I use that quote quite often, paraphrased, of course. Actually, I think I'll put that in my signature.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
Printable View
I use that quote quite often, paraphrased, of course. Actually, I think I'll put that in my signature.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
123
Quote:
I contend that we are both created. I believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all the other so called Gods, then you will understand why I trust in the One True God.
-Nature I. Awesome
How can you dismiss Gods you havent even heard of or know of yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
See, that is the problem with this entire thing for me. You dismiss things without even properly understanding them, as is apparent by your complete lack of understanding of what Buddhism teaches and is about... and yet claim that you know the truth because you found this God.
And then you try to take the path of science to prove you are right, when you dont even know half of the other variables that could exist. Perhaps your God is one of many, and a lesser God at that. Hence his worry of people worshiping gods other then him, as is in the scriptures. And perhaps, since the entire concept of God(s) are hypothetical at best in terms of proving existance or non-existance, if you had taken the time to not be so instantly infatuated with the first neato thing you came upon, you would have found some of the Greater gods, ones that were greater, more benevelant, and more everything, then your God.
The lovely thing about that entire little hypothetical is, you cant prove it isnt possible. By the same reasons that your God can exist, so can other gods, and you cant disprove their existance. God himself made it a crime against him to worship any other gods. Thats a pretty interesting thing to think about... why not say false gods? Why not say psuedo gods, or anything else to make it so he was saying that he didnt want people putting fake gods before him... instead of other gods.
Imitator:
Because I don't need to know about every other so called God to know the True God. Like I said, it's not about finding the best God it's about finding the right God. Listen I don't just have some whimsical faith like believing in the toothfairy. There's evidence for God all around us. I believe and I know for sure in my heart that God exists. I have to believe because I can't see God with my eyes. But I can see him in my heart. And you can too.Quote:
How can you dismiss Gods you havent even heard of or know of yet?
Show me an example in this thread where I dismissed something without properly understanding it.Quote:
See, that is the problem with this entire thing for me. You dismiss things without even properly understanding them, as is apparent by your complete lack of understanding of what Buddhism teaches and is about... and yet claim that you know the truth because you found this God.
I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.Quote:
And then you try to take the path of science to prove you are right, when you dont even know half of the other variables that could exist. Perhaps your God is one of many, and a lesser God at that. Hence his worry of people worshiping gods other then him, as is in the scriptures. And perhaps, since the entire concept of God(s) are hypothetical at best in terms of proving existance or non-existance, if you had taken the time to not be so instantly infatuated with the first neato thing you came upon, you would have found some of the Greater gods, ones that were greater, more benevelant, and more everything, then your God.
And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.
No there can't be other Gods. That's one of the points covered in my original post. If you study the bible, you'll realize that he does call them false Gods numerous times. Here is one example:Quote:
The lovely thing about that entire little hypothetical is, you cant prove it isnt possible. By the same reasons that your God can exist, so can other gods, and you cant disprove their existance. God himself made it a crime against him to worship any other gods. Thats a pretty interesting thing to think about... why not say false gods? Why not say psuedo gods, or anything else to make it so he was saying that he didnt want people putting fake gods before him... instead of other gods.
Quote:
Isaiah 44
9They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
10Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
11Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
12The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
13The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Imitator,
Has natureisawesome made any progress in showing you that science points to a God? The reason I ask is because faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If science was the way to God, there would be way more Christians.
HardcoreNewbie,
I think you believe in 3 less Gods than he does. I'm not trying to knock him, but from his testimony, it's clear that he believes in 3 seperate Gods. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Seriously. Im getting aggitated at this now. Do you fucking read at all? Ever? Or do you just look for slight bits to base your quotes off of before spouting the same stuff you said before and were corrected on at least 4 times now?Quote:
I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.
And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.
I DID NOT, nor have I EVER, stated something was a fact.
