Introduction
Offline I would like to say hello, to everyone at the RR Squad. This is my very first post although I've read a few other peoples introductions. I originally heard about this website when a number of representatives went on youtube to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I must admit that I thought it was very bold and provocative but simultaneously misguided. I grew up going to a Catholic Church and although no religion has me now, I am quite sure that neither the Bible nor the Holy Spirit are what you mean to be condeming. I have studied quite a few Sacred Texts and the Bible is the most truthful of them all. If you are as rational as you all claim or believe, then perhaps you just haven't read it correctly. I don't particularly blame anyone for condeming members of Christian religions as they often haven't been very prudent about the placement of their faith, but the Bible is beyond reasonable doubt as truthful as it gets. So, that is my introduction message and I hope I can get to understand exactly where you hearts are in relation to the Bible and also Religion and perhaps I'd also like to know whether or not you all believe that Atheism and Rational thinking are synonymous? It seems like they go hand and hand on this website.
Til next post..
1-24
- Login to post comments
I do not get why I cannot edit my posts.... I get this error message
Submitted by Anonymous on February 23, 2008 - 5:27am.ACCESS DENIED!
We're sorry but the content you are looking for is not available to you. This could have happened for several reasons.
- You might not be logged in. Please log in and try again.
- You don't have an account and this information is only available to users who are registered on our site.
- You are trying to access a subscribers only area.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Belief implies choice so the definition of atheism cannot apply to babies. Babies did not choose to not believe they simply do not know of the concept. To me it's simple; we have the definition of atheism and it just does not fit why babies do not believe in it.
There is a difference between not believing and never having conceived of the concept of a God. I have just had a quick look and every definition I have found has the same implication. The definition of an atheist is:
“An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.” Dictionary.com
If the default stance is atheism and babies are atheists the definition would be more like:
An atheist is one who has no conception of any god’s or deities.
I just do not see where there is room for interpretation.
I do not think anybody should unfairly label a baby an atheist since the baby has made no choice as to what it is. It has made no choice because it has no concept of God. It makes just as much sense as labelling a baby Christian because its parents are Christian.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Both myself, and the dictionary, disagree that atheist requires knowledge. Lack of god belief is all it takes, regardless of the form that takes on. Propaganda for many years though has tried to make atheist out to be a denial of god, but it is in no way a denial of god. It is just simply a disbelief in god, aka a lack of belief in god. A person who is ignorant to a topic does not believe in it.
Delete your cookies and come back to the page and this should be corrected.
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. From Oxford:Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition Here is how the OED defines atheism: atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god. I agree that for some people there is, what I view as, a misconception that atheism must mean denial. I don't believe this is an accurate summary of the term since the word is simply a-theist. Atheist is not a positive term, but rather the opposing category of theist. If you are not a non-theist, your an atheist.Semantics really though, but this is the reason why Sam Harris fights for atheism to not be used and why he considers it a non-word. If Atheist just meant denial, it would not be an issue for him.
Wow whats with the accusations, the noun says basically the same thing...
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings
The dictionary clearly states denial or disbelief, you have to first know what something is before you decide to deny it's existence or disbelieve it. Denial/disbelief implies that you have chosen to deny/not believe.
Babies do not choose not to believe they simply have no concept of what God is.
If there is a word for a person who has no concept of what God is..... that describes a baby.
There is a difference between having no concept of something and not believing in it. If you have no concept of something you do not believe or disbelieve it, it just does not exist in your world. If you use the adjective to describe the babies stance you are saying that the baby denies the existence of God and a baby denying the possibility of God is impossible.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Anyway lets not turn this into a huge debate, the truth is it does not matter if a baby is an atheist. I am happy to agree to disagree. I do not need to spen 3 hours arguing something that is fundamentally insignificant. I will however get in contact with a few epistemologists and get their opinions on what constitutes belief/disbelief. I will let you know what they say.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I have gone through this so many times its painful so I'll just accept that we disagree on the concept of it being an active or inactive state for both the word atheist, as well as the word believe.
Honestly, it's boring and repetitive.
This is my stance, and what he was talking about, accept it or don't...I don't care. This is pulled from the page Am I Agnostic or Atheist?:
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:
The dictionary has many definitions of God or god. This creates a huge problem. I don't know what people are saying half the time regarding god.
