T1B

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote: we already showed beyond a reasonable doubt that belief in NOTHING is contradictory.

Contradictory to what? Honestly, I've seen five year olds with more highly developed reasoning skills.

If not God, then what?

There is the root of your logical fallacy. There is no "then what." My "belief" is in evidence. You have no evidence therefore I do not believe your gay fairy tales.

I know, you were observing nothing. Looking and seeing air. Since this can't be done (even air is SOMETHING), it's contradictory. If you say you're observing 'something', then you'd have to admit that your feelings of seeing nothing are wrong. If you keep saying that you're observing something, then there has to be something there to observe. You getting me yet?

You now believe in 'evidence'? So you are saying that there is 'something there' as that's what evidence is. It is a sign that points to a logical conclusion. No evidence ever points to nothing. Therefore, assuming you are a reasonable representation of and proponent for the beliefs of an atheist (such as yourself), these 'beliefs' or 'observations' of yours are indeed contradictory and perhaps need re-examination.

Of course, if you just say that you're an agnostic, this will be so much easier. You'll have no reason for why you believe as you do, but at least you'll be able to explain and defend your stance (or lack thereof).

Of course, there is always Christ if you feel that both of the other options are too much for you. I love you and will be praying for you. Peace.

mvscal wrote:

A Dumbfuck wrote:No evidence ever points to nothing.

"No evidence" always points to nothing, you simple-minded tard.

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. What I meant is:

'Never will evidence point to nothing.'

Hope that clears things up a bit.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:'Never will evidence point to nothing.'

Your attempts to appear "wise" or "profound" have inadvertantly revealed the depths of your bovine stupidity. Yeah...evidence points to something. That is commonly understood. Appreciate the "update." You believe in God...well, because you are a credulous tard. No reason for it.

Sorry but, "just because", isn't good enough for me or anyone else capable of rational thought.

Earlier you said that your 'belief' is in evidence. That suggests 'something'. As an atheist, you are bound to believe in 'nothing'. Therefore, your beliefs are contradictory. Following me yet?

You continue to name call with me. Do you treat all people this way or just the ones that you worry are smarter than you? I guess it doesn't matter. I still love you and will pray for you further. God bless.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:'Never will evidence point to nothing.'

Your attempts to appear "wise" or "profound" have inadvertantly revealed the depths of your bovine stupidity. Yeah...evidence points to something. That is commonly understood. Appreciate the "update." You believe in God...well, because you are a credulous tard. No reason for it.

Sorry but, "just because", isn't good enough for me or anyone else capable of rational thought.

Earlier you said that your 'belief' is in evidence. That suggests 'something'. As an atheist, you are bound to believe in 'nothing'. Therefore, your beliefs are contradictory. Following me yet?

You continue to name call with me. Do you treat all people this way or just the ones that you worry are smarter than you? I guess it doesn't matter. I still love you and will pray for you further. God bless.

I’ve seen plenty of double posts before. Don’t know that I’ve ever seen them over 9½ hours apart. That suggests 'something'. Perhaps it suggests that you’re an idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote:I’ve seen plenty of double posts before. Don’t know that I’ve ever seen them over 9½ hours apart. That suggests 'something'. Perhaps it suggests that you’re an idiot.

I was trying to edit my post. Accidentally (as a flawed human) quoted myself instead of hitting edit. Such is life. Move on, little sister, move on.

Oh, my goodness.

battery chucka' one wrote:Move on, little sister, move on.

You continue to name call with me. Do you treat all people this way or just the ones that you worry are smarter than you?

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Move on, little sister, move on.

You continue to name call with me. Do you treat all people this way or just the ones that you worry are smarter than you?

Who's calling anybody a name? You are a woman, right? I'm guessing you're somewhere in your formative teen years. Hence, the little sister moniker. Sheesh. Don't take it so personal.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Earlier you said that your 'belief' is in evidence. That suggests 'something'.

Yes. It suggests that I am capable of rational thought.

As an atheist, you are bound to believe in 'nothing'. Therefore, your beliefs are contradictory. Following me yet?

I am not "bound" to believe in anything, you fucking moron. Your tardish belief in fairy tales has left you an intellectual cripple completely incapable of engaging in anything approaching rational or independent thought.

My beliefs are based on evidence. Show me conclusive evidence of God and I will believe in God. Show me a bunch of gay fairy tales and I will invite you to shove them and your so-called God straight up your ass.

