

HELLO? Barring the FACT that you are using your “opinions” again that directly go against 2 Peter 1:20-21, you didn’t address my quote whatsoever!  But, you did show that EVE was the impetus of Original Sin because she ate first of the forbidden fruit supporting this passage: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:14)  The women in this forum thank you, and Eve being the transgressor in being the impetus of the Original Sin scenario, is the reason that Jesus as God “cursed” women as shown in Genesis 3:16,  LOL!


YOUR EVER SO WANTING QUOTE: “Now listen, I want to have an intellectual conversation with you, but you are spewing out insults and making it hard for me to debate with you. That is why I haven't replied to your post until now.”

No Bible fool YouFound_Lxam, I cannot ever have an intellectual conversation with such a Bible stupid fool as you, and you didn’t reply to me until now because you knew eventually that I would easily Bible Slap you Silly ®️ like I have done in these following posts to your laughable post #107!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL LIKE “YOUFOUND_LXAM” THAT USES HIS SUBJECTIVE UNGODLY OPINIONS INSTEAD OF JESUS’ DIRECT INSPIRED WORDS WITHIN THE BIBLE, WILL BE …?

.

#120
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@YouFound_Lxam

.
YOUR QUOTE RELATIVE TO THE EQUALLY AS BIBLE STUPID AS YOU, MISS TRADESECRET:  “Also, you really seem to like this Transecret person, because you are bringing them up every two seconds. And last I checked, when you accused Transecret of dodging your questions and then leaving, well I just checked that forum, and Transecret had the last word, not you. And it was a response to your argument”

Understand this very simple proposition, Jesus and I HATE outright Bible stupid fools like you and Miss Tradesecret that try in vain to rewrite His JUDEO-Christian Bible, get it?  Therefore, I emotively confront such Satanic ilk like the two of you represent!

In the dumbfounded of the Bible Miss Tradesecret allegedly getting the last word, she didn’t because I posted to her now in having  a HYPOCRITE modus operandi!  You just worry about yourself with me, because it is going to be a full tIme job for you when I easily correct your outright Bible stupidity all the time,  understood?

Your stay within this forum is going to be biblically checked ad infinitum, so get used to it, understood Bible fool?


NEXT BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED AS "YOUFOUND_LXAM" WITH HIS SATANIC OPINIONS INSTEAD OF USING THE DIRECT WORDS OF JESUS, WILL BE...?


.