I dont follow Buddhism, I dont agree with a portion of what they believe, but I find it interesting. I dont neccessarily hold true the theory of never ending, never beginning, but at least I understand it fully, and can see the points for and against it. You on the other hand have displayed a complete lack of understanding of the points of Buddhism on at least two occasions in this thread, and then dismissed it as a false religion. There is your example of dismissing something you dont understand.
And you have no PROOF of God's existance, because if you did, there would be no way for anyone to ever argue or bring up any counter point to your display. This entire thread is because you dont have proof, and you feel the need to make people share the same beliefs as you, so to validate your beliefs more. If you had taken any classes in sociology or psycology, it would be painfully obvious. Its a textbook case, one of the first things studied when you are looking into an ethics surrounding, because with ethics, innevitably comes the people stating that ethics are because of God.
You disregarded Carbon Dating awhile back, but iirc, what is the main way that creationists use to try to show that the Great Flood happened? Yeah...
So, for the FIFTH time now, if I hold any beliefs, you have no clue about them, because I have not posted once about my personal beliefs in this thread. Not once. I have NOT stated anything as fact, I have NOT stated any personal beliefs, I have NOT claimed that any one thing was right and another was wrong. The ONLY person doing this is yourself, quit projecting yourself upon me.
If you cant stop with the slander and lying, then I have nothing more to say to you. This is getting old, and enough is enough. You can say what you will about me raising hypotheticals and trying to get you to flesh out things you have said in light of other possible evidence, but do not attribute anything I say as a belief or fact stated by me, unless I specifically state it as such. And trust me, just for you, I will make it blatantly clear when I do so.
And finally.
Your very own holy laws, The Ten Commandments, does not state false gods. It states:
The same also appears in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. It makes no mention of fake gods, it specifically states OTHER GODS. And a perfect being would not make a mistake in such a critical thing as its holy laws. So either God is paranoid, which he cant be as that is a fault, and God is perfect, or other gods exist.Quote:
Exodus 20:2-17
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 you shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any workâ??you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
17 You shall not covet your neighbourâ??s house; you shall not covet your neighbourâ??s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
He had shown me some inner workings behind the logic for creationism, and had some points that had a decent bit of sense and proof behind them. Currently, he seems to be more interested in lying and misattributing things to me then anything else, so especially not at that time. Although even when things were going more amicably, I wasnt convinced. I merely understood where he was coming from, same thing I have done with any other religions I take the time to look into and learn about. Its a learning experience, not a search for a creator, at least for me.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.
Why should I refrain from this so-called "elephant hurling" (I don't know what that is)? That website offers a lot of valid questions about the existence of God. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your God, and thus make sure that you answer those questions, and make justifications to trick yourself into still believing in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Btw, what is there to support about these claims? Is life not filled with suffering? Could not your suffering be eliminated by removing desire? Could you not live a good life, by always having the right view, right intention, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effor, right mindfulness, and right concentration?Quote:
- The Nature of Dukkha: All life is suffering. This is the noble truth of "dukkha": the word "Dukkha" is usually translated as "suffering" in English. Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, death is dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; to get what one does not want is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha. This first Noble Truth reflects on the nature of suffering. It comments on types of suffering, identifying each type in turn. A more accurate simplification of this truth is "Life is full of suffering."
- The Origin of Dukkha (Samudaya): Suffering is caused by desire. This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: It is craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. The second Noble Truth reflects on the sources of suffering (Dukkha.) Put very simply, it states that suffering results from expectations linked to our desires, and our attachment to those desires themselves.
- The Cessation of Dukkha (Nirodha): To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire. This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, and non-reliance on it. The third Noble Truth reflects on the belief that suffering can be eliminated. It asserts that it can be done, and that it has been done.
- The Way Leading to the Cessation of Dukkha (Magga): To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path. This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of Dukkha: It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
I would imagine that to most the things The Four Noble Truths speak of are pretty damn obvious and self evident. That is the entire idea behind them.
