It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 47
42
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You were responding to my post.

No I did not read it because either way it amounts to an a-hole move. A slight change in level of a-holeness doesn't change that.
edit on 24-4-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Sounds like a politician.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
I remember when I typed the word "responding" thinking about whether or not I should rephrase that to something like "I was informing those who interpret "torment" as torture in their minds because of what they've been told about it (and what they constantly and repetitively get to hear about the subject when people bring up the phrase "eternal torment"). But I didn't like the word "informing" (cause it sounded too much like a wiseass and possibly twisted to help paint that picture) and thought I could take a gamble and hope my words wouldn't be twisted to find something to disagree with what I said in my 2nd comment as well. And figured by adding:

That's why I also quoted something about the verse that uses the word "torment"...

I was making it clear that I also responded to your and others' usage of the word "torment" only to end up getting blamed for you not reading the response and talking as if I'm not allowed to bring up the word "torture" in relation to the word "torment".

It doesn't really matter what I do or respond to does it? Or how much efforts I take to attempt to prevent a twist of what I'm saying so some people can hear what they want to hear? At least that's the impression I'm getting from many ATS members who are responding to something I'm saying. I'm expecting a....

'well, it's your own fault now cause of the ridiculous things you say'-type of argument (or talking too much trying to excuse oneself for something I didn't even do wrong). Perhaps I shouldn't continue and give people more ammunition.

Here's an interesting ethical question related to the topic that was brought up under the phrase "eternal torment" (a relation only properly understood when one understands what the bible is referring to when it brings up that particular "torment"), but also a question that one can ponder on without being aware of that relation:

When someone commits suicide without being pushed by others to do so (not talking about victims of bullying and such) but out of their own free will, can you blame anyone else as being cruel and responsible when there is no clear evidence that they influenced the one who committed suicide to do so?

Remember that I already put a lot of caveats in that question but if anyone still has an issue with the term "free will", just remove the "free" from the question, same thought.

Also remember that your comment quoted 3 verses which ended with the term "eternal destruction", which is what my initial comment to you started with. And none of the verses (and translations) you quoted used the term "eternal torment". So your complaints to me in your first comment to me are rather....unfair, impolite, not nice, unreasonable, telling regarding 2 Timothy 4:3,4 ("not put up with"). And please don't quote this paragraph out of context and complain I didn't also adress or respond to the phrase "eternal torment". That would be very nice and polite and I hope me mentioning it out loud doesn't demonstrate too much disappointment in some posters here on ATS in terms of what I'm expecting from them. Or bring up what you were responding to as if that somehow means I can't respond to the bible verses you bring up to support your argument as well as supposedly ignoring your opening term "eternal torment" or the comment you were responding to. The latter I also clearly did not do, but you did to my comment as you mentioned.
edit on 24-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
It doesn't really matter what I do or respond to does it? Or how much efforts I take to attempt to prevent a twist of what I'm saying so some people can hear what they want to hear?

Right, because my response was to something specific and you came in twisting first.

Also, it makes no difference because your argument is based on semantics and on top of that, for some, using either word or definition still means that the god of the bible is not worthy of praise.

I'm an atheist so to me it is just holes in the story.
edit on 24-4-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Are you kidding me. Prison is mostly full of people who sold drugs to feed themselves and their families not people who don't care. Over 70% of inmates are non violent offenders.

Also restorative justice over punitive justice has proven to be more effective with keeping rates of recidivism lower.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

How about:

1. Anything that begins to exists has an efficient cause

2. The universe began to exists.

3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

Prison is mostly full of people who sold drugs to feed themselves and their families not people who don't care. Over 70% of inmates are non violent offenders.
False.
www.brookings.edu...



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

From 1993-2011 only 30% were for violent crimes. So during that time period it was 70% non violent offenders. Also the current statistics 55% are non violent offenders. Therefore the majority of prisoners are non violent offenders.

Mostly because of the failed war on drugs which never was a bogus war anyways.

Also that is merely one study. I could find others which would provide opposing information. Such as this one

www.bop.gov...


edit on 25-4-2016 by Joecanada11 because: Added info

edit on 25-4-2016 by Joecanada11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11


From 1993-2011 only 30% were for violent crimes.
You understand that statistic is for inmates admitted, right? Not for all inmates.

So, in light of accurate information you are modifying this statement?

Over 70% of inmates are non violent offenders.


But the fact is, incarceration for violent crime increased, a bit, while drug incarcerations have declined, a bit.
www.brookings.edu...





edit on 4/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No I am not. I just provided statistics that show that number to be accurate.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

It is not accurate. 70% of inmates are not non violent. Unless you think that somehow 45% + 70% makes sense.
Your statistics are for federal prisons only.

edit on 4/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you add up the categories in those statistics that constitute violent offenses (homocide,rape,weapons) the figure is just below 30% leaving the other offenders in the non violent crime category. Almost 50% of then drug offenses.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

Correct. Not 70%. A bit less than 50%, actually.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And from 1993-2011 only 30% were in for violent crimes according to your study.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes a bit less than 50% are drug related. Then there are robberies, bribery , fraud , extortion , property crimes. Either way the point was that the majority of offenders are non violent and almost half are drug related offenses. Not people who could care less.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11
No.
Not "in."
Admitted.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Right admitted.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
1. Anything that begins to exists has an efficient cause


Okay I'll go with that.


2. The universe began to exists.


Proof needed.


3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.


Since no proof of #2 can be demonstrated, statement 3 is rendered inert.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Proof needed.


Proof needed or evidence needed because they are entirely different things.

First thing I would give you the BGV theorem which says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.

Then we have things like cosmic background radiation and on on on .
edit on 26-4-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Joecanada11


It's pretty clear Hoses 6:6 and the rest of the bible condradict each other. If God desired mercy he would require no sacrifice.


this is a pretty solid point.


God desires mercy, justice demands retribution

You may think you won't have to pay for the evils committed, but judgement is coming


justice demands retribution? you do understand the difference between justice and vengeance? batman would be disappointed in you. eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. the point is not to make people afraid, but to help them understand. if you kill every criminal, you only prove to the world that bad people die. a real hero shows the world that even bad people can change if you show them how. vengeance is not justice, fear is not love, and mercy most certainly is not extortion. im really not inclined to take lessons in morality from a figure who threw his own son to the wolves because a few thousand years earlier he said "a thousand years of this crap and i might have to drown these humans like a sack of puppies, but theres that mary chick who looks like a good time...just gotta get joe out of the way..."


Really?

An eye for am eye does not leave the world blind, just think about it, that's childish
Then you go on about revenge and batman, again just a tad childish

Then you go on about people changing, why would should they. You are sounding like one of those leftys who wants to hug everyone.
So what about those people who don't want to change, don't they exist
You know those street gangs, isis, drug pushers, psychopaths, are you suggesting we hug them all till they cry and say sorry

Do you read what you write, prisons are full of people that don't care and will never learn to care, never mind many streets

Imagine for one second that the death penalty was brought back and was utilized throughout every country.

Just research the amount of murders that have arisen since the death penalty was ended
What country's have the least murderers, those with death penalty shot.
What country's have the least amount of reoffenders

You know what vengeance is, vengeance is what happens when justice isn't carried out and also another problem, some people value themselves far more important that others
Rather than a tooth or an eye, they kill their enemy, their family, their villages in Vietnam

I am not really inclined to listen to the silly assumptions of an illogical person who thinks he understands theology and can then explain it to me

No thanks Barcs, you have put zero thought into your reply

Eye for an eye leaves the whole wold blind and batman, sheesh...


and the answer to fear of man is fear of god, right?




new topics




 
42
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join