Holy Quran

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:33 pm

ppanther wrote:So then... you admit that there are some things you believe that you did not think up on your own?

of course....apparently you forgot that at one time I believed there was a god, but through examination, questioning, reading, and some self-awareness, I came to the conclusion that it was a bunch of shit...

So then... there are times when you haven't thought for yourself? About something you believe with enough conviction to come into a Theology forum and desperately plea for an argument?

stop it, this is the most inane argument you've tried to spin...it's stupid and you know it....

And you admit you sometimes misread scientific articles? And you agree that it's possible that scientific journals are not inerrant (GASP)?

scientific journals that are peer reviewed are largely based on what we know at the time the article came out...but no, science isn't perfect and that's the beauty of it...science is self testing in and of itself..

And you agree that you think you are right, and those who disagree with you are wrong?

see, it always comes down to I'm right and you're wrong with you people....I know what I believe and what I believe is not what you believe...is that right or wrong

Or are you trying to hedge on that one, and claim to believe you're right, but refuse to admit that means the people who disagree with you are wrong? Odd standpoint, but you've tried making it already, so...

This entire line of argument is stupid...if you're trying to get me to say "I'm right and you're wrong" it's not going to happen.....I believe that christians (along with all other religious people that base their day to day existence on belief in a god) are seriously deluding themselves, but that's okay because that's what's right for them....it's okay by me that you believe in (a) god, you and I just disagree on it.....btw, you're an atheist when it comes to Buddhism, you don't believe in their god(s) so don't tell me your not an atheist because you are toward buddhism

Like I say I've got religious friends that believe in god and it's okay by me....but, if you try forcing your beliefs down other peoples throats (e.g teaching creationism in school, when that clearly goes against the whole seperation of church and state portion of the Constitution) well then that's when I'm going to have a problem with it...I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching fairy tales to children...if they want to learn about religion, it should be the responsibility of the parent to teach them, not public school

Is any of this sinking in?

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:48 pm

Felix, I'm not an atheist when it comes to anything. I believe in God. I don't have to believe in every god ever worshiped in order to not be an atheist. Please re-read the definition and get back to me. I mean seriously, Felix... you honestly think you have a firmer grasp on what the word means than the dictionary? Yeah, that says quite a bit about your level of arrogance. Please.

at one time I believed there was a god, but through examination, questioning, reading, and some self-awareness, I came to the conclusion that it was a bunch of shit...

SO, you think people who believe in God are wrong. You honestly cannot believe anything else. There is no "right for them" in this argument -- either they're right or they're not. Either you're right or you're not. Stop lying to yourself.

see, it always comes down to I'm right and you're wrong with you people....

It always comes down to right and wrong with all people. And by the way, you brought it up... not me. Please, follow your own arguments. Stop stepping on your own toes. Thanks.

stop it, this is the most inane argument you've tried to spin...it's stupid and you know it....

It absolutely is not. You are the one who stated that you don't believe Christians think for themselves about what they believe. How on earth is me pointing out that you're not thinking for yourself either inane in any way? I think it's remarkably relevant. Again, stop lying to yourself.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:47 pm

ppanther wrote:Felix, I'm not an atheist when it comes to anything. I believe in God. I don't have to believe in every god ever worshiped in order to not be an atheist.

but your god differs significantly from the god of the hindus, or are you saying that all of the various (god)'s are one in the same...of course, that goes strictly against your holy book
Isaiah 43: 10 "But you are my witness O Israel, says the Lord. And you are my servant. You have been chosen to know Me, believe in Me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God, there never has been, and never will be"

oh and while were at it, maybe you could provide me with your definition of who or what god is exactly....I'm not trying to be obstinate here, I'm just trying to get some clarification....

you honestly think you have a firmer grasp on what the word means than the dictionary? Yeah, that says quite a bit about your level of arrogance. Please.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm not being obtuse, and I'm certainly not being a smart ass....but the fact remains that by definition, the god of the Hindu's CANNOT be the same god you worship, so in fact you can't believe in their god...if you don't believe in that particular god, then your an atheist toward their god...it's pure semantics, but true non the less....