You say that your 'beliefs' are based on evidence. What conclusive evidence is it that you have that has lead you to 'believe' in nothing? Surely, as a 'rational' and 'enlightened' person, you have reasons for why you believe (quite contradictorally) in nothing. Or are you saying that you aren't an atheist? If not, then are you an agnostic? Please, present the evidence of why you 'believe' in nothing. I dare say that I'd like more than links to youtube for this one. Also, attacking Christianity for this one is useless. I'd like to know why you believe in NOTHING. If you attack one religion with evidence, that suggests that you're going for process of elimination and, therefore, will have to attack ALL world religions, and we really don't have time for that here. So, without any further ado, please present your 'evidence' for your contradictory beliefs.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:You say that your 'beliefs' are based on evidence. What conclusive evidence is it that you have that has lead you to 'believe' in nothing?

It doesn't work that way, you fucking idiot. Why the fuck would I believe in God when there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest let alone prove his existence? You don't even know how to think. Seriously, your thought process has been irreparably damaged by your belief in this irrational superstition.

YOU are the fucking tard who believes in nothing.

So now you admit it. Your 'beliefs', contradictory as they are, are based on absolutely NO evidence. You have absolutely NO reason to believe what and how you do. I really do feel bad for you. Your beliefs are based on NOTHING. Are you getting me yet, brother?

Matthew 12:38-39-Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.

Mark 8:18-Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear?

Any evidence I present to you would be useless as even if I gave you everything, you'd still ask for more before you'd belive. I feel bad for you. I really do. Perhaps your heart has been hardened. I don't know. I'll still love and care about you. You'll remain in my prayers every night until God takes it off my heart. I pray He can affect change in you. I really do.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:So now you admit it. Your 'beliefs', contradictory as they are, are based on absolutely NO evidence. You have absolutely NO reason to believe what and how you do. I really do feel bad for you. Your beliefs are based on NOTHING. Are you getting me yet, brother?

Way to kick your own ass, you simple minded dumbfuck.

YOUR beliefs are based on absolutely no evidence. YOUR beliefs are based on nothing. There is no evidence to support the existence of God yet you believe in God. That makes YOU an idiot.

My beliefs are based upon faith and personal experience. Additionally, at times, I have questioned God. When that happens, I talk to Him. He has yet to let me down. You want evidence to the veracity of the Bible? I can give it to you. Unfortunately, your heart won't allow you to accept any of it, no matter how plain and clear it is, sorry to say.

battery chucka' one wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Move on, little sister, move on.

You continue to name call with me. Do you treat all people this way or just the ones that you worry are smarter than you?

Who's calling anybody a name? You are a woman, right? I'm guessing you're somewhere in your formative teen years. Hence, the little sister moniker. Sheesh. Don't take it so personal.

Nice spin. You'll make a good little Christian.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:My beliefs are based upon faith and personal experience.

That's what I said. Absolutely nothing.

Additionally, at times, I have questioned God. When that happens, I talk to Him.

And "he" talks back to you?

You want evidence to the veracity of the Bible?

The Bible is a work of fiction. It is a collection of folk tales and Judeo-Christian mythology. All cultures have such myths. If you think Genesis is more credible than the Enuma Elish or the Rig Veda creation myth or anyone of dozens of sets of cultural mythology, you are an ignorant tard.

All religions are fantasies born of man's desire to explain the world around him and fear of his own mortality. That fear is the source of this thin reed of fiction you so desperately cling to.

1. Yes, Genesis is more credible. Babylonians and Hindi myths (as you've related to us here) both are related to pagan religions that worship, once you get down to brass tacks, Ashoreth and Baal, giving them their own names, of course.

2. I'm not afraid of my earthly mortality. Are you?

Again, we get back to my original argument. As with other atheists, your entire 'belief' structure is contradictory. You attack Christianity and roll it up into a nice tidy ball with all world religions. You still have yet to defend your belief structure. Why don't you just admit that it's indefensible? It'll save us all a lot of time, here.

Or can you do none of this in a logical manner?

Yes, by the way, God responds to my prayers.

Cristian "proof" of the truth of their religion can be used equally æffectively to "prove" the existence of the Seven Dwarves.


Now get out there and kill your children, bitchslap women for speaking in church, and most importantly, get to killing some infidels, christians.

And take some slaves, while you're at it -- the Bible is VERY clear on this.

