[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sxio wrote:
OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH
Replace God with ‘fairies’ and it’s the same thing. You can believe in them if you want to but there’s zero evidence that’s it true. [/quote]
yawn[/quote]
If this guy can prove he is not an idiot and worth addressing, then we give him a chance. If he is coming here just to say stupid shit then we should just ignore him.
[quote]Karado wrote:
pat typed: ‘‘My temptation is to mock, but really I have to just shake my head…’’
Likewise with your belief in the ‘‘Miracle Of The Sun’’, an event you concur with the Vatican
as a Miracle from Christ, and I will keep harping on that unbiblically prophesized event you
think was Holy because you are intelligent to know from Scripture Satan is a miracle worker and has been
from the beginning…And this is an event I would have wholeheartedly believed in, if it was
prophesized…but it was not and neither was the female figure who showed up that predicted it,
you really need to ponder that and think hard about that…It’s OK to disagree with the Vatican
once in a while and not walk in lockstep with them every single time.
I find it unlikely that My Savior would send a female entity down to Earth to scare the fuck out of
Little ‘‘Jacinta’’, at age 7 showing her terrifying visions of hell at one of the ‘‘apparitions’’…at age 7!
That was not Jesus Christ…doing that to a child…no way…no friggin’ way…he did not ordain that vision to an innocent child.
[/quote]
I will never discuss this or any other miracle, or religious event with you. Can you not get that through your extremely thick head?
You do not think rationally, you don’t read comprehensively, and you don’t know what you are talking about. There is no reasonable discussion with you. I personally wish you were an atheist because your mindless rants and off tangent conspiracy theories do not do theists any favors, at all.
You make believers look stupid, I prefer you keep that look to yourself.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
What have I missed? This is a rhetorical question. I will have to spend a lot of time to catch up.[/quote]
Hey D. Yeah, I know how you feel, when this thread was growing 8 pages a day, I had not shot at keeping up.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sxio wrote:
OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH
Replace God with ‘fairies’ and it’s the same thing. You can believe in them if you want to but there’s zero evidence that’s it true. [/quote]
yawn[/quote]
lol right.
36 pages and this is the apex of contribution, silliness with no real philosophical depth what so ever…
[/quote]
Hey that’s not fair, for sxio what he said is really deep. Do you think a person who prefaces with ‘OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH’ is actually capable of even understanding what we are talking about?
Math and well-researched science generates reproducible results that can be called upon whenever we choose. Any “evidence” of god cannot be reproduced. There is no logic in religion, only faith. Faith is the acceptance of an idea or entity without evidence…which makes you a sap and a person who cannot think for oneself. Math and science are also open to new evidence in case old evidence is flawed. Religion is entirely rigid in this regard. The religious essentially give humanity no credit for it’s accomplishments ad instead gives it to an fictional character in a book with a pathetic excuse of a morale compass.
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?
If your mind was as open about religion as it is about math, you would see just how silly what you said here really is. (And likely have noticed that it has all been gone over before.)
Please note I’m saying this from a position of a “non-believer” for the most part.
[quote]Dangles wrote:
Math and well-researched science generates reproducible results that can be called upon whenever we choose. Any “evidence” of god cannot be reproduced.[/quote]
This is where the closed mind comes into play. You refuse to entertain the idea of God, therefore can’t see the world from the perspective. Now because you can’t see the world through the lens, you can’t see how silly the statement is.
Situation 1: There is no God.
Well 2+2 still = 4. And science and math continue to be tools to understand the world around us. They are the ways in which we explain our lives, our world, the universe. They become “god”. They are the way we understand the reason, or result if it fits better, we are here.
Situation 2: These is God
Well 2+2 still = 4. And science and math continue to be tools to understand the world around us. They are the ways in which we explain our lives, our world, the universe. The become the road map to God’s work. They are the way we understand the reason, or result if it fits better, we are here.
So… Therefore if there is God, the evidence is everything, absolutely everything. It is reproduced in everything, including the math and science we use to better understand God. And if there is no god, even if one thinks life and the universe is just some random happening, there is still a method and function it all came together as so, and that method and function is the god concept, so therefore science and math are god.
Utterly false.
So you have no faith, what-so-ever in anything?
I doubt that very much.
Do you or have you ever owned a dog?
If this were true there wouldn’t be so many different religions throughout time. Come on now, you aren’t even thinking with logic at this point. How many different “types” of each major religion do we see today? What about ancient religions?
I would be wary doing so religious or not. We are nothing. We aren’t even significant enough to be considered an atom in a dust particle that is floating along the air waves of a fart in comparison to the universe… Mankind is so monumentally insignificant it isn’t even a discussion, and anyone slightly aware of science knows this.