SO, you think people who believe in God are wrong.

no, I think their fucking deluded....but wrong would imply that it goes against tenet they hold, so no, they're not wrong...

You honestly cannot believe anything else. There is no "right for them" in this argument -- either they're right or they're not. Either you're right or you're not. Stop lying to yourself.

why do you keep insisting that I'm lying to myself....okay, let me put this in a way you might understand....I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong in my book, they just believe differently than I do....why do you insist on making this a "a or b" issue, when it clearly is much more complex than that?

It always comes down to right and wrong with all people. And by the way, you brought it up... not me. Please, follow your own arguments. Stop stepping on your own toes. Thanks.

okay, I'm going to dumb this down as simply as I possibly can.....I like german dark beer, but there are lots and lots of people that don't...am I right and are they wrong? See, it's not a simple "right or wrong" answer...

It absolutely is not. You are the one who stated that you don't believe Christians think for themselves about what they believe.

They don't, they sole source their beliefs to a single book. Me on the other hand, I've developed my opinions from a wide variety of sources....I've read the bible, I've read the Qu'ran, I've read the Book of Mormon, I've listened to Richard Dawkins and to Christopher Hitchens, I've seen Dinesh D'Souza speak in person, I've sat in on theologic debates absorbing what each side had to say. Can you say you've done the same? I seriously doubt it.

Almost to a person, when I've asked my christian friends if they've done as much, have they ever read any other religious book, say for example the Qu'ran, I've asked them have you ever attended a lecture by an atheist about his anti-religious views....not one of them ever has and they'll usually puncutate their answer with the same response "the bible is the only book I need"

Seriously, and then they wonder why they flail so badly when we've gotten into religious discussions....they're arguing from ignorance, and that's never a good position to be in (Debate 101)

How on earth is me pointing out that you're not thinking for yourself either inane in any way? I think it's remarkably relevant. Again, stop lying to yourself.

if you say "quit lying to yourself" one more time, I'm going to tell you to stick it up your gash...capiche?

I do think for myself and that's how I came to the conclusion that religion does more harm than it does good....here's a simple test that's a favorite of Christopher Hitchens

"How many people can think of an abomination done to society in the name of atheism?" Most people scratching their heads "okay, now how can think of abominations done in the name of religion"? People laugh because if you can't think of at least 20 in 30 seconds, you're not trying hard enough.

It's no contest, and that is where religion-all religions fail. Everybody thinks theirs is the right one and everybody elses is wrong, and if you don't like it, well we'll have to kill you for it. Don't believe me, just look at the crusades...religious death and destruction at it's finest, and all because they thought that because they held their beliefs, that gave them the right to kill people of another faith indiscriminately....sound familiar? It should, that's exactly what the islamoterrorists are doing right now.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:13 pm

Felix wrote:why does god go to SUCH GREAT LENGTHS TO HIDE HIS EXISTENCE FROM US?

pssst ..

He came down to earth and fully PROVED Himself, fliend.

Felix wrote:Everybody thinks theirs (religion) is the right one and everybody elses is wrong, and if you don't like it, well we'll have to kill you for it.

Mikey the atheist came in saying Christians need to be killed, but so far nobody else here has advocated killing people.

Felix wrote:An example of this is christian apologetics, the type that try and justify the attrocities put forth in the bible....do you believe in genocide? Of course not, but have you ever said one word in disgust at the various genocides carried out in god's name...e.g. the Passover incident described in Exodus chapters 11 and 12, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered, including newborns, children, youths, adults, the elderly -- both human and animal.

I've answered this question of yours before, Felix.

I assume your scroll wheel got a workout.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:31 pm

Felix wrote:but your god differs significantly from the god of the hindus, or are you saying that all of the various (god)'s are one in the same...of course, that goes strictly against your holy book

I love how you constantly answer your own arguments, and so often incorrectly. Of course I don't think all the various gods are one in the same. I'm still not an atheist. I honestly cannot fathom why a simple definition is proving so impossible for you to understand.

oh and while were at it, maybe you could provide me with your definition of who or what god is exactly....I'm not trying to be obstinate here, I'm just trying to get some clarification....