Unless of course you don't really believe in the Bible.

Funny how you people pick and choose the parts that make you superior, yet ignore the rest.

Yes, Genesis is more credible.

I think you've misunderstood the point. Genesis is actually a synthesis of older works. It is not contemporaneous with Babylonian or Indian creation sagas, it followed them and was derivative of them.

mvscal wrote:It's a logical conclusion based on a complete lack of any supporting evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. There's a lot more evidence to support the nonexistence of "God" than there is to support it. It's just that it was so taboo for some people to acknowledge growing up, that it's in their psyche to not see it.


Matter of fact, there's a great deal more evidence supporting the idea that life on earth originated when it was planted here by extraterrestials, but there's certainly not enough evidence to start basing an entire belief structure around it and forego football on sunday mornings. But there IS a lot more evidence to support that than the christian beliefs.


But I have faith that some thumper will try to twist that into an indictment of anyone who disagrees with their beliefs(even though they have no faith, and fear the repercussions that following the Bible would entail. I mean, it satys to kill people with reckless abandon, right there in black and white, doesn't it?).

Even as a practicing Christian I'll admit that scientific proof for Christianity's claims is thin or nonexistent. Hence the term "faith." Hell, I'll even admit that one could reasonably call my beliefs irrational. I can live with that.

It makes me laugh when other Christians cite Scripture to "prove" the credentials for God and Jesus. It's like quoting lines out of Lord of the frigging Rings to "prove" Frodo's existence.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Even as a practicing Christian I'll admit that scientific proof for Christianity's claims is thin or nonexistent. Hence the term "faith." Hell, I'll even admit that one could reasonably call my beliefs irrational. I can live with that.

It makes me laugh when other Christians cite Scripture to "prove" the credentials for God and Jesus. It's like quoting lines out of Lord of the frigging Rings to "prove" Frodo's existence.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on your second point. If somebody doesn't believe the Bible, it does no good to quote lines. Please don't think that my scant few quotes were anything more than what they were. I used them to illustrate points to MVS. It's up to God to do the rest.

I do, however, disagree with you about science. I feel that honest, tried and true science actually proves God to exist. Might I recommend to you the book The Galileo Connection by Charles E. Hummel.

battery chucka' one wrote:If somebody doesn't believe the Bible, it does no good to quote lines.

First, they're generally called "passages." And I don't even go to church, moron.

Second -- YOU don't believe the Bible, either. Don't even try and claim you do, unless you want to offer up tales of killing infidels.

The Bible is VERY clear on this.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:I feel that honest, tried and true science actually proves God to exist.

You feel? Just what in the fuck does your emotional state have to do with empirical evidence supporting the existence of God? I guess feelings are all you've got since you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper sack.

You and your fucking feelings would still be squatting in a cave beating rocks together and hooting at thunderstorms if it weren't for people who could actually think.

I find it very sad that your contradiction of a belief structure has left you unable to carry on a rational discussion. MVS, do you even understand what a bitter little man you come across as? Others try to have a discussion and you name call and lob ad-hominem attacks all over the place. Very sad. But I still love you and pray for you. God can perhaps give you peace where your contradictions don't, can't, and won't. And, try as you might, I will not be drug into calling you names. You can call me whatever you'd like and I'll keep turning the other cheek for you. That's what we ignorant Christian sorts do.

And yes, din-sun, I do know what they're called. Passages. Yes. Lines in the Bible are called passages. Very good, son. Now, while the adults are talking, we are going to need you to be quiet for a bit. Of course, you think you have something to day, but you really don't. We will get back to you after we're done discussing important, grown-up stuff. Thank you.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:I find it very sad that your contradiction of a belief structure has left you unable to carry on a rational discussion.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in God.

Explain, in specific detail, the contradiction in that statement, you illiterate dickhead.

So, my friend, are you saying that if I were to give you evidence, you would consider that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is your Savior? Is that what you're getting at? If I provide this EVIDENCE, would you study it fairly or automatically discount it since it's 'something'?

mvscal wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. The burden of proof in on you and the bar is high since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Your "internal dialogue with God" isn't going to cut it.

Mvs is right. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existential statement.

Skip any "intelligent design" arguments. It didn't work in Dover, and it doesn't work here.

mvscal wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. The burden of proof in on you and the bar is high since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Your "internal dialogue with God" isn't going to cut it.

Here ya' go first:

Does God Exist???