I seriously doubt you spent any time looking into anything involving The Four Noble Truths or The Noble Eightfold Path.
The end doesn't justify the means. Destroying people's property is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
Maybe to you destroying people's property is wrong. But to me, religion is wrong. The Christians crusaded and killed and destroyed to convert people to Christianity. But now is the time to crusade and destroy to snap people out of the hypnosis that they have put you under to believe in such hogwash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Religion itself may be a horribly misdirected good intention. That I would be willing to entertain. But I cant say its entirely a scourge. It is seperate from faith and spirituality, as it is a physical manifestation of such, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
I dont want anyone to be hurt, and I dont neccessarily believe that God(s) do or do not exist. I think that if someones faith brings them joy and enhances their life, and that they are not harming others to acheive this, that that is a wonderful thing worth noting.
And then they will corrupt their children, and their children will corrupt their children, and so on, until the spell is broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
Can you truely blame the religion and faith for it if its the fault of evil men? Evil men are evil men no matter what they believe in. There are evil atheists, just as there are evil religious people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
Its usually the acts of evil men that cause corruption, and I cant blame religion for the creation of evil men.
There are plenty of people who are religious and follow a specific religion who are not corrupt, not evil, and are good people.
Imitator:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.
And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.
You havn't corrected me at all, except this once because you appeared to be defending buddhism . And don't cuss in my thread please.Quote:
Seriously. Im getting aggitated at this now. Do you lalala read at all? Ever? Or do you just look for slight bits to base your quotes off of before spouting the same stuff you said before and were corrected on at least 4 times now?
Yes you have.Quote:
I DID NOT, nor have I EVER, stated something was a fact.
I havn't displayed any misunderstanding about Buddhism. You certainly were working to defend Buddhism.Quote:
I dont follow Buddhism, I dont agree with a portion of what they believe, but I find it interesting. I dont neccessarily hold true the theory of never ending, never beginning, but at least I understand it fully, and can see the points for and against it. You on the other hand have displayed a complete lack of understanding of the points of Buddhism on at least two occasions in this thread, and then dismissed it as a false religion. There is your example of dismissing something you dont understand.
I do have proof of God's existence. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not my fault people choose ignorance and fail to recognise the evidence.Quote:
And you have no PROOF of God's existance, because if you did, there would be no way for anyone to ever argue or bring up any counter point to your display. This entire thread is because you dont have proof, and you feel the need to make people share the same beliefs as you, so to validate your beliefs more. If you had taken any classes in sociology or psycology, it would be painfully obvious. Its a textbook case, one of the first things studied when you are looking into an ethics surrounding, because with ethics, innevitably comes the people stating that ethics are because of God.
Creation scientists do not depend solely on carbon dating. 6,000 years is certainly a lot shorter, and can be possibly used with the right adjustments (if they were known, but this would still be based upon asumptions), but they recognise their bias and the limits of science, wheras evolutionists have not. creationists do not rely on dating methods the way evolutionists do.Quote:
You disregarded Carbon Dating awhile back, but iirc, what is the main way that creationists use to try to show that the Great Flood happened? Yeah...
I understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian. You have stated things as facts numerous times, and I will not back down.Quote:
So, for the FIFTH time now, if I hold any beliefs, you have no clue about them, because I have not posted once about my personal beliefs in this thread. Not once. I have NOT stated anything as fact, I have NOT stated any personal beliefs, I have NOT claimed that any one thing was right and another was wrong. The ONLY person doing this is yourself, quit projecting yourself upon me.
You cannot make an assertion without evidence. You have made many assertions in this thread. You cannot debate ANYTHING without evidence to back your assertions. Whenever you state a possibility, you assert that as a fact. Otherwise, you cannot state whether is may be possible or not, and you have no way to make any assertion. I base my assertions upon evidence, the evidence I wish you would look to, for if you did it would show evidence of God. Your assertions are groundless.Quote:
If you cant stop with the slander and lying, then I have nothing more to say to you. This is getting old, and enough is enough. You can say what you will about me raising hypotheticals and trying to get you to flesh out things you have said in light of other possible evidence, but do not attribute anything I say as a belief or fact stated by me, unless I specifically state it as such. And trust me, just for you, I will make it blatantly clear when I do so.