If you've read the Bible as often as you say you have (yeah, right), you should have no reason to ask this question. I already told you I'm a Christian. Stop asking for obvious information to be spoon-fed to you, Felix. Think for yourself.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm not being obtuse, and I'm certainly not being a smart ass....but the fact remains that by definition, the god of the Hindu's CANNOT be the same god you worship, so in fact you can't believe in their god...if you don't believe in that particular god, then your an atheist toward their god...it's pure semantics, but true non the less....

It's not really semantics, it's just plain inaccurate. I don't believe Hindus are atheists. I don't have to believe in the god(s) of others to know whether or not they are atheist. Please, please look at the definition. (I'd say to look again, but I'm really kind of hoping you didn't read it the first time. That would help explain your fundamental lack of understanding.)

no, I think their fucking deluded....but wrong would imply that it goes against tenet they hold, so no, they're not wrong...

Wait... you think it would go against the tenets of Christianity for you to think Christians are wrong? Here's a clue, Felix, because you need one badly... you do think they're wrong. There is no way to read this thread and see it any other way. Can you tolerate the fact that they believe something you think is wrong? I sure hope so. Can you respect people who believe differently than you? Sure you can. (Well, ideally you can.) We're not talking about a preference of beer here, Felix. We're talking about a subject that cannot exist both ways. Although we all form opinions on the subject one way or the other, the real answer is not subjective. It's one or the other. The subject is complex, sure, but there is a basic a-b issue. You either believe God exists, or you don't. Different people believe different things, but they are not both right.

Please tell me you don't think evolution is right for you, but creation is right for so-and-so. One side is right, and the other is wrong. It happened one way or the other. You believe it was evolution, and you are also trying to tell me that you don't think people who disagree are wrong? Did your particular brand of human evolution include a backbone, Felix?

Almost to a person, when I've asked my christian friends if they've done as much, have they ever read any other religious book, say for example the Qu'ran, I've asked them have you ever attended a lecture by an atheist about his anti-religious views....not one of them ever has and they'll usually puncutate their answer with the same response "the bible is the only book I need" Seriously, and then they wonder why they flail so badly when we've gotten into religious discussions....they're arguing from ignorance, and that's never a good position to be in (Debate 101)

When you stop stepping on your own arguments over and over again, you can start referencing Debate 101.

if you say "quit lying to yourself" one more time, I'm going to tell you to stick it up your gash...capiche?

Ooh. I'm trembling.
I'm actually quite gratified that your passive-aggressive hostility has been brought right out in the open. Way to be honest. Now tell me what you hoped to accomplish with that 8th-grade reactive nonsense?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:01 am

So, if I don't believe in The Great Pumpkin, that makes me an atheist. Is that the logic you're trying to use here, Feels?

Good lord, you're getting desperate.

But by all means, keep on keeping on with the feeble attempts at making an even lamer point. I'll just keep eating popcorn here, but just so you know... I've taken to scrolling right past your posts and getting the germaine parts in pp's rebuttal. The comparison to Albert Pujols going yard on batting practice meatballs isn't far off.

Btw, panther... I thought you had said you couldn't or wouldn't do the C&P thingy anymore? I'm glad that Felix caused you to change your mind. See, he is good for something.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:09 am

ppanther wrote: I love how you constantly answer your own arguments, and so often incorrectly. Of course I don't think all the various gods are one in the same. I'm still not an atheist. I honestly cannot fathom why a simple definition is proving so impossible for you to understand.

why are you so terrified of being called a atheist....you are because you don't believe in a deity called Brahma...you seem to mistake that being called an atheist of a particular Hindu god, makes you an atheist of all gods...

If you've read the Bible as often as you say you have (yeah, right), you should have no reason to ask this question. I already told you I'm a Christian. Stop asking for obvious information to be spoon-fed to you, Felix. Think for yourself.

so in other words, you really can't define what god is, is that it....and why do you insist on challenging me on the veracity of my claim to have read the bible many times...are you calling me a liar? I thought we were past all of this. I've got nothing to gain in not telling the truth, and seriously, I resent that you'd question me on this....

It's not really semantics, it's just plain inaccurate. I don't believe Hindus are atheists.

but you're not a hindu numbskull, they don't believe in the same god you do....can't you get that through your fucking crainium....