I'll let you digest that for a bit before we branch out.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. The burden of proof in on you and the bar is high since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Your "internal dialogue with God" isn't going to cut it.

Mvs is right. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existential statement.

Skip any "intelligent design" arguments. It didn't work in Dover, and it doesn't work here.

Oh, I know, my friend. We're going to start from the beginning with the simple discussion. Does God Exist? Please, check out the link I posted and follow along. I'm letting the experts take this one.

battery chucka' one wrote:Please, check out the link I posted and follow along. I'm letting the experts take this one.

I did. And out of curiosity, I read what they posted...and found arguments "for" ID.

The "experts" have the same, disproven/debunked arguments regarding intelligent design and the so-called "problems" with evolutionary theory. They even quote Michael Behe, a man whose "irreducible complexity" argument was rightfully ridiculed in the Dover case and has been shown time and again to be so riddled with inaccuracies as to cause his Lehigh colleagues into officially distancing themselves from him.

Given the HUGE credibility gap now established with regard to that specific area, why in the heck should I, mvscal, or anyone, take their attempt to "prove" God seriously?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Please, check out the link I posted and follow along. I'm letting the experts take this one.

I did. And out of curiosity, I read what they posted...and found arguments "for" ID.

The "experts" have the same, disproven/debunked arguments regarding intelligent design and the so-called "problems" with evolutionary theory.

Given the HUGE credibility gap now established with regard to that specific area, why in the heck should I, mvscal, or anyone, take their attempt to "prove" God seriously?

Any discussion of proving God will naturally include ID. However, it shouldn't totally rest on that. I think these people do go further and use science here. I don't see mention of the bomabadier beetle. Do you disagree?

battery chucka' one wrote:Any discussion of proving God will naturally include ID. However, it shouldn't totally rest on that. I think these people do go further and use science here. I don't see mention of the bomabadier beetle. Do you disagree?

The whole bomardier beetle thing is a favorite of the creationist/ID folk. Doesn't prove God's existence in the least. Criminy, what next - a claim that there are no transitional fossils? (another creationist/ID lie).

"ID" should also stand for "intellectually dishonest," for that is what it is, and has always been. It relies upon deliberate mischaracterizations of science and scientific findings, misquoting scientists, and deliberately lying about facts.

If you're going to try to claim that science "proves" God's existence, you should dissociate yourself from the scientifically discredited field of ID.

Ken Miller is devout Catholic and a world-recognized & respected biologist who also shreds ID and finds it to be bad science AND bad theology. His book Finding Darwin's God is a great book for Christians who are convinced by the evidence for evolution.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. The burden of proof in on you and the bar is high since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Your "internal dialogue with God" isn't going to cut it.

Here ya' go first:

Does God Exist???

I'll let you digest that for a bit before we branch out.

It looks like it has already been digested.

"God provides the best explanation" is supposed to be scientific evidence?!? Let me see if I've got it straight here. "Gee this is pretty complicated and I don't really understand it, so God must be the explanation." Is that about the size of it?

That is the mindset of an ignorant primitive.

You wanted evidence. I gave you evidence. You discarded it. You continue to live your life of contradictive beliefs. Eh. I tried.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Any discussion of proving God will naturally include ID. However, it shouldn't totally rest on that. I think these people do go further and use science here. I don't see mention of the bomabadier beetle. Do you disagree?

The whole bomardier beetle thing is a favorite of the creationist/ID folk. Doesn't prove God's existence in the least. Criminy, what next - a claim that there are no transitional fossils? (another creationist/ID lie).

"ID" should also stand for "intellectually dishonest," for that is what it is, and has always been. It relies upon deliberate mischaracterizations of science and scientific findings, misquoting scientists, and deliberately lying about facts.

If you're going to try to claim that science "proves" God's existence, you should dissociate yourself from the scientifically discredited field of ID.

Ken Miller is devout Catholic and a world-recognized & respected biologist who also shreds ID and finds it to be bad science AND bad theology. His book Finding Darwin's God is a great book for Christians who are convinced by the evidence for evolution.

Bro. I understand that peeps totally goo over the bombadier beetle and that it doesn't prove anything. I agree 100%. I never once said that science 'proves' God's existence. I said that it gives evidence of it. God will never allow Himself to either be proven or disproven. That's a major cornerstone of Faith. After all, they got proof when Christ walked the earth as a man and they didn't believe then. No way anything would be proved nowadays when the Man Himself being there, in the flesh....dying and resurrecting. That didn't prove it. Evidence now won't prove it. PERIOD.