The God word needs to be more clear when used. "God of Abe" etc , or "God Cosmos" , is helpful. G a or G c . When a buddhist says god , that's completely different than the Xain god. This is no small nit pick. God is a most messy word.
I am surprised RRS doesn't have more Buddha and Tao fans. I think they are a helpfull lot, to promoting atheism.
btw 1 -24 , glad you are here learning and "Sword Dualing" as Jesus wished !
.... and hey pretty Eloise, I could use some help too, obviously !
Yes RRS, sending the "Good News". I say the "holy" atheists should steal every religious word for them "blessed' selves , including GOD ! Do it for the kids. Make a joke of God of Abe. Atheist Cartoons for the kids ...... God is cosmos.
Atheism Books.
In my opinion you are jut proving yourself wrong with the definitions. Beliefs are assumed truths and non beliefs are assumed untruths, as atheists we all believe that God does not exist and that is an assumed truth. Up until that point I believe we agree . However when you suggest that we can assume untruths about a concept that in our minds has yet to be concieved I have to disagree. In my opinion you can only believe or disbelieve in a concept that in your mind exists. To a adult the concept of God exists so we can assume truth or untruth in regards to that concept. However when a concept does not exist you can neither assume truths or untruths in regards to that concept. I am going simply by the definition and nowhere do I see disbelief defined as an unconscious action.
This is why I said I will talk to some epistemologists, this concerns philosophies of belief and I am not a philosopher.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
And you're not gay, you just like the occasional cock up your ass.
magilum, is so religiously righteous
cute too .... 
Atheism Books.
You couldnt stop at womanizer could you? OH NO! you had to also lay claim to... man..an..izer? o_O
What Would Kharn Do?
Give guys a hug , they need love too , we are ONE ! and we got big problems , for silly reasons ..... When is the party gonna start? Guys have dicks ..... goddesses have pussys ! How interesting ..... I will have all the pussy to myself, the rest of you guys , get gay , get out of my way ..... the girls are mine .....
Atheism Books.
Ok so you have nothing resembling a valid 'proof' of God, just a mostly incoherent mish-mash of logically unjustified or downright invalid assertions, or blatant non sequiturs. Its about time you 'humbled' yourself enough to concede there is at least the possibility that you, as a mere human being, can actually be WRONG!! An omnipotent creator is an logically invalid concept. Get used to it.
You need to provide some evidence that this God entity has some reality outside your mind, that the whole thing, including your perceptions, cannot possibly be explained in non-supernatural terms. Give what we kow of all the ways the mind can come to very strange conclusions in non-religious contexts, we have no prima facie reason to rule out similar confusions when ideas of God are involved. Of course one can't absolutely disprove that some 'power' beyond the 'natural' is responsible, but that is an extremely weak hook to hang a specific pre-conceived God theory on.
I could be wrong, just possibly, but so could you - if you keep proceeding on the idea that you have grounds for absolute certainty about the existence and nature of God, you are most definitely deluded.
Now HUMBLE yourself and admit that there is no proof....
And those closing comments are getting close to preaching, which we don't tolerate too well here. We are here to argue the issues.
Of course children can have many possible conflicts of personality, world-view, and many other aspects of approach to life, not just views on religion. Serious alienation between Atheist parents and children who are drawn to religion does not inevitably lead to permanent and deep estrangement, as can be seen in various examples in 'real life'. In any case, such observations are irrelevant to the issue of the 'truth' of the beliefs of either side.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I don't know how I missed this post. But, again Eloise, you have summed my proof up very well… except for one small part. The challenge that you see – this is not actually the challenge at all. Do you follow as to why not? *edit* excuse this part. the challenge is accurate. I've read it inaccurately you are correct.
Btw, no offense taken as regards the tediousness of my writing. I think people with a very particular agenda often abandon the fluff: not to say that fluff is not a beautiful thing. There’s just a time and place for it.