I don't have to believe in the god(s) of others to know whether or not they are atheist. Please, please look at the definition. (I'd say to look again, but I'm really kind of hoping you didn't read it the first time. That would help explain your fundamental lack of understanding.)

seriously, just stop...you're demonstrating serious ignorance here and I'm becoming embarrassed for you...it's obvious you can't follow a simple train of thought and the concept that Hindus don't believe in your god therefore you don't believe in there is just flying over your head....please, tell me your not this dense

Wait... you think it would go against the tenets of Christianity for you to think Christians are wrong? Here's a clue, Felix, because you need one badly... you do think they're wrong.

don't suppose to tell me what I think...you have no idea who I am or what I'm about...you're not wrong, you're just deluded

There is no way to read this thread and see it any other way. Can you tolerate the fact that they believe something you think is wrong? I sure hope so. Can you respect people who believe differently than you? Sure you can. (Well, ideally you can.) We're not talking about a preference of beer here, Felix.

why are you so hell bent on getting me to say christians are wrong...they're not wrong, they simply believe differently...a belief I don't agree with, but certainly not wrong...so quit trying

You either believe God exists, or you don't.

How many times do I have to say it, I DON"T BELIEVE IN YOUR OR ANY OTHER GOD...holy shit...but if you want my honest opinion, okay here you go....

you're an imbecile for believing the superstitions of bronze age goat herders that thought the sun revolved around the earth, the moon had it's own light, the stars were tiny lights in the firmament above the earth...you're moronic for believing tales about a gigantic flood that that covered the highest mountains (which would equate to a total depth of about 30,000 at the highest point, and all of this was accomplished in 40 days and 40 nights....you believe that all of the creatures of the earth could be crammed onto a boat that according to the dimensions mentioned in the bible, wouldn't be big enough to hold all of the species of the beetles that inhabit the earth....you're an idiot that believes that man holds dominion over this earth, but fails to recognize that bacteria and viruses own us...but it was nice of god to instill us with an immune system that fights those bacteria and viruses, I guess he must have thrown it in after eve ate the apple....your a fool for believing the tales of idiots that were so frightened by the thought of death they needed to make something up so that they wouldn't be so scared, so they made up and everlasting life where if you believe what they tell you to believe, you'll end up....you believe in the mythology of a book laced with contradictions too numerous to mention...there,does that make you feel better about yourself now? But are you wrong for those beliefs? Who am I the fuck to judge. Each person must live with what they believe and it's as true to them as is my non-belief in a supreme deity that would allow famish, starvation, disease, unimaginable death without lifting a finger to prevent it...you call this justice for some bitch eating a piece of fruit from some fucking tree?

you simply cant get past the minutia, into the meat of what the discussion is about, and frankly I'm sick of answering the same questions over and over and over and over and over again...you've convinced me, it's pretty meaningless to have any meaningful dialogue with you

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:24 am

Felix wrote:so in other words, you really can't define what god is

Felix, this particular question is silly beyond words, and she is really right that there is no need to dignify it with an answer.

The Bible plainly reveals, throughout, who God is.

Btw, each point in your last rant can be addressed.

There is SO much nonsensical misrepresentation in all that is said there.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:33 am

War Wagon wrote:So, if I don't believe in The Great Pumpkin, that makes me an atheist. Is that the logic you're trying to use here, Feels?

Good lord, you're getting desperate.

But by all means, keep on keeping on with the feeble attempts at making an even lamer point. I'll just keep eating popcorn here, but just so you know... I've taken to scrolling right past your posts and getting the germaine parts in pp's rebuttal. The comparison to Albert Pujols going yard on batting practice meatballs isn't far off.

Btw, panther... I thought you had said you couldn't or wouldn't do the C&P thingy anymore? I'm glad that Felix caused you to change your mind. See, he is good for something.

C&P is pretty annoying, for sure, but sometimes there are a LOT of points that need to be addressed. It's easier!