You want the closest to PROOF that we'll ever get? Try the nation of Israel and their existence.

You want more? Try the fact that Islam was running roughshod over Africa and the Middle East until the Battle of Tours.

Another? What about the fact that USSR had control and momentum in Europe at the end of WWII and they lost the Cold War.

Another? The Cherokee nation accepted God and still got the stick by the US government. They relocated to Oklahoma and absolutely flourished there.

God works in so many ways. Of course, for MVS, this will mean nothing. Just coincidence to him. He probably doesn't see anything odd either in how, after thousands of years, humans rode into the 20th century on horseback and left it on space ships.

Such are pearls being tossed before swine to one whose beliefs are a contradiction. Just sayin'.

That's how God shows Himself to me.

mvscal wrote: It looks like it has already been digested.

"God provides the best explanation" is supposed to be scientific evidence?!? Let me see if I've got it straight here. "Gee this is pretty complicated and I don't really understand it, so God must be the explanation." Is that about the size of it?

That is the mindset of an ignorant primitive.

Woah... I kept waiting for the "that's because you're a braindead stupid fuck" finale and it didn't arrive. It was like watching the final episode of The Soprano's... sortof. I got cheated.

And Lab Rat playing Devils advocate when he's a devout born and bred until he's dead Catholic?

What's going on here?

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:You want more? Try the fact that Islam was running roughshod over Africa and the Middle East until the Battle of Tours.

You mean until factional infighting between Moors and Arabs in Spain and North Africa distracted them from further conquest in Western Europe and the Mongols annihilated the Abassid Caliphate thus permanently retarding Arab culture in the 13th century.

There are equally mundane and thoroughly documented reasons for your other examples of "God's manifestation" on Earth.

That's how God shows Himself to me.

You mistake your pitiful ignorance for God.

You call it what you will. I attest its timeliness to a God who is totally in control. Of course, I guess that such things mean nothing to one who gladly chooses a contradiction over a firm foundation.

mvscal wrote:So "timeliness" is attributable to God? Is that what you're saying? By all means lets have a look at this "firm foundation" of yours.

Go ahead. By all means.

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't know. I'll still love and care about you.

I swear on a stack of Cosmo' magazines that I wasn't born gay, but I got semi-erect when I read that.




mvscal is not the Great I AM.

~ the end

poptart wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't know. I'll still love and care about you.

I swear on a stack of Cosmo' magazines that I wasn't born gay, but I got semi-erect when I read that.




mvscal is not the Great I AM.

~ the end

lol

Brah. As a Christian I am called to love everybody, you included. But, you're welcome just the same.

battery chucka' one wrote:Another? The Cherokee nation accepted God and still got the stick by the US government. They relocated to Oklahoma and absolutely flourished there.

Can you be any more of an idiot? $10 says you've never even met a Cherokee.

"Flourished," if you count a few folks who only recently are making some money because of the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, also seen by some as a "stick" by the U.S. government.

Btw, since we're on the subject ...

Silent Warrior

Long ago, for many years
White men came in the name of GOD
They took their land, they took their lives
A new age has just begun

They lost their GODS, they lost their smile
they cried for help for the last time.
Liberty was turning into chains
But all the white men said
That's the cross of changes

In the name of GOD - The fight for gold
These were the changes.
Tell me - is it right - In the name of GOD
These kind of changes?

They tried to fight for liberty
Without a chance in hell, they gave up.
White men won in the name of GOD
With the cross as alibi

There's no GOD who ever tried
To change the world in this way.
For the ones who abuse His name
There'll be no chance to escape
On judgement day

In the name of GOD - The fight for gold
These were the changes.
Tell me - Is it right - In the name of GOD
These kind of changes?

Tell me why, tell me why, tell why
The white men said:
That's the cross of changes?
Tell me why, tell me why, tell why,
In the name of GOD
These kind of changes.

Did they take the whole Cherokee nation, stick 'em out on a reservation?

And all the beads they made by hand
Are nowadays made in Japan



BODE Jap plays!

The Cherokee nation accepted God and still got the stick by the US government. They relocated to Oklahoma and absolutely flourished there.

Seriously - if this is your interpretation of that period of US history, then you need to close your yap and read a few books.