Wanderer, I don't know that I see your contradiction. The late great Tupac Shakur once said, "I got shot five times but I'm still breathin'". Couldn't the case be what the story suggests: that when Saul fell on his sword he didn't actually die? I don't see why falling on the sword equates death anymore than getting shot equates death. Sure a person may seem lifeless when he has fallen on a sword, but it may not necessarily be the case that he is lifeless. Is the continuity of this story I've just told confusing?
1-24
Mark 3:24-25
Here we go again.
Atheism is not a fucking kingdom.
Divided kingdoms stand very well.
Differing opinions on the insignificant meanings of a word comes nowhere near division. Christianity is the most divided religion that has ever existed. The bible is so fucking cryptic that your deluded interpretation conflicts with the interpretation of millions of others. So get off you soap box and take a look at your idiotic beliefs before you criticize two atheists for not agreeing on something. You think two atheists not agreeing on the definition of a word means that atheism will fall? You really are delusional. We are starting to see less Christians and more atheists. My prediction is as we move from scientific discovery to scientific mastery religion will dissipate. It might take a few centuries but soon religion will only exist in history book.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
When Tupac was shot we had phones, ambulances, hospitals and modern medicine. These days falling on a sword is not a death sentence. However, before the advancement of modern medicine..... it was.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
And on this we are united
How many different sects of Christianity alone? how many different sects of different religions use the same texts?
Disagreements are perfectly normal. He provides his side, I provide mine, we discuss it, we agree, it doesn't really matter because it's ultimately all just semantics unlike your claim of a deity existing.
All religions are destined to evolve into myths.
History has proven this for longer than the world has existed (or at least longer than young earthers believe the world has existed).
Atheists, however, have stood the test of time and their lack of faith has not required redefinition as religions have.
I was rather hoping that you actually read the story, but I guess you didn't.
1 Samuel 31:5-6
5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. 6 So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day.
Now then let's compress these verses all together now, just so we know what fully happened at the end of 1 Samuel.
1 Samuel 31:4-6
4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. 6 So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day.
Now here is the quote from that random Amalekite that wasn't even mentioned in the end of 1 Samuel
2 Samuel 1:10 (note this is the Amalekite talking)
"So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord."
So now in one instance the Bible is saying that Saul killed himself, then in another it is saying that another person killed him. That is a contradiction.
"My mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine
I'm sorry that my proof doesn't resemble anything familiar to you. I always thought it strange when I used to ask Christians the Omnipotence paradox and they would give anything but a response. Giving a simple response was just too difficult. They would say things like, "somethings wrong with the question" or "it's a trick, don't answer it"; they could never tell me what was wrong with the question or what the trick of it was.
I think I am encountering the same thing here with you BobSpence1. I just ask you to give a response to the statement at the end of my argument. But you sit here and tell me that I haven't given you anything 'resembling' valid proof - you tell me something is wrong with my argument.
Well, I suggest you approach the conclusion that the argument expects one to make like I approached the conclusion that the omnipotence paradox expects one to make. Then, just as I did, tell me why this conclusion the statement expects one to make does not imply that omnipotence exists. If you don't want to do this, that's totally fine too. I just think you are disagreeing with my argument without even having chosen a position. It's like when Christian's disagree with the omnipotence paradox saying that somethings wrong with the question. First they should choose a response (or demonstrate adequate knowledge of the consequences of their response) then they should say why the implications that come with a response are not necessarily accurate. Otherwise, it just makes it seem like they are in the fast pitch cage when they wanted high arc. You know what I mean? I hold this much for Shikko as well who came late to the game. Demonstrate that you can step up to the plate, but that the machine is throwing all balls [as opposed to strikes].
1-24
Yeah, I actually did read the story. The Bible didn't say that Saul killed himself. The Bible said that Saul fell on his sword. The Bible said that the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead. Now, this may seem to be where your problem lies with the Bible. That the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead. But if you remember the story of Romeo & Juliet, I think you can understand it possible for someone to believe another person dead, upon seeing them apparently lifeless. We often can't tell whether a person is dead just by looking at them. Sometimes a pulse is needed for example. Get my drift?
The Bible doesn't say that Saul killed himself, which is a big part of the contradiction you thought you found. I think you concluded this prematurely. The Bible only says Saul fell on his sword.