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:45 am

Felix wrote: you simply cant get past the minutia, into the meat of what the discussion is about, and frankly I'm sick of answering the same questions over and over and over and over and over again...you've convinced me, it's pretty meaningless to have any meaningful dialogue with you

When confronted with cogent, logical thought, you start flailing like an epileptic

Dude... the meat of the discussion? PP has taken every last one of your bullshit arguments, chewed them up, and spit them right back in your face like a bad baloney sammitch.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:57 am

Felix wrote: frankly I'm sick of answering the same questions over and over and over and over and over again...

When did you do that? How did I possibly miss you actually answering a question.

Felix wrote:
you've convinced me, it's pretty meaningless to have any meaningful dialogue with you

Having interacted with you in the early half of this thread, I can understand how that must feel. However, having read Panther's posts, she's been rather clear in her discussion. I think the problem is with you. Just sayin'.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:26 am

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

I'm not "terrified" of being called an atheist, Felix, because I'm not an atheist. Neither is anyone who believes in God or any other god(s).

I'm wondering why you're "embarrassed" for me, Felix. I'm not the one who can't grasp one simple definition.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:30 am

poptart wrote: Felix, this particular question is silly beyond words, and she is really right that there is no need to dignify it with an answer.

The Bible plainly reveals, throughout, who God is.

really is it he, she or an it...is it alive as we know life to be? By what mechanism did he create all of this? Where does he/she/it "live" so to speak? Why does he/she/it make he/she/it so invisible to those that would like to believe...yeah yeah, I know you think you have some special relation with him...but what about all of those souls that he allegedly cares about...why doesn't he bother to show up and maybe I might convert...instead, the only clue to his existence is a single volume and that's all you get....some loving god you've got there...sounds to me like he's looking for an excuse to send people to hell..

Btw, each point in your last rant can be addressed.

There is SO much nonsensical misrepresentation in all that is said there.

sure they can...I've never met an apologist that couldn't explain it all away with conviction, no matter how crazy the explanation might sound

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:32 am

Felix wrote:really is it he, she or an it...is it alive as we know life to be? By what mechanism did he create all of this? Where does he/she/it "live" so to speak? Why does he/she/it make he/she/it so invisible to those that would like to believe...yeah yeah, I know you think you have some special relation with him...but what about all of those souls that he allegedly cares about...why doesn't he bother to show up and maybe I might convert...instead, the only clue to his existence is a single volume and that's all you get....some loving god you've got there...sounds to me like he's looking for an excuse to send people to hell..

I, for one, would never have believed Felix would post this.

:REALLYbigmeds:

Personally, I can't wait to read more about how Felix is right, and the dictionary is wrong.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:35 am

ppanther wrote:atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

btw, you're definition is a little fucked up

the definition, according to dictionary dot com is

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (note the plurality, it's there for a specific reason).

it says nothing about which deity you don't believe in....you don't believe in the deity Brahma, therefore you're an atheist to that god...I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around this fundamental concept, but never let it be said that I didn't give it the old college try

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:39 am

poptart wrote: Felix, this particular question is silly beyond words, and she is really right that there is no need to dignify it with an answer.

The Bible plainly reveals, throughout, who God is.

I know, because you have no answer EXCEPT WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU....see, that's the whole thinking for yourself thing I was talking about earlier....actually I thought panther would step into before you did, but I knew that eventually one of you would....you get your entire definition of what you believe god to be from the bible, you're unable to render any opinion other than what your book tells you...you've never actually considered the idea of what he/she/it might be (of course that presupposes that such a being/entity/ghost/sky daddy exists)....

and who said christians couldn't think for themselves? that's right, I did....

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:45 am

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
btw, you're definition is a little fucked up

the definition, according to dictionary dot com is

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (note the plurality, it's there for a specific reason).

it says nothing about which deity you don't believe in....you don't believe in the deity Brahma, therefore you're an atheist to that god...I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around this fundamental concept, but never let it be said that I didn't give it the old college try

Ummm. Let me walk you through this one. YES, the definition you provide is correct. However, it isn't based upon which god you do or don't believe in. If you believe that no deity/supreme being exists, you are an atheist. Her definition is the exact one that dictionary dot com gave you. What you added in the next paragraph has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. It's merely your attempt to again misdirect the argument. You're reaching.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:49 am

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
btw, you're definition is a little fucked up

the definition, according to dictionary dot com is

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (note the plurality, it's there for a specific reason).

it says nothing about which deity you don't believe in....you don't believe in the deity Brahma, therefore you're an atheist to that god...I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around this fundamental concept, but never let it be said that I didn't give it the old college try

Oh Felix, this is getting kind of sad.

