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.

 

Creationists Will Destroy ATS

page: 21
43
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
What the heck are you talking about . . . who said anything about electromagnetic light? What is the point of you forming a line of reasoning and then subsequently stating it is poor?


I did. Please show me where I stated a line of my own reasoning and then stated that it was poor.


Where are you getting the word “eternally”? Cause I’ve only used it when quoting you . .


You said that God is unknowable. Whether I use the word eternally or not, you've still contradicted yourself by knowing that God is anything. Only the unknowable is unknowable, and what it is or is called is unknown, so please stop calling it the diety god, that is a contradiction.


Haha I win . . . I even warned you that it was a trap to even respond . . yet you did . . . come on


You win? No, sir. I see the schizophrenic games and decption that you are playing. Though I have no biased blindspot. Maybe you should understand what a biased blindspot is a bit better and realize that I'm telling you that I have no God. You sir, have a biased blindspot, we can call this biased blindspot, god. What is a blindspot? Something you can not see and thus can not know. This is what you defend against, this is your bias... you defend the blindspot. You can continue to speculate your biased blindspot all that you want, but it's always gunna be there and you're never going to see it.



Well, -g-od as an omnipresent diety must exist within all things. People sin and God exists everywhere and within those people. Simple logic. The Bible and the religious dogma contradicts. Either god is omnipresent or god isn't. So, what is it?



People have free will, so the point is moot.


You said you were an Athiest yet all you do is repeat Christian theology. Now sir, are you an athiest or did you lie to me? Now, people having free will means absolutely nothing. If God is omnipresent then God is everywhere, and that means God is within the people that sin. People don't have free will, they are only a reaction of their environment. You don't have choice, choice is your delusion.

I don't have fee will. I am merely a reaction of my environment, my planet and my universe. I didn't choose to be born and I didn't choose to die. I didn't choose my parents nor the way that they raised me, I didn't choose where I went to school and I didn't choose my name.

If God endowed us with free (how would you know this? God is the unknowable, how can you know its affairs?) will then we had no choice whether we wanted free will or not and that's not free will. In fact this would make one a prisoner of free will, and not free to opt out, but rather bound by free will. And if you change your stance and agree that we can opt out of free will, then free will is thus cancelled out by its own self, and is again rendered irrelevant.

No, sir. People don't have free will. You are really fitting the definition of religious fanatic and schizophrenic.


Are you saying that if you believed in G*d you would blame him for every time you did something horrible? If your children became mass murderors would you hold yourself accountable for what they did??? ;shakes head;


No. I'm saying that I have no belief in God. I can not formulate a logical response using for its premise the object of an invisible diety and a detached reality. This is what I'm telling you. Yes, God is responsible, he created Lucifer who is responsible for evil, therefore God is responsible for the creation of evil and thus all of its actions.


That’s absolute bogus. At the moment, people do not have any idea how the elephant seal operates in deep sea dives the way it does. It is beyond human scientists’ comprehension for the time being, and quite possibly forever.


No, sir. Not forever. But temporarily we are blind and oblivious to it, although we can OBSERVE it. It is being studied and will be understood. The elephant seal is not invisible and unknowable, it is a tangible physical reality that can be studied. We don't have any bodies of God diving in the water.
Get a clue man. Attach to reality, pls.


Just because you cannot explain something does not mean you are blind or oblivious to it.


If you can NOT explain something AT ALL then you ARE blind and oblivious to it. Duh? I mean, this really isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it.

We are not blind to the elephant seal. It is a physical reality that exists, we are able to study it and watch it, it is not my invisible dog nor the flying spaghetti monster. We already have knowledge of the elephant seal and its EXISTENCE. God is unknowable, c'mon man, you're making this too easy. You call yourself an Athiest? I think you're just a liar.


Originally posted by JPhish The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.



Absolutely.