[quote]ad instead gives it to an fictional character in a book with a pathetic excuse of a morale compass.
[/quote]
Yeah… That whole, don’t kill, steal, rape, etc is for the birds.
[quote]Dangles wrote:
Math and well-researched science generates reproducible results that can be called upon whenever we choose. Any “evidence” of god cannot be reproduced. There is no logic in religion, only faith. Faith is the acceptance of an idea or entity without evidence…which makes you a sap and a person who cannot think for oneself. Math and science are also open to new evidence in case old evidence is flawed. Religion is entirely rigid in this regard. The religious essentially give humanity no credit for it’s accomplishments ad instead gives it to an fictional character in a book with a pathetic excuse of a morale compass.
[/quote]
Well, you need to do some reading and research because you clearly do not know what you are talking about. All those half-assed points you brought up where address some 30 pages ago and subsequently have been on every page. None of your points are accurate, and sadly you don’t even realize it.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
Well that’s a crappy definition, but ok. I wouldn’t define every miracle as something ‘wonderful’.Certainly the ancient Egyptians would beg to differ.
Miracles don’t prove God existence any more than anything else.
If a miracle can be proven by a factor of a natural phenomena then it is not a miracle. You don’t need a miracle to prove God exists. Logic does just fine for that.
When it comes to religion, a miracle can serve to affirm that, person(s) faith, i.e. relationship with the Almighty.
But you clearly don’t believe miracles happen, but if you are interested you can find them and see them for yourself. Takes a little research and a plane ticket for the more famous ones.
As stated before, I will not get into specific ones. There’s nothing more pointless then arguing “Yes it is”, “No it isn’t” when one can go and see for one’s self.
If you want the physical evidence, you just need to do a little digging and go see for yourself. It’s up to you how important it is to do so.
However, in light of the fact that there are real bonafide, divine events you can see for yourself, you cannot claim miracles don’t happen and they aren’t real. See one for yourself and then decide.
If you don’t care, then you don’t care. But not caring isn’t the same thing as ‘not real’.
For instance, there may be aliens but I could give the slightest shit if they were or weren’t and I won’t bother trying to find out because I truly don’t care. I am not going to say it’s not real or not possible. Though the vastness of space makes interaction really unlikely.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If your mind was as open about religion as it is about math, you would see just how silly what you said here really is. (And likely have noticed that it has all been gone over before.)
Please note I’m saying this from a position of a “non-believer” for the most part.
[quote]Dangles wrote:
Math and well-researched science generates reproducible results that can be called upon whenever we choose. Any “evidence” of god cannot be reproduced.[/quote]
This is where the closed mind comes into play. You refuse to entertain the idea of God, therefore can’t see the world from the perspective. Now because you can’t see the world through the lens, you can’t see how silly the statement is.
Situation 1: There is no God.
Well 2+2 still = 4. And science and math continue to be tools to understand the world around us. They are the ways in which we explain our lives, our world, the universe. They become “god”. They are the way we understand the reason, or result if it fits better, we are here.
Situation 2: These is God
Well 2+2 still = 4. And science and math continue to be tools to understand the world around us. They are the ways in which we explain our lives, our world, the universe. The become the road map to God’s work. They are the way we understand the reason, or result if it fits better, we are here.
So… Therefore if there is God, the evidence is everything, absolutely everything. It is reproduced in everything, including the math and science we use to better understand God. And if there is no god, even if one thinks life and the universe is just some random happening, there is still a method and function it all came together as so, and that method and function is the god concept, so therefore science and math are god.
Utterly false.
So you have no faith, what-so-ever in anything?
I doubt that very much.
Do you or have you ever owned a dog?
If this were true there wouldn’t be so many different religions throughout time. Come on now, you aren’t even thinking with logic at this point. How many different “types” of each major religion do we see today? What about ancient religions?
I would be wary doing so religious or not. We are nothing. We aren’t even significant enough to be considered an atom in a dust particle that is floating along the air waves of a fart in comparison to the universe… Mankind is so monumentally insignificant it isn’t even a discussion, and anyone slightly aware of science knows this.
[quote]ad instead gives it to an fictional character in a book with a pathetic excuse of a morale compass.
[/quote]
Yeah… That whole, don’t kill, steal, rape, etc is for the birds.
[/quote]
Interesting he’d bring up morality or a compass for it since those are metaphysical entities he likely does not believe exists anyway. I am impressed you took the time to parse out this nonsensical garbage.