By the definition you posted, I am not atheist. There is no such thing as being atheist to any specific god, and your definition doesn't state anything to the contrary. Anyone who believes in a supreme being (or supreme beings... thus the plural...) is not an atheist, per your definition. Please tell me you're being deliberately obtuse. I mean it's clear that you don't like to be wrong, but sometimes you just have to buck up and admit it. This is not subjective. Your definition does not change anything.

Seriously. WOW.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:50 am

Felix wrote:
poptart wrote: Felix, this particular question is silly beyond words, and she is really right that there is no need to dignify it with an answer.

The Bible plainly reveals, throughout, who God is.
I know, because you have no answer EXCEPT WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU....see, that's the whole thinking for yourself thing I was talking about earlier....actually I thought panther would step into before you did, but I knew that eventually one of you would....you get your entire definition of what you believe god to be from the bible, you're unable to render any opinion other than what your book tells you...you've never actually considered the idea of what he/she/it might be (of course that presupposes that such a being/entity/ghost/sky daddy exists)....

and who said christians couldn't think for themselves? that's right, I did....

Tell me again how DNA strands disprove creation?
In your own words, please... thanks!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:48 am

Felix wrote:I know, because you have no answer EXCEPT WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU....

Felix, this is not accurate.

The Bible's claim is that Jesus is Christ.
The claim is that He is God.

So I was faced with the "Is He or isn't He?" question.
And everyone who hears of the claim is faced with this question.

You are faced with it.

I posted the "Address in History" info because as I personally weighed the "Is He or isn't He?" question, it was VERY compelling evidence that He IS.

And when one combines the address in history information with the behavior of the 12 disciples, it is simply ... NOT POSSIBLE ... to just brush the information aside ... and still claim to be intellectually honest.

Did you really read the "Address in History" information?
And are you aware that the 12 disciples all, individually and separately, went to horrific and torturous deaths because of their INSISTENCE that this person, Jesus, IS the Christ?

"Ahh yes, poptart, people die for bogus reasons all the time."

Why yes, they do.
BUT ... they do so thinking that what they are going to death for is the TRUTH.
If Jesus was a fake, the diciples KNEW that He was a fake and yet they STILL went to brutal, torturous deaths ... for the sake of a lie.

Hey, maybe ONE goofball disciple would be so fugged up to do that, but you can NOT sell to me that all 12 of them did that, separately and individually.

Rationally speaking, this is VERY powerful evidence that Jesus is in fact who He said He is.

And as powerful as two pieces of evidence of the Diety of Christ are, they are just a portion of the evidence that exists to support the truth that He is the Christ.

Felix wrote:really is it (God) he, she or an it...is it alive as we know life to be?

Felix, you're not happy for me to reference the Bible in responding to your questions, but understand that this IS the authority, as far as I'm concerned.
MY judgement is that Jesus is the Christ and therefore the Bible is surely the Word of God.

So if you're going to ask about God, I'm going to tell you what the Bible says.

God is Spirit - John 4:24
Throughout the Bible, God, although being Spirit, is "presented" in masucline terms.

By what mechanism did he create all of this?

He created everything by His Word.

Read Genesis 1.

God said ...
God said ...
God said ...

Where does he/she/it "live" so to speak?

God is Spirit.
God lives many places.

God lives in believers - 1 Corinthians 3:16
God lives within His Word - john 1:3, Hebrews 4:12
God lives in Heaven, on the throne - Psalms 45:6

Why does he/she/it make he/she/it so invisible to those that would like to believe

As noted previously, He came, made Himself known, fully proved Himself.
He inspired the writing of His Word.
And now people like me tell about Him and give evidence of Him to others.

As I also noted previously to you, Felix, you won't keep hearing about this forever.