Absolutely not. You are all over the place. The idea of labeling God as the unknowable, first off, is a false premise. To call the unknowable unfalsifiable is a biased contradiction serving your agenda, because you wouldn't know either way. So please, stop lying. Something unknowable to me is irellevant. I go no further, the rest is just speculation and contradiction to serve biased agenda.

We have 5 senses through which we experience our reality. With these five senses we have created technology to enhance these senses. Anything that can never be reached or known through these five senses is not a part of OUR experienced reality, thus it is irrelevant.


Who are you to say that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist???


See the definition of schizophrenia? You fit it well. Go tell me if the oceans are flowing with purple gatoraide yet.


Evidence for something, and the ability to interpret that evidence are two different things.


No they aren't. If you have evidence for something then it can be interpretted through that evidence. You said that god is unknowable which is saying that there isn't any evidence. So your argument here is moot. Do you even know what you're arguing for or against?


I’m just stating that I didn’t say it.


The more I converse with you the more I realize that you really are a case of schizophrenia. You have no idea what you stand for or why and you have no clue how to use logic. If it's not cold outside, it doesn't mean it's hot, has nothing to do with this conversation or the logic being implimented. If God is non-physical and we live in a physical tangible existence, then God is non-existent. God is my invisible dog. A self delusion, an invisible subject, an insane and disconnected state of mind.


Assumptions


No sir. You said God is intangible and unknowable, therefore what I said is not an assumption it is in fact a synopsis of your defnition of God.


Eureka! you’ve caught up to my second post! No s%*t Sherlock.


My name isn't sherlock and your second post was just as factless and lost as this last one, 100% empty.


implies that my responses to your quotes are not relevant. You’re trying to play with semantics.


There you go, now you understand what I'm saying. What I said about god being eternally unknowable, thus no evidence will suffice and god is eternally non-existent, thus falsifiable relative to our physical and tangible reality had nothing to do with you telling me that we were saying the same thing when you said God was unfalsifiable. Now did you catch up? Good, let's move along now.


Perfect logic?!?! Sounds like an oxymoron.


My logic is perfect. Your opinion of what it sounds like means nothing without facts to prove so.


Dave understands; ask him to explain it to you.


No. We're speaking English. You've judged me and I've judged you. Deal with it and learn the language and how it applies, not ignorant religious dogma.


It does take faith, because without people to believe in it, it ceases to exist.


You fail again to read what I am saying. Scientists don't "believe in science". It is not a matter of faith that atoms have valence shells. It is objective study and examination. Objectivism is not about belief, it is the complete opposite. Whether I believe in the constructs of science or not, it will always exist, just as it always has.


You’re equating science with pure understanding of the world, but you cannot do this because it is inherently “construal”/subjective. People are an integral part of the equation of science; not the universe.


Yes, that is science's goal. It has almost achieved such now. It is only subjective in that it exists in the minds of us all and is the only real tangible truth that can be proven and excercised. I like how you sidestepped your failure, once again.

If every living creature was obliterated, gravity would still move the planets and stars. The mind of the universe is understood through science, not religion, just ask the computer you're typing through and the electrical company powering your domicile.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



people are an integral part of the equation of science; not the universe


Time to put up or shut up. Please prove how we are not the universe. Science is not a subjective Human construct, it is an accumulation of objective universal laws and principals, and these universal facts are harnessed to make things such as computers and cars.

The objective knowledge of the universe is transcendent through the eternity of energy, thus all things that we created already existed through the permittance of universal and physical principle found in the interaction of energy.

For instance, certain elements readily bond with other elements. Some elements can not combine at all on the planet Earth under these atmospheric conditions. We take what works because the universe allows it to work, because that's the way that it is, and we create it.

Inertia, combustable engines, jets, solar panels. Why do they all work? Not because of Human subjectivity, because of the objective study of the universe.

We are the mind of the universe, if you want to get to know yourself then attach yourself, or stay shacked up in schizophrenic invisible land with the other 90%.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 

So, you have got everything figured out and Energy=the meaning of the universe?
Everyone else(You believe) is schizophrenic?
WOW!
How mundane.
Are you a freshman in college?
Or are you just 19?
Because I thought I had everything figured out, then too.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
So, you have got everything figured out and Energy=the meaning of the universe?


