Show me the evidence.
- Thread starter snow
- Start date
So you admitted that you were lying? Thats what I thought, I have just proven here that you are a liar....When you mystyped one little word, thats ok, people make mistakes...BUt if you typed the ENTIRE sentence with....
"There are indeed many things that we do not understand, and none have yet to be shown as the result of an alleged supernatural. And neither have I ever attributed anything unknown to such an alleged concept..
THATS A STATEMENT...A lie by your admittance, so again I have just proven you are a liar.......
Do you have common sense? If you said "NOT understood" then why do you say "Science shows that God is not necessary for that which is NOT understood"...
Your not only a liar, but a stupid liar....ADMIT IT, you cant get away with these stupid lie...
Your so stupid beyond belief...you said you are perfectly open to the idea that a supernatural exist...Well once again, you dont know what is beyond the laws of nature and what science labeled today is NOT all of the laws of physics in this universe....
You cannot explain many things on the universe (such as how life exist.)
So therefore you CANNOT say that "Science always pointed out that God is unnecessary for life to exist (something we clearly dont understand how it exist"...
CRIS, ITS SO OBVIOUS ALREADY.....so so obvious, AN ORDINARY TEEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THIS (unless of course your abnormal, in other words, an atheist teen..
)Give it up Cris, your just rambling......
You want me to point out the other lies you have posted here? SAY THE WORD, AND ILL POST IT TO EMBARASS YOU AS I DID HERE............
Chris, there seems to be a problem with your method of addressing my logic. You must always show the orginal points and indicate what arguments are you using and to which points they pertain. We must reach agreement on each point of discussion before jumping to the next. The main points of discussion are numbered 1 through 5, all submain points may be labeled 1a,1b,1c, 2a, 2b ect as they relate to the discussion points. If we don't get organized we'll loose tract of what we're doing, and I'll loose for being an idiot and not necessarily for having the wrong logic. Please agree and abide by these rules if you wish to continue this discusssion.
I'll reinstate my starting points for your convineance.
1- Life is a non existance to the dead people.
2- Life is a reality to the living
3- Death is a reality for the living.
3- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
4- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
5- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Now looking at the points in your previous posts, I don't see any comments or agreement on the first logic pertaining to life is a non existance to the dead people. So I'll ask you to please let me know whether we have reached an agreement on this point before I proceed.
To reach the truth, I reserve the right to refine the wording of my logical points as we proceed as a reaction to my own intuition or Chris's comments.
Thanks
I'll reinstate my starting points for your convineance.
1- Life is a non existance to the dead people.
2- Life is a reality to the living
3- Death is a reality for the living.
3- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
4- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
5- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Now looking at the points in your previous posts, I don't see any comments or agreement on the first logic pertaining to life is a non existance to the dead people. So I'll ask you to please let me know whether we have reached an agreement on this point before I proceed.
To reach the truth, I reserve the right to refine the wording of my logical points as we proceed as a reaction to my own intuition or Chris's comments.
Thanks
Originally posted by Vienna
I can't believe I'm replying to you
Vienna, is the way that you can't believe you are replying to me the same way that you can not believe in god, because I would say that's a pretty shaky believe that changes as frequent as zero changes his underwear.
Sorry zero, I know you have a great sense of humor.
I'm sorry Vienna, but answering my question must follow the protocol that I posted earlier. Organization is a good for everyone. I'm usually very generous on things, like if we become friends and stuff, you can use my summer house and shit, but I'm stingy with displaying non orderly behavior to Atheists, because they invented the ART....notice not science....the art of disturbing and confusing the order.
whatsup,
Can anyone else explain to me what whatsup means?
I have no idea what you are on about.
I suspect you are tying yourself up with double negatives.
I'll repeat for you again what I did say - When something is clearly understood then science always shows that the need for a god is unnecessary.
This statement can only be false when it can be shown through science that a god is necessary for something. To date there that has not occurred.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can anyone else explain to me what whatsup means?