If I was you, I would soften my heart a little bit, read the Address in History, think rationally about what the 12 disciples did, and look in the mirror to question myself, honestly.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:33 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
btw, you're definition is a little fucked up

the definition, according to dictionary dot com is

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (note the plurality, it's there for a specific reason).

it says nothing about which deity you don't believe in....you don't believe in the deity Brahma, therefore you're an atheist to that god...I'm sorry you can't wrap your mind around this fundamental concept, but never let it be said that I didn't give it the old college try

You pretty much twisted this definition into something it is not to meet the needs of your argument. Rather than focusing on the definition of the entire word, you'd be better served by understanding the meaning of just its prefix. A- or an- denotes absence or lack of whatever follows them. Amoral doesn't mean a person has some morals; it means he/she has no morals. Anaerobic means without oxygen, and so on. When you say, "you don't believe in the deity Brahma, therefore you're an atheist to that god," that is simply - what's the word I'm looking for - oh yeah, retarded. I'm not siding with the theists on this, just trying to help you craft a cogent argument. You obviously need it.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/in ... e=&letter=

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:11 pm

ppanther wrote:
Tell me again how DNA strands disprove creation?
In your own words, please... thanks!

they aren't DNA strands, it's mitochondrial DNA. Okay, it's really pretty simple....while the bible doesn't specify how old the universe is, the chronology from the time of Adam and Eve is relatively simple to follow. It's been calculated at 6,061 years. Based on Mitochrondrial DNA testing, scientists have calculated that the first woman can be traced back to about 170,000 years ago, to the plains of Central Africa....

sure I know where this is leading....I had to learn about it somewhere, but the difference is that I don't sole source it to a solitary book....there are thousands of scientific articles written on mitochondrial DNA and the way in which they've traced that DNA back to the first KNOWN woman (they yet may uncover something older)...the human population spread out from that point

of course, the whole chronology of the bible assumes that in fact people like Noah actually lived to be 950+ years old (it's tradition in the stories of mythology to give the hero's of the myth greatly exaggerted ages).

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:14 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
You pretty much twisted this definition into something it is not to meet the needs of your argument.

No I didn't, but in reality, it's unimportant. If she wants no part of being called an atheist I could give a fat rats ass...she thinks that her god is the same god worshiped by hinduists and that's her perrogative...she's wrong, but it's inconsequential none the less.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:20 pm

poptart wrote:
If I was you, I would soften my heart a little bit

seriously, stop it tart
in the old testament, your god was a giant fucking douchebag, but now I'm supposed to forget all of the merciless killing, torture, rape, slavery that was intitiated by his command, and suddenly he turns into this sweet loving being that only wants your worship, otherwise he'll have no choice but to cast you into torturous existence for ever and ever and ever?

fuck that and fuck him

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:30 pm

Felix wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
You pretty much twisted this definition into something it is not to meet the needs of your argument.
No I didn't, but in reality, it's unimportant. If she wants no part of being called an atheist I could give a fat rats ass...she thinks that her god is the same god worshiped by hiduists and that's her perrogative...she's wrong, but it's inconsequential none the less.

Are you serious, Felix? You think you're smarter than the dictionary? That really says a lot.

Just FYI, the definition you posted:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

Let's dissect this, shall we?

An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being...
OR <--- note that the definition says "or"... not "and"
An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme beings.

First you misunderstood the article you posted, now you are having a serious problem with third-grade English.
I'm having a hard time believing that you're even capable of careful contemplation, Felix. I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous, and it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.

Python · Post by **Python** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:39 pm

Felix wrote: I've listened to Richard Dawkins .

I hated Family Feud.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:27 pm

ppanther wrote: it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.

I find it amusing that you can write this with a straight face after obfusticating the point of this thread with such tangents as arguing about tree ring dating, and the definintion of atheism...fuck off

btw, thanks for the new sig.....you've finally supplanted bco

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:30 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote: it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
I find it amusing that you can write this with a straight face after obfusticating the point of this thread with such tangents as arguing about tree ring dating, and the definintion of atheism...fuck off

Stop crying.

You brought up the trees, and you insisted you knew more than the dictionary. If you don't like getting called out like that, stop talking out your ass.

And by the way, all the lame questions you've asked five million times, ya know, the ones you've repeated in this thread? They had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Talk about obfuscation... sheesh. Hypocrite.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:33 pm

Just out of curiosity, Felix... how is your inability to process third-grade English my idiocy?