Exactly.


Everyone else(You believe) is schizophrenic?


Relative to universal objectivity, that which is physical, precicesly. I don't believe this. I know this.


WOW!
How mundane.


It is what it is. If you'd like to take part then feel free to start concocting replies if you have something to add.


Are you a freshman in college?


No.


Or are you just 19?


My age and year of schooling is irrelevant. Focus on the subject matter, pls.


Because I thought I had everything figured out, then too.


Too bad?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
No he has figured nothing out.. Energy is nothing more then an act of God.. (energy doesn't have a personality and we do.. Animals do.. God is a literal soul with fealings...

we have fealings, we cry, we smile, we have desires.. can energy alone do this? No, it's upsurd to think that energy has a soul and a personality....

God will reveal himself soon to lastoutfinte after death and show him is soul and he will see him face to face..

peace.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
" we do not have free will "

that's nonsense... you misunderstand environment with choice.. You have the choice to do whatever you want.. Is your hand being controlled? can you not go to the fridge and get a soda?

Your environment was a result of free will, keep going back, your parents choose to live there and so on...

and as for you not choosing your parents... (they) choose you... by having sex.... and so by free will... you came by them yet why would you even consider choosing someone different? That doesn't make sense because if you choose someone different then (you) take away their free will..

which means a negative comes from a positive and you cannot have it both ways.. and so the question is.... who's free will counts? Yours wanting to choose your parents, or your parents choosing you?

the winner would have to go to the one who choose first which would be them.. like tie goes to the runner...

peace.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by JesusisTruth]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 



I am going to address this from a completely nuetral standpoint. Reason being, I do not like to argue with people who refuse to accept that other people do not have to agree with them.

With that said, let me start.

Free Will.

Yes, we humans have free will. What we do not have is free will with no consequences. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. An ye harm none, do as ye will. You make your bed, you lie in it. You reap what you sow.

You can do whatever you want, but you have to be ready to pay the price for doing so. Human law... natural law... karmic law... divine law. You can choose to go outside naked and do your morning jog.. but the consequences are there. One: your feet are going to hurt from lack of protection. Two: You are going to get mighty cold in the winter. Three: Neighbors will call the law on you and you will get arrested for indecent exposure. Now... does the consequences mean you cannot do it? No... you have the free will to do what you want.. but there are laws in place to protect you and everyone else. They are what stops you not a lack of free will.

Labeling the religious as mentally ill.

This is very disturbing for me to read. We are here to deny ignorance and someone makes a post with this in it. Just because you do not believe as they believe does not make them mentally ill. You cannot find one pyschatrist that will label them such. Your lack of faith in something does not mean that their faith is dillusional and a sign of mental instability. The very fact that you have stated this is, at best, arrogant, and at the very worst, ignorant.

When people come together to debate topics, the object is to listen with an open mind to what everyone has to say, think on what everyone has to say and then make your stance. You cannot come into a debate with a closed mind. It is impossible.. because at that point, you are only there to argue and demean those around you for not instantly seeing things your way.

Refusing to accept that their belief system is part of who they are and agreeing to disagree with them is another sign of arrogance and ignorance. Trying to force them to your opinion smacks of tyranny and ignorance.

Are you here just to hear (see) yourself talk (type)? If the answer is no, then you need to step back and re-evaluate how you are approaching topics of discussion.

No Creator of Energy

This is almost laughable. Energy cannot create itself.. so that means someone.. somewhere.. somewhen.. created energy. If you agrue this, then you are saying that one day .. poof.. there was energy and it exploded in order to make everything we know. This makes no sense. As much as you claim that the belief in a Creator makes no sense, the very theory that energy is not made but just exists makes no sense. It puts you at an impasse so to speak.