It’s ironic that he brings up a bunch of ‘facts’ that have no basis in fact or reality and he calls us ‘suckers’. He clearly believes a bunch of non-truths as facts. So if you believe a bunch of shit that isn’t true as ‘the truth’ what does that make you?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The evidence is there. Only a fool doesn’t see it.
He doesn’t see it because he’s too busy creating a new god – man with his armload of scientism.[/quote]
The evidence is so clear, I don’t see how anybody misses it. I don’t enjoy the extremely wild and rediculous things people will believe in or to disbelieve in the existence of God.
I often wonder why and I think, in the end a person believes that if God exists, he must change and people don’t want to change. That’s just a theory.
I don’t see why. You can believe in God and simply not care what he thinks or is. Just like what I said about aliens. If they exist or don’t won’t make one single damn to me.
I think the existence of God is a lot like math in the sense that, you may not believe it, you may not care, but it still impacts the majority of your existence whether you are aware or not.
It doesn’t matter if you believe in math, it doesn’t matter if you believe in God, you will act according the the laws that they dictate and they are not breakable. You cannot make 2+2=5 and you cannot make God disappear, and even if you try, you still are no more in control than if you do beleive.
It doesn’t much matter what you believe, things are what they are. You can accept the truth or deny it, but you cannot change it.
[quote]Dangles wrote:
Math and well-researched science generates reproducible results that can be called upon whenever we choose. Any “evidence” of god cannot be reproduced. There is no logic in religion, only faith. Faith is the acceptance of an idea or entity without evidence…which makes you a sap and a person who cannot think for oneself. Math and science are also open to new evidence in case old evidence is flawed. Religion is entirely rigid in this regard. The religious essentially give humanity no credit for it’s accomplishments ad instead gives it to an fictional character in a book with a pathetic excuse of a morale compass.
[/quote]
You have any evidence of this?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beans dun did gud.[/quote]
I agree. If Beans is not Religious then, he is actually searching, and this I will give kudos to any day of the week.
I would have more respect for people if they actually say, “I went searching for God for 20 years and never found him.” Then say, “You guys are stupid for believing a book, that I have never read.”
This is why I respect Beans 100% and consider him a friend.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
What makes a miracle a miracle is that it happens at a precise moment in time and when it NEEDS to happen.
If the Red Sea parted and no one was there to see it is that a miracle?
Many doctors who practice medicine see miracles all the time. For example, a child has cancer and then the day before starting Chemo the cancer is gone. Many will just say the first scan was just wrong. I say it is a miracle.
I had a friend, 21 years old, that had a bump on his vocal cord and the doctor did a biopsy and it was cancer. This friend made his living singing, so you can see how this could be devastating to him both emotionally and economically. I prayed and laid hands on him. He also had people pray for him. He went in 3 weeks later for a scan before the chemo would start. The bump was gone. What would you call this?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
What makes a miracle a miracle is that it happens at a precise moment in time and when it NEEDS to happen.
If the Red Sea parted and no one was there to see it is that a miracle?
Many doctors who practice medicine see miracles all the time. For example, a child has cancer and then the day before starting Chemo the cancer is gone. Many will just say the first scan was just wrong. I say it is a miracle.
I had a friend, 21 years old, that had a bump on his vocal cord and the doctor did a biopsy and it was cancer. This friend made his living singing, so you can see how this could be devastating to him both emotionally and economically. I prayed and laid hands on him. He also had people pray for him. He went in 3 weeks later for a scan before the chemo would start. The bump was gone. What would you call this?
[/quote]
If he was a singer with a bump, swelling, nodule, or cyst in the vocal chords I would call that a misdiagnoses. It has happened to me not the cancer scare but, the vocal chord injury.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
What makes a miracle a miracle is that it happens at a precise moment in time and when it NEEDS to happen.
If the Red Sea parted and no one was there to see it is that a miracle?
Many doctors who practice medicine see miracles all the time. For example, a child has cancer and then the day before starting Chemo the cancer is gone. Many will just say the first scan was just wrong. I say it is a miracle.
I had a friend, 21 years old, that had a bump on his vocal cord and the doctor did a biopsy and it was cancer. This friend made his living singing, so you can see how this could be devastating to him both emotionally and economically. I prayed and laid hands on him. He also had people pray for him. He went in 3 weeks later for a scan before the chemo would start. The bump was gone. What would you call this?
[/quote]
If he was a singer with a bump, swelling, nodule, or cyst in the vocal chords I would call that a misdiagnoses. It has happened to me not the cancer scare but, the vocal chord injury.[/quote]
That is why I made sure to include that it was biopsied and found to be cancer, because what you put down is what the vast majority of people would say.