1-24
The problem here is people have been answering your bullshit for over 1 week. However when you get asked for what should be such a simple thing you avoid the question.
Everybody wants to see this proof beyond reasonable doubt you claimed to have and you claimed you would deliver 5 days ago. Whenever we ask you are quick to change the subject or ignore the question completely. People have been replying to you inane bullshit for days, how about you back up your claim and show us the proof?
Why do you keep avoiding the question? Be a man, step up and back up your claim.
You have asked enough of the people of this site. It is your turn to deliver on what was promised. My guess is you can’t, I really do thing you are delusional. I think you thought that the piece of crap argument you made would convert this entire site. I think that now you are avoiding the truth, you are a failure, you have not convinced anybody. In fact showing people how crazily deluded you has driven people away from religion more than anything else.
You make the claim before your God of proving his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. You promise to pay if you cannot prove his existence. When it comes time to pay you dodge the questions ....... you are a liar, a scammer and a low-life. If you God exists he is going to fuck you up.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Yes we all 'get your drift'. In the fictional story of Romeo and Juliet people mistake the lifeless body of Juliette for that of an actual dead person. This shows similarities to the fictional bible story of Saul in which the armor bearer mistakes the apparently lifeless body for that of an actual dead person.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Yes, there are many different sects of Christianity. They are each their own house. Just as every atheist is his own house, each sect of Christianity is its own house. Yet you attack them as a unified whole. You even put me in the category of Christianity. I told you explicitly that I defend the Bible as a witness to evidence, not as evidence. Then, I am misrepresented as a Christian, when I only show you the evidence. Why don't you decipher the evidence? You oppose me as though I am a Christian, as though I have some need to believe in God. I cannot deny the evidence of a God because you testify as a witness against His existence. Nor can I promote the existence of God because the Bible testifies only as a witness to Him. I am a man of evidence. If you prove the evidence to have fault, then I will not be a man of that evidence. But you have not done this. Therefore I stand firmly behind the evidence.
1-24
I don't know how many times I have to say it. I am not a part of any religion. How can I drive people away from religion when I do not represent any religion? You are deluded in equating me to any religion. You need a nice category to fit everyone in. Therefore, you have such a difficult time with me. I have expressed too many times that I am not Christian, that I am not a part of any religion. You keep equating me with one.
Now I have shown you the evidence. It is there for everyone to see. If the evidence is not valid, there must be something that is invalid about it. You have not shown what is invalid about it. In other words, you haven't shown me any reason to doubt it. Show me the reason that you doubt the validity of the argument and I will show you how you've doubted incorrectly. Remember the validity of the argument came at the end with the if/then statement. Good luck man.
1-24
Actually the bible says that Saul is dead in 1 Samuel 31:6 when it says that Saul and his three sons died that day. And it proves that he died through thrusting himself with a sword in 1 Samuel 31:5 when it says that the armor bearer died alongside Saul.
Now in a story if someone were to write
"Person A fell on sword, then the armor bearer saw that he was dead and killed himself." Without any sort of thing that would tell people that Person A didn't kill himself, then the author is probably saying that it was a suicide. In Romeo & Juliet Shakespeare made it perfectly clear that Juliet didn't kill herself by specifically saying that Juliet didn't kill herself, before Romeo did. I just don't see that sort of clarification in that version of the story in 1 Samuel. Now does that mean that the people that wrote the Bible are horrible authors?
Also in 2 Samuel 21:12
he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had taken them secretly from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.)
The author here is referring to the Philistines and is saying that they killed Saul. So this creates even more confusion in the story. So tell me, how did Saul died. Was it by the Amalekite, his own suicide, or the invading Philistines.
"My mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine
Vague statements, misleading statements, apparent contradictions resolved through convoluted reasoning....
So, let me get this straight: the Bible is true because it's poorly written?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Where did I say you were a Christian? I included you in a group that has an interpretation of the bible. Nothing more. You have not been explicit about your actual beliefs, and I don't really care what they are. You are still one of many thousands upon thousands of interpretations of the same document. No other piece of writing has been interpreted so many different ways.
Why don't I decipher the evidence? Because I don't see your evidence.
I oppose you as though you are an individual making rotten claims, as though you are making a claim of providing evidence while not actually presenting any.