Arguing that Creationists are blocked by their faith

This may be true in some cases. I have never agreed with stating "this is how it is because God made it this way." Trust and believe I am a very curious person and an answer like that drives me batty. However, it is not always a stumbling block for those that believe in God.

To some it is a comfort for answers that are not forthcoming (why did God allow all those people to die on 9/11? why did God allow the Holocaust?) or there is no answer. To others, it is an answer when their mind cannot grasp any other answer. Does it mean they are wrong? No.. it means that it is the answer that works for them. Just because it does not work for you does not mean it does not work for others. You have to accept that some people are very happy to accept that answer and you cannot blame them, condemn them or ridicule them because so.

And last but not least...

Keep this thought in mind.. everyone argues about religion now.. but when we are all dead.. we will find out who is right, who is wrong and there will be no arguing with the answer.

VV



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalI did. Please show me where I stated a line of my own reasoning and then stated that it was poor.


Elecromagnetic light is not a good argument, as it is not invisible, we know it's there.



You said that God is unknowable. Whether I use the word eternally or not, you've still contradicted yourself by knowing that God is anything. Only the unknowable is unknowable, and what it is or is called is unknown, so please stop calling it the deity god, that is a contradiction.


not at all, like I said with the elephant seals, we do not understand how the deep sea dive the way they do. It is unknown to us but we are not completely blinde or oblivious to it. By your definition of unknown, nothing can ever be labeled as unknown, and that is completely absurd.


You win? No, sir. I see the schizophrenic games and decption that you are playing. Though I have no biased blindspot. Maybe you should understand what a biased blindspot is a bit better and realize that I'm telling you that I have no God. You sir, have a biased blindspot, we can call this biased blindspot, god. What is a blindspot? Something you can not see and thus can not know. This is what you defend against, this is your bias... you defend the blindspot. You can continue to speculate your biased blindspot all that you want, but it's always gunna be there and you're never going to see it.


Modern science believes that everyone has a biased blindespot. For you to claim not to have one is to defy science and psychology. Not only that, but theoretically, if you claim to be able to perceive, or not perceive something that you cannot. That is paradoxically and inherently false.


You said you were an Athiest yet all you do is repeat Christian theology. Now sir, are you an athiest or did you lie to me? Now, people having free will means absolutely nothing. If God is omnipresent then God is everywhere, and that means God is within the people that sin. People don't have free will, they are only a reaction of their environment. You don't have choice, choice is your delusion.


I never lie unless misinformed. I’m pretty sure I know who and what I am. People do not have free will??? People most certainly have free will. I have to go to work in 10 minutes. But I can decide whether or not I want to. It’s that simple.


I don't have fee will. I am merely a reaction of my environment, my planet and my universe. I didn't choose to be born and I didn't choose to die. I didn't choose my parents nor the way that they raised me, I didn't choose where I went to school and I didn't choose my name.


How do you know this? What if you are an alien from the planet Umpalumpa and you can travel through time and space. You saw “your” life in the near future and said “hey that looks like it would be a cool life to live!” You then transferred your entity into the infant, erasing your memory; and now you’re living out your life today.


If God endowed us with free (how would you know this? God is the unknowable, how can you know its affairs?) will then we had no choice whether we wanted free will or not and that's not free will. In fact this would make one a prisoner of free will, and not free to opt out, but rather bound by free will. And if you change your stance and agree that we can opt out of free will, then free will is thus cancelled out by its own self, and is again rendered irrelevant.


G*d didn’t have to endow us with free will. Everything has free will . . .

“No, sir. People don't have free will. You are really fitting the definition of religious fanatic and schizophrenic.”

Free will has nothing to do with religion.


God is responsible for the creation of evil and thus all of its actions.


G*d would be responsible for the possibility of evil, but not its actions.


No, sir. Not forever. But temporarily we are blind and oblivious to it, although we can OBSERVE it. It is being studied and will be understood. The elephant seal is not invisible and unknowable, it is a tangible physical reality that can be studied. We don't have any bodies of God diving in the water.
Get a clue man. Attach to reality, pls.


