• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
I didn't answer your question. Not answering is not a confirmation of the opposite. This is debating 101. So I will ask you again:

Are words in a book proof?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

They're evidence. I doubt you can scientifically PROVE ancient historical events involving individuals.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
haven't atheists consciously decided that God does not exist?
Click to expand...
That's the exact point. You won't find us incoherently deciding the extent of our non-belief. Neither of us is interested in bull****ting the other.

You two, however have most definitely engaged in the practice while offering no proof to an unbiased observer.

It is expected.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
They're evidence. I doubt you can scientifically PROVE ancient historical events involving individuals.
Click to expand...
Words cannot be evidence for an unnatural claim, words are a natural creation of humanity.

This is logic 101.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
That's the exact point. You won't find us incoherently deciding the extent of our non-belief. Neither of us is interested in bull****ting the other.

You two, however have most definitely engaged in the practice while offering no proof to an unbiased observer.

It is expected.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

LMAO, well at least you admit you are rigidly locked into your own belief. "It is expected."

I never offered proof, nor claimed there is any. Again, you look ridiculous, you should go back and review my posts. It's clear you didnt even read them properly. I believe I started with 681.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
LMAO, well at least you admit you are rigidly locked into your own belief. "It is expected."

I never offered proof, nor claimed there is any. Again, you look ridiculous, you should go back and review my posts. It's clear you didnt even read them properly. I believe I started with 681.
Click to expand...
Expectation is not a sign of belief, it is based on proof. For example, I expect you to not offer any proof of your claim that an independent deity gave you free will. You have yet to show differently - so you are meeting the expectations.

If you expect your god, to come down and prove to us how he/she/it gave you free will - your expectations will not be met because they aren't based on any tangible proof.

This is logic 101.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Expectation is not a sign of belief, it is based on proof. For example, I expect you to not offer any proof of your claim that an independent deity gave you free will. You have yet to show differently - so you are meeting the expectations.

If you expect your god, to come down and prove to us how he/she/it gave you free will - your expectations will not be met because they aren't based on any tangible proof.

This is logic 101.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

:lamo I dont expect any of those things.

Obviously you have never read my posts on religion before.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
:lamo I dont expect any of those things.

Obviously you have never read my posts on religion before.
Click to expand...
I've read enough to consider you wholly illogical for believing in something you cannot prove and for which you have no observable evidence of.

The difference between you and Logicman is not belief, it is fervor. There is no difference between one atheist and another - that is because the claim is that there is no convincing proof for any deity.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
:lamo I dont expect any of those things.

Obviously you have never read my posts on religion before.
Click to expand...

He's in debate mode so ya might as well can it...SMH...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
I've read enough to consider you wholly illogical for believing in something you cannot prove and for which you have no observable evidence of.

The difference between you and Logicman is not belief, it is fervor. There is no difference between one atheist and another - that is because the claim is that there is no convincing proof for any deity.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

You obviously dont understand faith. It doesnt require logic.

And there's been absolutely no fervor in my posts.

And I've made no attempts to prove anything.

You are still almost 100% wrong about my posts.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
You obviously dont understand faith. It doesnt require logic.

And there's been absolutely no fervor in my posts.

And I've made no attempts to prove anything.

You are still almost 100% wrong about my posts.
Click to expand...

Faith is illogical, I definitely give you that. It's not different than imaginary friends or beliefs about vampires.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
He's in debate mode so ya might as well can it...SMH...
Click to expand...
It is "debate politics". Don't like it? You are welcome to step off.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
It is "debate politics". Don't like it? You are welcome to step off.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

She has told you more than once she's not interested yet you continue to harrass...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Faith is illogical, I definitely give you that. It's not different than imaginary friends or beliefs about vampires.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Yes. By definition :roll:
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
She has told you more than once she's not interested yet you continue to harrass...
Click to expand...
Report if you'd like. As long as it's posted in this thread I can respond.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

LOLOLOL

It's fine. If any other compatriots that show up in similar threads post, they'll see this and get a good laugh.

DevilDad, Quag, Ramoss, De-natured, Jaeger 19, even Visbek.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
Yes. By definition :roll:
Click to expand...
And yet, you continue to make claims which require a logical thought process to be proven. For example, if you claim god gave you free will - that is a claim concerning the natural - not the supernatural. Free will is a natural phenomenon. Birds, dogs, cows, penguins all have free will. Nobody who understands the concept of proof says 'X gave it to them'.