I do not testify as a witness against the existence of any deity, I testify to the lack of evidence for any deity.
You are a man with a lack of evidence.
You have not presented evidence that can be demonstrated to have fault.
You stand firmly behind non-existent evidence.
As far as I can tell you are the only one that can see this evidence. If you are the only one capable of seeing this evidence it is far more likely that you are deluded than it is that you have a special ability to see evidence that no one else can see.
Do you believe in God? If so, you are part of a religion. Your affirmation in the truth of the Bible is evidence that you do believe in God, and that you believe that Christ is the Redeemer, and that you are, in fact, a Christian. You can call yourself a Furbee for all I care-- you are still a Christian in thought and deed. The only delusion here is your own-- the delusion that we don't understand what constitutes a Christian.
As far as evidence: you have shown no evidence whatsoever. Catcher in the Rye claims to be true, within the context of the story. The evidence of the Bible has about as much to do with reality as Catcher in the Rye, and is much less entertaining, and much less believable. If you wish to believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, feel free. That does not constitute evidence.
I can't believe I've read through 300 messages, and the best pro-Bible argument is, "It's true because it claims to be true, and you can't prove that it's not."
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
You have not shown as any evidence, a philosophical argument does not constitute evidence how many times do I have to say it? You are deluded for thinking your argument makes any sense. 1 person out of 20 understood what you were saying, those are terrible odds.
You are also an idiot who does not think before he speaks or types as it were.
Definition of religion from dictionary.com:
Quote:
You do not belong to any organized religion and I never said you did. You do however believe and worship a magical supernatural being that in your delusion is the creator of the universe. By the definition of religion you are a religious person. It is that simple.
You are wrong, admit you are wrong and humble yourself now please. Humble yourself to me!
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
If you rewrite that argument you so ignorantly refer to as evidence in the manner in which you wrote the quoted post (coherent, understandable, English) me and everybody else here would be more than happy to refute your argument (since we can clearly understand it). If you keep asking us to refute that nonsensical bullshit then you are going to look like an idiot because 95% of people who read that crap have no idea what you are talking about.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Before I answer this, I want you to know quite clearly what my position is. As I've stated just a few posts ago, I do not defend the Bible as evidence, but as a witness to evidence. Now, a witness is not the same as evidence. A witness can tell the story to the closest of detail but the evidence is greater than any detail that witness can recall. So, if you think the inaccuracy of the witness disproves the evidence of God, you are mistaken.
Now, as regards the apparent contradictions of the witness. I will address these contradictions as an exercise in fallacies you are equating since these contradictions are not significant when it comes to the existence of God. But yes, the Philistines did strike Saul down by archers. Again, strike down does not necessarily equate to kill. Perhaps this was the fallacy that led you to believe that the Philistines now killed Saul.
Moreover, the Bible says that Saul died that same day, which is not to say that Saul died at that very moment. This, I believe, you have also equated in error. The Amalekite could have killed him that same day and the story then holds.
You should give the book the benefit of the doubt if you are not so skilled in logically concluding things. This is just a suggestion. You have tried to disprove the Bible's merit on this passage and it appears you are the one in error. Make sure you read a bit more carefully before you do such a thing. And, if you do find any contradictions, remember that the Bible is a witness not the evidence. Therefore, those contradictions do not discredit the existence of God.
I have to agree (partly) with 1-24 here, there is no clear contradiction. It is hard to say with that passage since it can be interpreted in many different ways. I think more than anything it has to do with the translation. However if you are looking for completley idiotic contradictions I am sure you do not have to turn many more pages to find one.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I think we should analyze what would be considered proof that God exists. I'll just say a couple things and please add anything you think fits.
1) Scientists make a discovery that communicates back with them. Could be a number of beings I suppose but it would indirectly support the idea of God. Also, if we could observe planes of existence where spirits lurk, something of that nature.
2) An invincible person shows up. I mean totally invincible like many religious scriptures support the idea of. Can't do a thing to them. That or the person can perform miracles. Again it would be indirect proof.
3) Irrefutable divine work in the form of changing the earth... Maybe God just shows up one day and fixes things, maybe he's still silent while he does so, (such as the whole rapture 'theory') who knows.