So your telling me you can see the future now? You know for a fact that we will discover how seals operate???


If you can NOT explain something AT ALL then you ARE blind and oblivious to it. Duh? I mean, this really isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it.


That’s not correct at all. I can’t even begin to explain string theory, AT ALL. But I know it exists.


You call yourself an Athiest? I think you're just a liar.


When did I say I am an atheist? Some one needs to learn how to read.




Absolutely not. You are all over the place. The idea of labeling God as the unknowable, first off, is a false premise. To call the unknowable unfalsifiable is a biased contradiction serving your agenda, because you wouldn't know either way. So please, stop lying. Something unknowable to me is irellevant. I go no further, the rest is just speculation and contradiction to serve biased agenda.


If something unknowable is irrelevant, then why are you discussing it?


We have 5 senses through which we experience our reality. With these five senses we have created technology to enhance these senses. Anything that can never be reached or known through these five senses is not a part of OUR experienced reality, thus it is irrelevant.


So you’re saying that your dreams do not exist? You cannot observe dreams with any of the 5 senses.


See the definition of schizophrenia? You fit it well. Go tell me if the oceans are flowing with purple gatoraide yet.


ad hominem at it’s finest.


Evidence for something, and the ability to interpret that evidence are two different things.



Do you even know what you're arguing for or against?


I’ve told you several times that you’re arguing with yourself.


The more I converse with you the more I realize that you really are a case


ad hominem yet again.


[edit on 6/11/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 


Hi Val,

as a side note, do you believe you will go to Valhalla when you pass on? Or is there another heaven as well? Seems I read of 2. Wasnt Asgard one of them? Isn't one of them strictly for those who died valiantly in battle? I think the heaven of norse teaching is the same or similar in effect to the biblical heaven (there's more than one in biblical texts as well), just from another cultural standard and language. Any data you have on it, would be greatly appreciated!

Do you see your belief as being counterproductive to ATS? Do you believe the gods created you or do you believe in evolution or both? It's an interesting perspective to consider how this debate might appear to or effect people of faiths other than christianity and I'd welcome your input on it.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by undo]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
On the subject of "Free Will"

Since so many of you are so emotionally outraged, I'll respond with one post to all of your sentiments regarding the subject of free will.

Your problem herein lies: You talk of action and reaction, but for some reason you think of yourself as only the action, when in fact every action is merely a reaction.

You do not actually make choices, nor do you have any free will, this is a delusion of your mind, but admittedly could be experienced to be very real through the feeling of premonition, although it isn't real at all. You are only a reaction of and to your environment and atmopshere, regardless of what you "choose" or "don't choose".

For example, many of you will come back again looking for this thread and my reply because you are only a reaction of it. You will then become a reaction of its contents based on what you have been brainwashed into believing or just never exposed to before, another reaction of your childhood and your birth and life on this planet, and you will then react accordingly.

To think that only things separate from yourselves experience reaction and that you are the ultimate decider and action maker is an extreme form of megalomaniacal schizophrenia and absolute physical detachment.

You in fact are the universe and not separate from it, only another part of its mechanism, a mere reaction of everything else around you based on a culmination of past interaction. You are simply the aggregated "plan" of the universe, abiding by all of its laws and principals, including logic.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Hey LastOut, you are an ego maniac, it's a mental disorder How's that for reaction? It's a hypothetical, ya know. I'm sure in real life you aren't an ego maniac! Now that we've cleared up your hypothetical ATS mental disorder and everyone else's hypothetical ATS mental disorders, let's get back to the topic! Will Creationists Destroy ATS or will it be insulted out of existence? Truth is, none of us here can destroy ATS and wouldn't want to (AFAIK)! That's up to the guys that run it!

As far as the rest of your posts go, you're a smart guy but don't get on my bad side. I'm a patient person but there's limits to everyone's patience.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Elecromagnetic light is not a good argument, as it is not invisible, we know it's there.