????? Anyone have a clue what whatsup is talking about?
Where is the lie?
I have no idea what you are on about.
I have no idea what you think you see here. I do not see any inconsistencies with my statements.
I suspect you are tying yourself up with double negatives.
Being open to an idea doesn't mean that I believe it is true. Being open means I am prepared to examine claims that might be able to show it is true. Until then I suspend my belief.
Fair enough. I have never claimed I can explain everything, and neither has science.
But I haven't said that. Please stop claiming that I have said things I haven't.
I'll repeat for you again what I did say - When something is clearly understood then science always shows that the need for a god is unnecessary.
This statement can only be false when it can be shown through science that a god is necessary for something. To date there that has not occurred.
heflores,
hope you don't mind me butting in here...
1- Life is a non existance to the dead people.
2- Life is a reality to the living
3- Death is a reality for the living.
3- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
4- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
5- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
1. Life is not a non-existance to dead people(that implies that dead people have a point of view), at least no more than life is a non-existing thing to a rock or a pencil.
2. makes sense....
3. Yes, people die, and we understand this.... so point 2 makes sense...
2nd 3. This sentence makes no sense to me, and I can see no derivative relation to your previous points. Maybe you should re-word this sentence into a more explicit paragragh.
4. (same as 2nd 3)
5. (same as 4) It seems to me that you've just jumped to a conclusion that makes no sense beyond the grammer of your sentence. Again, you should explain in a supporting paragraph so that I can understand.
hope you don't mind me butting in here...
1- Life is a non existance to the dead people.
2- Life is a reality to the living
3- Death is a reality for the living.
3- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
4- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
5- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
1. Life is not a non-existance to dead people(that implies that dead people have a point of view), at least no more than life is a non-existing thing to a rock or a pencil.
2. makes sense....
3. Yes, people die, and we understand this.... so point 2 makes sense...
2nd 3. This sentence makes no sense to me, and I can see no derivative relation to your previous points. Maybe you should re-word this sentence into a more explicit paragragh.
4. (same as 2nd 3)
5. (same as 4) It seems to me that you've just jumped to a conclusion that makes no sense beyond the grammer of your sentence. Again, you should explain in a supporting paragraph so that I can understand.
Pointers to all Theists for ways to debate with Atheists:
I normally wouldn't encourage anyone to enter in a debate with an Atheist, for a very fundemantel reason. The opponent main believe is not based on an actual or real basis, but is solely based on proofing the non existance of the Thestic view. This proof in itself is unscientific since if Atheistic is to not believing in the creator and if it's indeed an exact belief, then it should not need to depend on proofing anything, such as the non existance of the creator. An exact belief may not need an additional supporting element, but Atheistic view needs desperately to rely on discrediting the element of god which doesn't pertain anything to their belief. They claim to be exact while their whole argment is really an inexact argument which is proofing the non existance of a belief system.
Suggestions for additional rules to Atheists so they may not appear as if they are dealing both sides of the table:
They may not use the word believe, love, destiny, spirituality, speculate, think, dream, god, supernatural, fantacy, ghosts, assume, inspirational, ideas, motivations, ect, or any of their derivatives, unless adequate proof is provided.
Using such words by an Atheist gives a Theist a false sense of security that the Atheist actually believes in feelings, ect, and then the trust is turned back by the Atheist in the form of a back stab to the Theist with demands for proofs or threats of hijacking one's stable grounds with the promise of the mirage.
This is what we call in our Theistic world, Satin's work.
I normally wouldn't encourage anyone to enter in a debate with an Atheist, for a very fundemantel reason. The opponent main believe is not based on an actual or real basis, but is solely based on proofing the non existance of the Thestic view. This proof in itself is unscientific since if Atheistic is to not believing in the creator and if it's indeed an exact belief, then it should not need to depend on proofing anything, such as the non existance of the creator. An exact belief may not need an additional supporting element, but Atheistic view needs desperately to rely on discrediting the element of god which doesn't pertain anything to their belief. They claim to be exact while their whole argment is really an inexact argument which is proofing the non existance of a belief system.
