No. I'm claiming that your statements do not correspond to even a modest cause effect relationship in reality as previously explained.
Your statement assumes that if we don't follow natures laws (GOD), then nature doesn't exist.
Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
No. I'm claiming that your statements do not correspond to even a modest cause effect relationship in reality as previously explained.
Your statement assumes that if we don't follow natures laws (GOD), then nature doesn't exist.
Also incorrect.
ONE MORE TIME: what we are discussing here is the Christian god. NOT your personal view of what god is.
Your argument is totally and utterly irrelevant to this topic.
Go away and start a new thread,
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Some one ban this fool. There is no reason to discuss a Christian God. God created what ever god you pray to as a way to steer you clear of damnation, or he is The God you pray to.
Oh, I do hope a mod sees that.
The discussion about free will vs. omniscience is predicated on the claimed attributes of the Christian god. If you want to get involved then THAT is the topic. If you to bring in a different god then start a different argument.
Yeah yeah.
How many lies have you told today?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Don't lump me in. You are walking a fine line between saint and demon. Would you take vengeance on a man who has done nothing to you? That is what you are talking about. You can be angry, I am angry, but you are angry at the wrong person. I did not persecute your brothers, my LORD did not persecute your brothers. Your "civilization," government officials persecuted your leaders, they persecute mine. Its a war for control of the mind and it has been, and is one sided.. until now.
My whole argument consisted of an interpretation of your statements. You not only just claimed your statements had nothing to do with the Christian God, you said they are is irrelevant to the topic....
Both of which makes you completely correct. Congratulations.
Misinterpretation. It has had to be explained to you a number of times that what you read was not what I'd written.
Please link to relevant post. Unless you're lying again, of course.
Huh?
Last edited:
.
Some people consider the flying spagetti monster their god.
There are different explenations or views of "God" according to different relegions, some personnal views, etc...
Some people consider the flying spagetti monster their god.
There are different explenations or views of "God" according to different relegions, some personnal views, etc...
so minority citizens should treat us the way we treated them??
you are saying all blacks are justified in treating the white man as slaves..
in this case turn about is NOT fair play.
proof?
i seriously doubt that is true.
that isn't even worth a reply..
confused: yet i did..)because you are using the worse case senario as an excuse to justify your own predjudice and bigotry..
(you=generic you, as i realize you are do not seriously believe this crap)
-ish.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=at...fficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np
Arkansas, Maryland, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina & North Carolina.
WOW..i never expected such..it is still wrong..it should not matter whether you are atheist or theist for political office..
My response: Your retort is meaningless and incorrect. Not one part of anything I have said explains MY PERSONAL VIEW. We are discussing YOUR inconsistent statements about God (who you also think died on the cross, and doesn't exist simultaneously). Statements that appear most faulty when you falsely accuse me of NOT speaking about the only god I ever studied in an actual school... Did you study god in school? I only ask because it's obvious you didn't study philosophy.
"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
You dislike my definition of Christian? Tough.
Would someone not have a case in the supreme court against this? The first amendment should stop this BS, even if it is technically the opposite of what is intended.
I think I may see a real reason to start the church of atheism here.
@Believe --
Oh the laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, but they remain on the books anyways because people think that religion(or lack thereof) is enough of a reason to violate people's rights. If it's enough of a reason for the behavior to go one way then why isn't it enough of a reason for it to go the other way.
Oh the laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, but they remain on the books anyways because people think that religion(or lack thereof) is enough of a reason to violate people's rights. If it's enough of a reason for the behavior to go one way then why isn't it enough of a reason for it to go the other way.
Really?
IOW: lie.
Wrong.
And please point my "inconsistencies".
That would explain why I have had to provide information about that god which you were unaware of?
IOW: lie.
You have previously been informed (the last time you made this assumption) that you're incorrect on this.
By your that quote it's not YOUR definition.
So, anything to say regarding the actual discussion?
Beyond all your personal semantics you don't realize you are basically saying.
"If I don't follow omnipotence or omniscience, then god is not omnipotent."
Which leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of omnipotence. Or you think the concepts themselves are not possible without god. But the most important thing to realize is that you think your beliefs will negate the natural order just by virtue of disbelief.
You believe That if no person believes in god these confusing concepts
Would not exist. This is just not true. It is the concepts themselves that rendered us to create the singular word God, not the word which created the concepts.
"If I don't follow omnipotence or omniscience, then god is not omnipotent."
Which leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of omnipotence. Or you think the concepts themselves are not possible without god. But the most important thing to realize is that you think your beliefs will negate the natural order just by virtue of disbelief.
You believe That if no person believes in god these confusing concepts
Would not exist. This is just not true. It is the concepts themselves that rendered us to create the singular word God, not the word which created the concepts.
Then you should all seriously start the church of atheism. If they let Scientology be a religion you should have no issues
.
Um, go back and read. omniscience is one we're talking about.
Huh?
Not at all.
Wrong.
And your point would be...?
I see you are still talking around the issue rather than addressing it.
Last edited:
dyw doesn't believe in anything that doesn't come out of his mouth..
hence when asked 'are you saying'
he responds with 'not what i said'
instead of clarifying or rewording his comment..
(and he is very judgmental IE No,Wrong, etc)
I think he thinks he is the only one that knows anything about anything.(at least that's how he comes across)
but of course i am just stating the obvious..
hence when asked 'are you saying'
he responds with 'not what i said'
instead of clarifying or rewording his comment..
(and he is very judgmental IE No,Wrong, etc)
I think he thinks he is the only one that knows anything about anything.(at least that's how he comes across)
but of course i am just stating the obvious..