This quote was directed at you attempting to use visible and physical objects and claim that we can not know them because of naked eye or temporary "invisibility".


not at all, like I said with the elephant seals, we do not understand how the deep sea dive the way they do.


And as I said, which you seem to continuously miss, your argument for the invisible unknowable God and the connection to the elephant seal you are making are completely bunk and empty. For one we can observe elephant seals and we know that they exist, for two we know their environment and we know that they are deep sea diving. We have no evidence at all that any God exists, will exist or ever did exist.


It is unknown to us but we are not completely blinde or oblivious to it. By your definition of unknown, nothing can ever be labeled as unknown, and that is completely absurd.


No, it is not absurd at all, sir. If any singular entity is completely unknown, never witnessed, never studied, never examined physically, then it is ABSOLUTELY irrational speculation and in its totality COMPLETELY irrelevant and it only stands to be a figment of the imagination or a schizophrenic disillusion. The only good use it would make is a nice fantasy bed time story. BTW, my invisible Dog typed this last sentence.


God is unknown to us in its physical entirety, there is no specimen of God from which to examine anything, not even diving Gods into the ocean.


Modern science believes that everyone has a biased blindespot. For you to claim not to have one is to defy science and psychology. Not only that, but theoretically, if you claim to be able to perceive, or not perceive something that you cannot. That is paradoxically and inherently false.


I am modern science and the only people with biased blindspots is someone claiming that they believe in and worship a biased blindspot, hence God. I am not even blind to nothing, nor to the unknowable, and since I am not blinded to that which does not exist and I can see its faults clearly, I am completely connected and in touch with all that truly exists; my physical reality. Through having knowledge of what is (the physical), I know what isn't can never be (non-physical).

There is no such thing as energetical absence. Absence is the immeasurable presence, and yes I can see it. What is inherently false is your definition and understanding of what can not be perceived, that which YOU claim to know. So, have fun with your biased blindspot and inherent paradoxical logic. Mine is flawless.


I never lie unless misinformed. I’m pretty sure I know who and what I am. People do not have free will??? People most certainly have free will. I have to go to work in 10 minutes. But I can decide whether or not I want to. It’s that simple.


It's not that simple. You think you're making a decision about something you have no decision about. Let's take this back for a minute. Right now you are readying yourself for work, a construct of your planet's societal system, you were born without choice of your birth and placed in a home (?), place and time not of your choosing. From that day on (and even before that) you are a constant reaction of your environment. You think you have choice to not go to work, but that's just a reaction of me questioning your "free will", which you are in turn explaining only through the result of possible reactions of having to go to work in 10 minutes which is only a premonition of possibility formulated on and around the constructs of your environment and planetary social structure, that you had no choice in creating either.

Now, if every individual has free will, that makes for a busy highway, eh? ;-) Satna clause is gunna have to be quick this winter meeting everyone's free will choices.


How do you know this? What if you are an alien from the planet Umpalumpa and you can travel through time and space.


I don't do opinion and speculation. I deal with fact. I'm a Human Being on the planet Earth with memory only of this life.


G*d didn’t have to endow us with free will. Everything has free will . . .


No it doesn't, the planet Earth doesn't choose where it wants to be, it follows its orbit around the sun in conjunction with gravity and the gravitic effects of every other celestial body in the solar system's vicinity having an effect on it and it an effect on them.


Free will has nothing to do with religion.


Wow. So how exactly did you become an Athiest? Free will is the direct product of religion. Do your research before you begin to debate, please. You know, I wouldn't mind a well structured response one of these times that actually dealt with fact and observation rather than religious dogma and status quo heresay.


G*d would be responsible for the possibility of evil, but not its actions.


Oh, so now you're defining the unknowable again? I thought we already went over this. Wow, biased blindpost ring a bell?


So your telling me you can see the future now? You know for a fact that we will discover how seals operate???