If you don't like talking to me, or if you don't like what I'm saying, leave. Honestly, I'm tired of bickering with you. I'm tired of side objections being brought up that arn't neccesary for the purpose of this thread. I'm tired of arguing over the same thing also.
Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds.
That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.Quote:
And finally.
Your very own holy laws, The Ten Commandments, does not state false gods. It states:
They're good people, but they are gullible people who are delusional. I think Christians should be admitted to the nut house.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
Um, do we not both agree that forcing your beliefs on others is wrong? You show an example of injustice done by the Christians, yet you think that because you have a good cause that your actions will be just? Isn't this exactly the reason that you don't approve of what happened in the past, because people were too concerned with putting their beliefs in the forefront, no matter what the costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
"Maybe to you destroying people's lives is wrong. But to me, the occult is wrong. The witches crusaded and killed and destroyed to convert people to the devil. But now is the time to crusade and destroy to snap people out of the hypnosis that they have put you under to believe in such hogwash."
I changed a few of your own words to "justify" the crusades.
Where's the proof? I have read the entirety of this thread, and I see no proof that your imaginary friend is not imaginary. The concept of God is the same as a little kid having a little imaginary friend.Quote:
I do have proof of God's existence. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not my fault people choose ignorance and fail to recognise the evidence.
What do you think proof is, natureisawesome? Is it stating facts such as "you are thinking," "you are thinking because you're alive," "you can sense time," and then switching the subject to how you are alive and thinking because God created you? Can you please tell me how that even closely resembles science? Where are the equations to support what you say is true? Surely there is a mathematical equation which shows that God exists, if you can combine God with science. You don't even have any evidence of God's existence, and nobody else does either. Thus, without even the most simplistic evidence which can be attributed to to God (and nothing else, like evolution), your "proof" doesn't even fit in the realms of pseudo-science, but rather bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is. It would really help the world out if people like you would stop going around trying to convert people to Christianity.
Christians don't codemn people to hell. God is the judge. But both God and Christians actually do the opposite, we try to save people from condemnation.Quote:
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator:
In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.
I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.
The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.
mfqr:
Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.
When Imitator uses the word "understand", it really goes beyond the realm of tolerance, into the realm of sympathy for his choices and beliefs, which I have none nor should I.
People condemn themselves to hell. They choose to do wrong.
And mfqr, this is the second time you've used such hatful language, something I have not done. It may even be a violation of the rules of this forum.
Maybe you can start providing actual proof of the existence of God, natureisawesome? Because last time I checked, there is absolutely no proof provided. Remember, you started this thread and claimed you had proof of God's existence. That means the burden of proof is on you... and you have yet to provide proof. If you did provide proof, we would all believe you, and I would have stopped burning bibles by now.
You should refrain from elephant hurling because it's a form of dishonest propaganda, and even if you think those arguements are valid, it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome:
mfqr:Quote:
mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.
Why should I refrain from this so-called "elephant hurling" (I don't know what that is)? That website offers a lot of valid questions about the existence of God. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your God, and thus make sure that you answer those questions, and make justifications to trick yourself into still believing in God.
Elephant hurling is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.
I thought it was pretty clear he was defending Buddhism in the sense that you can't disprove it, not that he believed it. I defend Xianity or theism from time to time when somebody makes a remark that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I'm a theist in any way. There's a difference between assumption and "rightly assuming". Rightly assuming is when you find out you're right, after the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I thought it looked valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
isn't that what you did in your initial post?Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
It's not elephant hurling then. Maybe you should look at it, and answer the biggest questions stated there. I am not failing to consider opposing data, you are, if you won't look at it and think about it. I've already been Christian once. I know how lame it is to be a Christian, and how people are so brainwashed to think that God will get them out of every bad situation they're in. Trust me, I've considered the other side. Now is your turn to consider the other side. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the proof that God exists. Apparently I was deceived to think that the proof was in this thread, but it's not. Oh well, I guess nobody will be proving that God exists anytime soon... probably not ever, since he most likely does not exist.