4) Mysticism turns out to be a science but it would be similar or the exact same as some of the things I already listed with communication to spirits, observation of miracles, etc.
If you can think of anything else, add it. Otherwise I don't see how anyone is ever, ever going to prove that there is a God. Maybe if you consider Ghost Hunters a valid scientific argument?
As a faithful person (go ahead and bash me I don't give a damn) I'm quite curious as to why God would play such a direct role, all the time, in ancient history according to the old testament and part of the new testament, then not do so afterwards.
It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you are saying that your reason for doubt is based on the fact that you did not have the tools to comprehend what I wrote, not based on the argument. You want the high arc cage? Is that what you want? Look, a 9 page argument - no matter how difficult it is to comprehend - cannot lead you to such a dead end that you could not find where it is you went astray in your comprehension of it. If you have been led to a dead end - after 9 pages - re-read it. I believe that I've wrote it as simply as possible without sacrificing inaccuracy. If you want me to write something inaccurate so that you can be correct - if you want to bat in the high arc so that you can hit the ball - just go to the next cage over. Don't scorn me for not serving it at your level of understanding. Alright?
Thanks for your post Religious Rebel. I think your mediation is very helpful toward a cooperation so that we can advance from this bickering. But, I must say that by your defining of what may be proof, I think you are essentially telling me to serve things that people know how to hit. Now, I originally stated that I could prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody has been able to provide any reason to doubt that God exists based on my argument. Since the burden of proof rested on me, I delivered. Now as the reason to doubt rests on the opponent, it is the opponents turn to deliver. It is only fair that it works this way. If the opponent cannot deliver, then the opponent should concede to the existence of God.
fadsfas afdfpowep nm,en [p[qadknkw8()#W& FKNf if jkfsl klN FLkjf sjkfk sk k Kf di oIWWPnn m mmp*#*($& kNNDkd kfjdlksjfdkfj nNe 6351 ER99 ( 9*&D kjk.
KJlkjfdslier j4732kd Kfds dkjfk isdfj kf k jlksd jk lk sjk j Jk lk jdik dljkl p9owp[o1 nm n cxbv c zxc 8iuc zy 1fddqjqp knf nsdlkdf i32i43jk4lndsfnfd lkf sklf kL fofuid fnflk nf kl lk k lkl l32iurio34732hdsfn nlsdkfdsyuf 07uf fnsd fnlsdknfdsnoiei1ofdsnfd nfsd kl23id.
KJFKdsjfio32i ksdo jlkfwndsi jl fkfdn kfsdpdif ndskl f kfsi11718 ifkshy IO*)#@&*(#KKL KLFSDk skjljf dsifjdkf JFJFJFJFJF89234 ksdjfklds kdfs 8jilsdhfpipqikwqencxk nk js li Ii q q wq e wqie kwq kxz kl.
There is your counter-argument. Until you can provide an appropriate counter-counter-argument then I will assume I am right and I win. Please donate.
So you oppose me as though I am an individual making rotten claims, as though I am making a claim of providing evidence while not actually presenting any. So the 9 pages I wrote was what? Before you explain what it is, give me the reason you have to doubt the evidence. And if you don't think it is evidence, tell me what it was not evidence of and how it was not evidence of that. Then we can make some progress.
You say that I am a man with a lack of evidence. Apparently, you lack the evidence, not me. I see 9 pages of evidence that has escaped you. Then you say that I have not presented evidence that can be demonstrated to have fault. Does that mean that my evidence is faultless, or that there is no evidence? If it means the latter, tell me what it is not evidence of and how it is not evidence of that.
You say that I am the only one who can see the evidence. Did I not post 9 pages of the evidence in the form of an argument? Did you not see that? When you say that I am the only one to see the evidence, what do you mean by this? And how is it supposed to change the merit of the evidence? If everyone believed that the world was flat and you didn't, it would be 'far more likely' that you are deluded. So what are you saying when you say that it is 'far more likely' that I am deluded? Are you saying that because only one person sees it to be true, I'm going to side with the common people?