If we do not exctinct and they do not go extinct anytime soon, then based on that logic, yes... definitely.


That’s not correct at all. I can’t even begin to explain string theory, AT ALL. But I know it exists.


Then you're putting blind faith in something, which again is a round-about cinclusion that you are blind and oblivious to it. You in fact DON'T know it exists. You can't prove it either way. You're an Athiest that uses blind faith? That's a new one.


When did I say I am an atheist? Some one needs to learn how to read.


You did.


If something unknowable is irrelevant, then why are you discussing it?


I'm only discussion what it is not. You are claiming that you know it, I am showing that you don't. You are knowable, it's you that is relevant to me, your idea of the unknowable, which is not what the unknowable states that it is, is a contradiction. I am defending the irrelevant and unknowable because you are attempting to make it relevant and known (contradiction) through false knowledge and false logic.


So you’re saying that your dreams do not exist? You cannot observe dreams with any of the 5 senses.


My dreams are in fact the 5 senses at play. My brain excretes a chemical that causes a natural acid trip (I'll get back to you on this one later, I've gotta get running to the gym before the sun comes up) Your dreams are an accumulation of physical knowledge gained through your 5 senses and your imagination uses it to entertain you while your body regenerates/rests. Blind people don't dream in visions because they have no sense of sight.


ad hominem at it’s finest.


Well, is there purple gatoraide in the ocean's yet? And have you discovered my invisible dog?


I’ve told you several times that you’re arguing with yourself.


Untill you can prove this is means nothing.


ad hominem yet again.


I posted the definition on the last page. Gotta get going.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


These are just assumptions about my character. Yes, I have an ego, everyone does, you should invite yours to play sometime instead of trying to know other's egos down, but use it wisely.

Ego Wiki

------------------------------------------------------------------


e·go
1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
5. (often initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
b. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.

6. Ethnology. a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships.


Ego - Source

Yes, sir. I sure do, there is no denying that. I'd hope that the rest of you did as well.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JesusisTruth
 


Feelings are just a chemical reaction in your brain sent to various receptors etc. I'll explain later, I've really gotta get going.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


It was a hypothetical!
We are all hypothetically deranged, ego maniacal, schizoprenics with delusions of grandeur! I kinda like this hypothetical stuff...and the dancing banana



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Well guess what? My family is atheist and I was raised atheist. I suppose I should have made my name DevilsAdvocate instead of JPhish?


What does this quote imply then? I'm humbly inquisitive and curious as to its predicated character indexical.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
No he has figured nothing out.. Energy is nothing more then an act of God.. (energy doesn't have a personality and we do.. Animals do.. God is a literal soul with fealings...



Energy:

Physics - the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done; potential energy. Symbol: E

Physics - The capacity of a physical system to do work.


So energy doesn't have a personality and we do. Would you please tell me what you are then if you are not energy? So you have no capacity to do work?

The God that the Christian establishment presents has no logical connection whatsoever with physical existence. However, if God is admitted to be omnipresent, thus God is everything and everywhere, then God IS the universe and God IS energy. Energy is everything, literally. Everything exerts or does work, thus producing harnessable energy. Energy is transformed, mutated and goes through states of conversion. It is eternal and can never be destroyed nor can any new energy be created.

The definition is above. Regardless of how many times you claim it to be the opposite, you can't argue with facts.

For the record: No I am not anti-Christian, I am pro-logic, pro-intellect and pro-truth.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Currently, yeah, you could almost pass that off as 100% true, but you can lessen those metnal diseases by understanding what your physical reality actually is rather than living completely ignorant and in invisible dog land.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Well what's the point of having a faith forum for people to post on, if they cannot discuss faith.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I'm just following the title of the thread and proving its point. Staying on topic is all. I personally don't think this thread belongs in the faith section.

We are discussing faith, although I don't have any, the faithful proclaim that I do. It appears that if I do have faith that mine is not only stronger, but more logical, sensical and intellectually well construed.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join