By the way, I was kidding about the mean stuff I said before... about blowing up churches and stuff like that.
natureisawesome, give us what you promised us! We want the proof already!
No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.Quote:
Hardcore Newbie:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome:
...it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.
isn't that what you did in your initial post?
Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.
If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!
So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.
So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.
Hahah, ohhh no buddy, you won't be getting away with it that easily. I am 100% sure that most of the people posting on this thread are here to argue against your false proof, which has no evidence to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
And I find it hilarious how you call us ignorant because we disagree with your false proof and lack of evidence. If it was good evidence, and proved anything but the fact that God is a delusion, then nobody would be arguing with it. And if they did, you would have been able to provide valid evidence to prove them wrong. You have not done any of this, and thus your proof is not proof. There is no proof of God's existence, and I think that is pretty much the only thing you have proved.
Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Hardcore Newbie:
I think most or all of the time I stopped answering because I had already responded before and felt I had made my point, and after that it was unreasonable or unneccesary to respond. . As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.Quote:
Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.
You're completely right about that. He is also calling us ignorant if we disagree, which is clearly stated in the post you're replying to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
I think the only thing that he has proof of is that there is no valid proof or evidence that God does exist, and that the God that "does" exist is the God told about in the bible. I can't believe that anyone would take this "proof" seriously.
Tell us, natureisawesome, is there a mathematical equation to support the existence of God?
If I cared about the argument happening in this thread at this point, I'd go back an rehash all the stuff that, to me, looked valid at the time and didn't get a response. So I guess you're right in the sense that if one isn't putting effort in, one shouldn't expect anybody else to.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Oh, never EXCEPT this time eh? Is that way we are phrasing it this time.Quote:
You havn't corrected me at all, except this once because you appeared to be defending buddhism . And don't cuss in my thread please.
And there is a stark difference between pointing out wrongly made statements in regards to something, and defending it. I am defending the truth behind something, not anything that it states. So I am not, actually, defending Buddhism.
Come on now, get with the program man. You know if you make a statement like this you are going to get asked to prove it.Quote:
Yes you have.
Prove it. Show me an example.
I am not defending Buddhism. If someone made a FACTUAL comment towards buddhism in a negative or positive light, I would not care at all. But when you sprout half truths and flat out lies about something, I will correct you, so that others who may not know dont assume that what you said was true, and end up misinformed.Quote:
I understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian. You have stated things as facts numerous times, and I will not back down.
And again, provide me some proof of something I have stated as an absolute fact?
How can something not be a possibility if you cant prove that its not possible? Isnt that the entire concept behind a possibility, is that its possible? And to make it not a possibility, you have to be able to prove its not possible. Show me the proof. Undeniable, unquestionable proof.Quote:
You cannot make an assertion without evidence. You have made many assertions in this thread. You cannot debate ANYTHING without evidence to back your assertions. Whenever you state a possibility, you assert that as a fact. Otherwise, you cannot state whether is may be possible or not, and you have no way to make any assertion. I base my assertions upon evidence, the evidence I wish you would look to, for if you did it would show evidence of God. Your assertions are groundless.
And I have looked at your evidence. I have read almost every link you have provided, and every word you have written. Just because I cant make what you think is a "logical" jump to the conclusion that god exists, doesnt mean that im illogical or wrong or ignorant or anything else. It means that I wasnt able to use "faith" to make the leap. You havent shown any concrete evidence. Evidence that you would be able to take to a scientific gathering and say, hey, this definitively and permanently shows the existance of God. If you had such evidence, you most certainly would not have to explain it to us, as we would already have heard about it.