First of all I am saying that it is a moot point since a philosophical argument cannot satisfy the proof beyond reasonable count you promised us. No matter how great or poor a philosophical argument is it can never be proof, it is only an argument. Now your argument was very poor, maybe what you meant to say was strong but what you said was weak. I admit I lack to tools to comprehend it, I do not comprehend incoherent, nonsensical, gibberish very well. It is not just me though, I think one person out of 20+ was able to interpret what you said. Even she was unsure and hesitant.
A argument should be clear and concise. If only 1 person out of 20 can comprehend what is said the problem is with the argument not the readers. By my count two scientists read your argument and did not understand it.
It perplexes me that half your posts are intelligible and easy to read while the other half are complete gibberish. If you write your argument in a clear manner maybe we will get somewhere.
Stop blaming 99% of the people for not understanding; blame yourself for not making it understandable.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Your reference to the 9 pages is irrelevant since it is gibberish. You use big words too often to give the appearance of intelligence. You use them so often that they are misused and a lot of the times completley out of context.
Do you understand that 1 person out of 20+ being able to decipher the meaning of your argument is not good. What would be good is if the 20 people that read it understood it.
AND HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT IS NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
YOU CLAIEMD PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT SHOW US IT!
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Of this passage, I only found the word 'li' in the dictionary. It was Chinese for a unit of distance, or, also in Chinese, a name for th etiquette in a given situation. The other words are in a foreign language. If you could at least clarify in English what you mean by these particular words (just as I did in my nine page argument) it would be of great service. Thank you.
9 pages of text does not an argument make.
Summarize your evidence.
As far as I can understand it you claim that one must have a sense that we do not have to see your evidence. I did not see anything tangible in any of your post.
You should be able to summarize your argument into a single sentence and then have your 9 pages to explain your summary. I have not seen anything you have said to take the form of evidence but rather just statements that may or may not make sense but in no way evidence.
As far as I can tell, you have a third eye that we do not. Claiming to have a third eye is not evidence because you can not prove you have it.
The fact that you are the only one that can see it as true is really the point here though. You are the only one that recognizes your evidence as evidence and the only one that accepts it as true.
You claimed that you would prove god exists...you have failed. I have seen nothing that would convince me. I have not even seen a reason to suggest reasonable consideration of the concept.
Don't scorn me for not serving it at your level of understanding. Alright?
You have said this many times: a philosophical argument can never be proof. You have yet to say why it cannot be proof. You utter this same line like vomit as though it is warranted in and of itself. I don't understand the warrant it has. Explain.
phi·los·o·phy
/fɪˈlɒs
ə
fi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -phies.
proof
/pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
Posting again since you saw fit to ignore this:
You have not shown as any evidence, a philosophical argument does not constitute evidence how many times do I have to say it? You are deluded for thinking your argument makes any sense. 1 person out of 20 understood what you were saying, those are terrible odds.
You are also an idiot who does not think before he speaks or types as it were. Definition of religion from dictionary.com:
You do not belong to any organized religion and I never said you did. You do however believe and worship a magical supernatural being that in your delusion is the creator of the universe. By the definition of religion you are a religious person. It is that simple.
You are wrong, admit you are wrong and humble yourself now please. Humble yourself to me!
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I'm not convinced that your story pans out since the words they used are rather vague in their own meaning. Also strike down does mean to destroy. I've never heard it in a way that would say that something was still upright, alive, or still in effect.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strike+down
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strike%20down
Also in a trial, when either the defense or prosecution gets a witness to the stand and they make contradictory statements.... the case of that side will get discredited enormously. How can anyone trust the testimony of someone that is contradictory. Especially if it's the only witness you have.
"My mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine
I do not believe in God. Rather, I believe in something else. This something else that I believe has been proven to necessarily imply God. This is the extent to which I believe in God. I did not say in any way I believe He is the Creator of the universe. This is only implied in the something else that I believe. I do not believe nor worship any magical supernatural being. Another erroneous statement by you.
Now as regards to the reason that a philosophical argument can never be sufficient proof: please explain why you say that this is the case. I am eager to understand the reasoning behind this claim.
Question: If the burden of proof is on me, shouldn't the reasonable doubt be on you?
I have given the proof. You should show me the reason to doubt it shouldn't you? Is that not fair?