Suggestions for additional rules to Atheists so they may not appear as if they are dealing both sides of the table:
They may not use the word believe, love, destiny, spirituality, speculate, think, dream, god, supernatural, fantacy, ghosts, assume, inspirational, ideas, motivations, ect, or any of their derivatives, unless adequate proof is provided.
Using such words by an Atheist gives a Theist a false sense of security that the Atheist actually believes in feelings, ect, and then the trust is turned back by the Atheist in the form of a back stab to the Theist with demands for proofs or threats of hijacking one's stable grounds with the promise of the mirage.
This is what we call in our Theistic world, Satin's work.
heflores,
At this point I see virtually nothing in your statements with which I can agree and I believe I have also pointed out serious flaws in both your logic and assumptions.
If you want to continue then review my comments and correct your statements accordingly and then re-state them correctly if possible.
Here is what I said -
PS. Please note the correct speilling of my name - there is no H. Cris is my real name.
Your original statements were not numbered. I have addressed every point you made, in detail, even those that had multiple unconnected clauses. I have no intention of re-addressing them.
At this point I see virtually nothing in your statements with which I can agree and I believe I have also pointed out serious flaws in both your logic and assumptions.
If you want to continue then review my comments and correct your statements accordingly and then re-state them correctly if possible.
I suggest you read my comments again more carefully.
Here is what I said -
However, I see you have dropped the 'fantasy' component, but my comment still stands; dead people cannot be aware of anything so your entire statement 1- Life is a non existance to the dead people. has no meaning.
Re-stated for reference only.
PS. Please note the correct speilling of my name - there is no H. Cris is my real name.
You said:
At this point I see virtually nothing in your statements with which I can agree and I believe I have also pointed out serious flaws in both your logic and assumptions.
What do you mean by believe. It's impossible for me to understand correctly your comments without understanding the meaning of the words.
At this point I see virtually nothing in your statements with which I can agree and I believe I have also pointed out serious flaws in both your logic and assumptions.
What do you mean by believe. It's impossible for me to understand correctly your comments without understanding the meaning of the words.
heflores,
Some corrections to your extremely uninformed and distorted view of atheism.
The only objection concerns the content of the theistic view.
The atheist holds that the theist perspective is irrational because theist claims have no evidential basis.
The first thing is that you must obtain some facts about atheism before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Your gibberish above just reveals extensive ignorance of atheism.
Follow this link and read the entire introduction.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Some corrections to your extremely uninformed and distorted view of atheism.
Atheists have absolutely no problem accepting the existence of the theistic view. Atheism has nothing to do with trying to prove that theists have no views.
The only objection concerns the content of the theistic view.
The primary view of atheism has nothing to do with proving anything. The basis of atheism is the disbelief of the claims made by theists.
The atheist holds that the theist perspective is irrational because theist claims have no evidential basis.
Again atheism isn't a belief system. The atheist requests that theists support their claims with evidence and proofs.
Again atheism has nothing to do with trying to prove that a theist belief system doesn't exist.
????
????
LOL.
It looks very much like your religious indoctrination encouraging hatred of atheists is pretty complete. And it looks like we have a great deal of work to do to educate you more appropriately and remove all that theistic brainwashing.
The first thing is that you must obtain some facts about atheism before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Your gibberish above just reveals extensive ignorance of atheism.
Follow this link and read the entire introduction.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Last edited:
ReasonableDoubt,
Hmm... you know, I just reread your original retort to me... I hate to admit it, but I didn't get it the first few times I read it. You're more succinct than I gave you credit for and further, my response that followed was kind of dumb now that I reread it.
I stand corrected,
Thank you.
Wes
Hmm... you know, I just reread your original retort to me... I hate to admit it, but I didn't get it the first few times I read it. You're more succinct than I gave you credit for and further, my response that followed was kind of dumb now that I reread it.
I stand corrected,
Thank you.
Wes