I have no problem talking with you when you arent slandering me and lying about what I have said. That has no place in a decent conversation. And if you honestly feel that you cant refrain from doing so, please, tell me so, so that I can bow out now and save us both a big waste of time.Quote:
If you don't like talking to me, or if you don't like what I'm saying, leave. Honestly, I'm tired of bickering with you. I'm tired of side objections being brought up that arn't neccesary for the purpose of this thread. I'm tired of arguing over the same thing also.
Come on now. I have scriptures quoted for you, and a pretty solid bit of logic behind it. And apparently others who want to see your response to this.Quote:
That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.
You cant just choose to ignore the questions that are too hard for you to handle with a simple link to AiG.
Let me be the one to tell people what I mean when I say things, mkay?Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I state nothing more then for you to understand what they believe in, so that you can know why they do what they do. You dont have to like it, you dont have to agree with it, and you can condemn it if you want... but the key is not to be an ignorant fool who is condemning something that you dont even begin to comprehend.
Take note of that. Your own words. You cant discredit it if you cant disprove it.Quote:
As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.
Thats the key thing. Now you might want to type up something about how its not up to you to disprove something if I am trying to prove it. But thats the lovely part. I am not trying to prove anything, I am saying what if. And you lack an answer to the what if minus choosing to ignore it, or dismissing it. If I wanted to prove Dreamer theory or anythign else, yes, I would be required to have evidence, and actually prove it. Just the same if you want to disprove something, you have to have evidence to disprove it. And you have none. YOu can play your games and dismiss it and call it whatever you want, but it still remains that you havent disproven it, so by definition, it is a possibility, no matter how far fetched and unlikely it may be.
Talking donkeys and snakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
One thing about this. I will stop cussing when you stop lying in your posts about things I have not done. You have wrongly attributed countless things to me that I have had to take time to correct you on, with not so much as even an apology for wrongly doing so. If it was an accident or not, if I stated you felt a specific way, or said a specific thing, and I was wrong, I would apologize to you for doing so.Quote:
And don't cuss in my thread please.
Its the Christian thing to do. :p
Just to elaborate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.
This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"
We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".
Meant to respond to this yesterday and got high and forgot.Quote:
I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.
I mean, why the change in wording for that one spot? Everyone else is listed as a descendant, but not that one. I am just curious why?
The bible is infalible if it is the book of God. So that wasnt a mistake, it was meant, for a reason. I am curious what the reason is.
Because it is foolish to accept something unless you have been given adequate proof to convince you of its truth. Considering that we are talking about an item that is highly contested in regards to its authenticity in the area of actual factual events that happened... Id say that its perfectly acceptable to question things such as that.Quote:
Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts.
And even in the cases of stories passed via the storyteller figure, over time things are changed, meanings are lost or twisted in subtle ways, and more twisted as time goes on. To fully trust and believe in something as a fact that you know yourself to be true, when you have not had the ability to be there to witness it, is to act upon faith. And while I accept some things on "faith" to make day to day life easier, that is not one of them.
It doesnt rain until conditions exist to allow it to, why is this any different for other things?Quote:
It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.
Actually, considering its hard to look at things on the truely Macro level, we can instead look to the more Micro level of things, and see what Buddhism speaks of.Quote:
So yes, it does deny reality.
Everything on this planet goes into everything else, according to Buddhism. A tree is formed because of the rain, and the earth, and the plant seed, and so on and so forth, including sunlight and wind and everythign else. When the tree dies, it goes back into the soil, and then will be used in the existance of other things. Everything goes into one another, hence there is no real start and end, merely a forever moving circle.
And to clarify, this is the position of Buddhism. Not mine. By clarifying this, I am not stating any belief, or fact in regards to this. Merely repeating what Buddhism states, and correcting some misconceptions/untruths you had/have in regards to it.