Double down some more on your double speak.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
LOLOLOL

It's fine. If any other compatriots that show up in similar threads post, they'll see this and get a good laugh.

DevilDad, Quag, Ramoss, De-natured, Jaeger 19, even Visbek.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty desperate post, even for someone who believes in a non-existent deity.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
And yet, you continue to make claims which require a logical thought process to be proven. For example, if you claim god gave you free will - that is a claim concerning the natural - not the supernatural. Free will is a natural phenomenon. Birds, dogs, cows, penguins all have free will. Nobody who understands the concept of proof says 'X gave it to them'.

Double down some more on your double speak.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

A belief in religion has nothing to do with logic. That which may be learned and applied can.

You look absolutely ridiculous...writing stuff I never even implied.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
This is a pretty desperate post, even for someone who believes in a non-existent deity.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

LOL, but if they come around, they'll get a laugh.

At your expense :mrgreen:

You take creating assumptions to an Olympic level....and all based on your own pre-conceived notions and canned arguments. And they, so far, dont really apply to me.

They make you look as locked in dogma as the religious fundies.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
That's bs. I've discussed the contents of books I've read many times, including various material from "The Case for Christ" on occasion in answer to dox's postings.

So get your facts straight so you don't continue with your lousy, ad hominem fairy tales.
Click to expand...


Funny how is 'i discussed that', but it's never here, and no one remembers you doing so. It's always 'I already supported that', but it's never now. However, I will accept a link to where you supported it, and I can use your old discussion as a leaping off point. However, if you never actually discussed it, I will get an evasion and a snarky remark.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
LOL, but if they come around, they'll get a laugh.

At your expense :mrgreen:

You take creating assumptions to an Olympic level....and all based on your own pre-conceived notions and canned arguments. And they, so far, dont really apply to me.

They make you look as locked in dogma as the religious fundies.
Click to expand...
Calling for help and for people to laugh won't change the reality that any position related to the existence of 1 or more deities remains unsupported. As such, the difference between you and Logicman is fervor. He believes his god appears if he chants enough incantations, you believe the same deity exists in some other form, and has the ability to influence the natural world (i.e. by giving you what every animal has - free will).

You are welcome to continue groveling, double speaking and naming posters you think will come to your rescue. It's the last resort for those who can't debate their point alone.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Kind of amazing watching Lursa make the claim that she was given free will by a separate entity, then when asked for proof, claimi she doesn't need proof because it's based on faith - which itself is not proof of anything.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what's so "hilarious" about this... Lursa made claims of some of her beliefs, and her beliefs are faith based beliefs. She "knows" them in a way that can't be supported through use of the scientific method. You keep speaking of "proof" and she's never once made an assertion of "proof" as far as I can see. That's the very definition of faith. One doesn't NEED proof to believe something to be true.

Hatuey said:
Faith can be had by anyone and evolve to have everything from men with elephant heads to snakes that talk. All of these claims for the existence of something, unless backed by proof - cannot be taken at face value.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Hatuey said:
This isn't even a complex concept, but here we are 700 pages in - without a single religious advocate demonstrating how their claims about the supernatural can be tested. This isn't an axe to grind against the Christians, I welcome Muslims, Jews, Hindus and whatever else is out there to make a supernatural claim and then demonstrate it using methods which can be validated by an unbiased observer.
Click to expand...
One doesn't come to "know" their deity through scientific proof...

Hatuey said:
However, as we know - nobody will because faith and prayer have the effective rate of placebos.
Click to expand...
Okay.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Calling for help and for people to laugh won't change the reality that any position related to the existence of 1 or more deities remains unsupported. As such, the difference between you and Logicman is fervor. He believes his god appears if he chants enough incantations, you believe the same deity exists in some other form, and has the ability to influence the natural world (i.e. by giving you what every animal has - free will).

You are welcome to continue groveling, double speaking and naming posters you think will come to your rescue. It's the last resort for those who can't debate their point alone.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't see the support doesn't mean that others can't or haven't... I would be one who would make a claim that I have experienced the Christian God in my life. I "know" he exists because I've "experienced" it. Can I scientifically prove that to you? No... Can I convince you that I've in fact had real experiences instead of simply being mental or whatever other explanation for it? No... But continue making fun if it floats your boat...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom