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.

 

Ask An Atheist Anything

page: 35
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Quote: Still though, every point you've brought forth has either been refuted or unsupported. At what point can you back your notions with evidence?

Really? You refuted this unsupported statement?:

The all seeing eye (Verichip logo) means God (a man) will see you (omnipresence) whenever he wants to.

When?




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
When did you "refute" my "unsupported" statement, that God is a man? I remember you saying that I invented that definition, but the Bible says the Lord is a MAN of war.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I can understand that you really don't want to believe that God is coming, and that you want to cling to the sole definition of him being something super-natural. But I think you know what's coming on the Earth, deep down. But maybe I'm just making an assumption, so no offense. Sorry if it spoiled your tea party.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
So, the Society of Friends, which descends from the Anglican Communion is, in your view, not an Abrahamic religion?


Certainly they're based on it. But also as I said several times (which you also excluded), many religions treat their source text as a buffet bar, picking and choosing which moral instructions to adopt and which others to ignore.


Of all your little time wasters and excuses for not admitting lapses, this "context" BS is the most laughable. Our whole conversation is recorded here verbatim. It isn't even possible for a poster to misrepresent the context.


Sorry, sir but this is a continuous method of debate for you. You isolate a single statement and exclude qualifying statements and other statements which establish context. I must continuously correct you on this and it remains as tedious as it ever was. I am not interested in this style of debate. Good day, sir.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Quote: Still though, every point you've brought forth has either been refuted or unsupported. At what point can you back your notions with evidence?

Really? You refuted this unsupported statement?:

The all seeing eye (Verichip logo) means God (a man) will see you (omnipresence) whenever he wants to.

When?


I said your statements were either refuted or unsupported. Your "all seeing eye" statement remains unsupported.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
When did you "refute" my "unsupported" statement, that God is a man? I remember you saying that I invented that definition, but the Bible says the Lord is a MAN of war.


So you say so and the bible says so. So what?

Where is your evidence that men are gods or vice versa?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
That's because it's a metaphor. You can't support a metaphor with fact, but you can support it with logic (though that may remain as an assumption), I think it's pretty logical. If you don't what is illogical about it? Because I'm dying to better myself here with other's insight.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
I can understand that you really don't want to believe that God is coming, and that you want to cling to the sole definition of him being something super-natural. But I think you know what's coming on the Earth, deep down. But maybe I'm just making an assumption, so no offense. Sorry if it spoiled your tea party.


You're entitled to your opinion. However, first we must establish that a god(s) exist. Then we must establish that he/she/it/they are coming. So you see, we have a few hurdles to get over first.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
A god doesn't have to be supernatural, by definition.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
And the first hurdle is in the definition.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
There were 30,000 gods before Jehovah. They were all men and women! Apollo and Ares were men who fought each other at the Olympics...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
That's because it's a metaphor. You can't support a metaphor with fact, but you can support it with logic (though that may remain as an assumption), I think it's pretty logical. If you don't what is illogical about it? Because I'm dying to better myself here with other's insight.


What you refer to as "logic" is simply a process of you making stuff up and insisting it's correct. Your "all seeing eye" claim should easily be able to be backed by fact and/or evidence if you had any. Since you're making stuff up and expect others to believe it, what makes your opinions any more valid than anybody else's?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
You posted while I edited. No foul. Let me summarize the final state of my previous post:

You did not restrict the scope of your comment to Abrahamic religions in the post I quoted.

So, I omitted nothing relevant. The UU's fall within the scope of what you falsely claimed about religions in general, "particularly," not exclusively, the Abrarhamic ones. They also satisfy the condition which you mention, and so are a valid counterexample, as I said.


Sorry, sir but this is a continuous method of debate for you.

Yes, I tell the truth.




[edit on 22-7-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
God is the Son/Sun ( a star ). A movie "star" is the same thing in today's society. People idolize them (worship them). This is why they walk down the red carpet, the blood line.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
A god doesn't have to be supernatural, by definition.


I can accept that.

Now prove to us with objective evidence that men are gods and/or vice versa.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
First I'm "inventing" these terms apparently, then when you see I didn't invent it because it came from the Bible you say so what, and you just call it "making stuff up" now. I didn't make any of these concepts up. You've already seen that and you said "so what."



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
God is man by definition. The whole concept of God is based on the drive that scientists have to study the universe and travel into the HEAVENS. That man can evolve into something super incredible. That is the journey and purpose of the pyramid and all science.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
You did not restrict the scope of your comment to Abrahamic religions in the post I quoted.


True, nor did I issue it as a universal generalization which includes all religions. I believe we've also discussed that my statements which you isolate are not intended as universal generalizations. If not, we should have .It sure would be nice if we could get beyond these petty interpretations and immature debate tactics once and for all. Good day, sir.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
First I'm "inventing" these terms apparently, then when you see I didn't invent it because it came from the Bible you say so what, and you just call it "making stuff up" now. I didn't make any of these concepts up. You've already seen that and you said "so what."


Correct. So what if you said it and the bible said it? It has no value as factual if it cannot be supported with objective evidence.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
to become god, with a capital G.




top topics



 
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join