Wow. Anything is better than admitting you're wrong, huh? Why not put the entire post in your sig and see how many people agree with you? ;)

Python · Post by **Python** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:38 pm

Then again, I don't like game shows in general. I guess The Price is Right is pretty good.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:48 pm

I think Wheel of Fortune is pretty good...

Python · Post by **Python** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:07 pm

And by the way, I didn't mean to mess up your thread. Sorry I ruined your ppanther party."

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:17 pm

Python wrote:I didn't mean to mess up your thread

You should be sorry. You've put its entire future in Jeopardy!

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:17 pm

ppanther wrote:Just out of curiosity, Felix... how is your inability to process third-grade English my idiocy?

okay, here's a simple solution for you, substitute non-believer for atheist in everything I've written and problem solved....

you're tangential writing isn't fooling me for a second....you're simply avoiding having to respond to the gist of this thread and by redirecting it to inconsequential discussions about the definition of the word atheist, you've pretty much killed my interest in further discussion with you....

now, if you'd like to produce something of substance (e.g. discussion of mitochondrial DNA, the fact that the whole Noah's Ark was pure bullshit, or that the god of the old testament was a giant fucking douche), then I'll continue...but seriously, if you want to beat what the definition of "atheist" is into the ground

then I'm done.....

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:18 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Python wrote:I didn't mean to mess up your thread
You should be sorry. You've put its entire future in Jeopardy!

Greg Kihn was the bomb-at least for one or two songs

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:25 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:Just out of curiosity, Felix... how is your inability to process third-grade English my idiocy?
okay, here's a simple solution for you, substitute non-believer for atheist in everything I've written and problem solved....

Not really.
"Non-believer" by itself is not a suitable replacement for atheist. Sorry. If you'd said "non-believer of a deity (or deities)", you would have been on to something. Next...

you're tangential writing isn't fooling me for a second....you're simply avoiding having to respond to the gist of this thread and by redirecting it to inconsequential discussions about the definition of the word atheist, you've pretty much killed my interest in further discussion with you....

Wow. Bummer. A guy who can't get his own argument straight is not interested in having a discussion with me... what will I do? How will I go on? Will I survive?

Stop crying about the thread topic, Felix. You deviated from it more than anyone else. If you don't like it, don't do it.

now, if you'd like to produce something of substance (e.g. discussion of mitochondrial DNA, the fact that the whole Noah's Ark was pure bullshit, or that the god of the old testament was a giant fucking douche)

I see now why you're crying about "tangential writing" -- those three examples have everything to do with Obama calling the Quran holy. And by the way, you need to work on your basic English/spelling/sentence structure. Seriously. You are trying to come across as intelligent, please don't make it any harder to believe than it already is.

but seriously, if you want to beat what the definition of "atheist" is into the ground

The point of pointing out your mistakes is not irrelevant to any of these discussions, Felix. I'm just proving your basic lack of understanding of a lot of the crap you spew. Sorry, but if you want to debate, you need to work on your overall credibility.

then I'm done.....

Again? Gee, what a bummer.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:51 pm

ppanther wrote:next

in your first post to me in this thread you pretty much called me a liar....it went seriously downhill from there.....

have fun

Python · Post by **Python** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:03 pm

Felix, you jumped into this thread on page one, talking about how Christians were wrong for believing that the Bible, not the Quran, is the Word of God. Now you say they aren't really wrong after all? Geez, dude. I know long thread make my head hurt, but even I can see how you jumped from one extreme to the other.

Alrighty then.

~beep, beep~

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:47 pm

Felix wrote:
ppanther wrote:next
in your first post to me in this thread you pretty much called me a liar....it went seriously downhill from there.....

have fun

I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, after all, this is a smack board... or has that changed since you posted it? For the record, I still don't think you've read the Bible as many times as you say you have. Go on now... cry some more.

I challenge you, Felix, to include the entire post you selectively quoted in your sig. See how many people think you're right. Go ahead. Do it.

Python · Post by **Python** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:59 pm

Do it! Do it for Johnny!

(I'm soooo sorry. I can't stop it.)