Why do the God-haters persist?

[GISMYS]

Why do the God-haters persist? SIMPLE!!! They know that GOD is real but they want to hope HE is not so they try to fool theirself so they can go on liveing in their pet sins hoping to avoid their final judgment day!!! DREAM ON!!!

 

[BreezeWood]

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...

fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.

as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.

.

Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.

they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.


* comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.

.

 

[BillyP]

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.

 

[GISMYS]

Why do the God-haters persist? SIMPLE! IN THEIR HEART AND MINDS THEY KNOW GOD IS REAL BUT THEY LOVE THEIR SINS MORE!!!== “The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
Romans 1:

 

[Boss]

Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.

No, all cups are not green. No, Socrates is not a cup. However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.

I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap. If A = X, and B = A, then B = X. Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.

I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented. I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented. Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?

Of course god has not been disproved. sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case. That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.

It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A≠X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A≠X?

Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.

Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point? There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?

I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually. I have only been skimming his posts for the most part. Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out. I pointed that out......and here we are.

Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics. If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.

All I did was quote the portion of his post I wanted to comment on. He stated "although the above argument is logically valid..." but the above argument was not logically valid. The rest of what he had to say didn't matter, so I didn't quote that. I know there are a lot of misconceptions with regard to posting rules when it comes to quotes, but what I did wasn't editing his post to take anything out of context. He made an erroneous statement and I responded to that. Nothing he said afterwards had anything to do with clarifying his error.

I have no idea what compelled you to comment, other than you saw some nit-picky little detail you could throw in my face and distract from the thread topic. You're real fucking good at that, in fact that is becoming your trademark here. Now you admit you don't know what the hell he was talking about either! LMFAO! Priceless!

 

[Boss]

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.

Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.

 

[Boss]

your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...

fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.

as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.

.

Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.

they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.


* comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.

.

Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch.

I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.

 

[Montrovant]

It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A≠X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A≠X?

Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.

Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point? There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?

I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually. I have only been skimming his posts for the most part. Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out. I pointed that out......and here we are.

Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics. If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.

All I did was quote the portion of his post I wanted to comment on. He stated "although the above argument is logically valid..." but the above argument was not logically valid. The rest of what he had to say didn't matter, so I didn't quote that. I know there are a lot of misconceptions with regard to posting rules when it comes to quotes, but what I did wasn't editing his post to take anything out of context. He made an erroneous statement and I responded to that. Nothing he said afterwards had anything to do with clarifying his error.

I have no idea what compelled you to comment, other than you saw some nit-picky little detail you could throw in my face and distract from the thread topic. You're real fucking good at that, in fact that is becoming your trademark here. Now you admit you don't know what the hell he was talking about either! LMFAO! Priceless!

Of course you consider it nit-picking to point out that your complaint was addressed in the portion of the post you left out. You claim the rest of what he said didn't matter even though what he said directly addressed your post; that the premise was false.

Logically valid and true are not the same thing. His conclusion was logical even though the premise was untrue. The truth of a premise is not the basis for whether the form of the argument is valid. Here, let me give a couple of links which go into this a bit :
Logical validity - RationalWiki
Logically Valid Arguments | Ethical Realism

And argument can be logically valid and entirely false. The logic used to reach a conclusion can be correct whether the premise is true or not. So, once again, to break the argument sealy used down, A = X. B = A. Therefore, B = X. The argument was untrue but the conclusion was reached logically based on the statements given.

I have not brought up any rules regarding editing posts and don't care if you did or did not violate the rules in doing so. I only care about the editing in that what you left out already spoke to, at least in part, your complaint.

 

[BillyP]

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.

Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.

So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?

 

[BreezeWood]

Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.

they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.


* comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.

.

Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch.

I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.

.

Fukushima nuclear meltdown worse than initially reported - TEPCO ? RT News

Fukushima nuclear meltdown worse than initially reported - TEPCO

https://healthygulf.org/20110401163...s-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-gulf-of-mexico

BP's Oil Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico

In April of 2010, the largest environmental disaster in American history began – BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. Over 200 million barrels of oil and almost 2 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants were released into the Gulf of Mexico.

there is no circular reasoning to what humanity has chosen to create or the devastation humanity is responsible for as the on going destruction of our planet ... but your basis that 90% of humanity believes in something other than "self".

your rationale you display yourself is not other than self but rather for self - while asserting irreverently the fauna and flora exemplify a spiritualessness that in fact is the selflessness you ascribe for yourself.

yes, admittedly the A-Bomb has prevented WWIII - however if it occurs (Israel) what other answer would there be but that it should never have been given the light of day.

.

 

[Boss]

Of course you consider it nit-picking to point out that your complaint was addressed in the portion of the post you left out. You claim the rest of what he said didn't matter even though what he said directly addressed your post; that the premise was false.

Logically valid and true are not the same thing. His conclusion was logical even though the premise was untrue. The truth of a premise is not the basis for whether the form of the argument is valid. Here, let me give a couple of links which go into this a bit :
Logical validity - RationalWiki
Logically Valid Arguments | Ethical Realism

And argument can be logically valid and entirely false. The logic used to reach a conclusion can be correct whether the premise is true or not. So, once again, to break the argument sealy used down, A = X. B = A. Therefore, B = X. The argument was untrue but the conclusion was reached logically based on the statements given.

I have not brought up any rules regarding editing posts and don't care if you did or did not violate the rules in doing so. I only care about the editing in that what you left out already spoke to, at least in part, your complaint.

I know the difference between 'logically valid' and 'true or false' and his presentation was both logically invalid and false. He did not, and you have not, spoken to the initial error that the argument was logically valid. 'All cups are green' and 'Socrates is a cup' remain logically invalid and incorrect arguments. Wiki links don't change that. If A=X and B=A, then A, B and X all have the same value and are interchangeable.

 

[Boss]

Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.

Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.

So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?

My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?

 

[Boss]

they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.


* comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.

.

Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch.

I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.

.

https://healthygulf.org/20110401163...s-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-gulf-of-mexico

BP's Oil Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico

In April of 2010, the largest environmental disaster in American history began – BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. Over 200 million barrels of oil and almost 2 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants were released into the Gulf of Mexico.

there is no circular reasoning to what humanity has chosen to create or the devastation humanity is responsible for as the on going destruction of our planet ... but your basis that 90% of humanity believes in something other than "self".

your rationale you display yourself is not other than self but rather for self - while asserting irreverently the fauna and flora exemplify a spiritualessness that in fact is the selflessness you ascribe for yourself.

yes, admittedly the A-Bomb has prevented WWIII - however if it occurs (Israel) what other answer would there be but that it should never have been given the light of day.

.

1.) 90% of humanity does believe in something greater than self. That is just something called a fact. All I did was state a fact.

2.) I have not said that fauna/flora are devoid of spirit. I accepted your argument that they could have spiritual connection we're not aware of. My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.

3.) If Israel wipes out the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism forever, the A-bomb will have once again proven it's value to the overall creation of the Almighty.

 

[BillyP]

Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.

So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?

My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

 

[Boss]

So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?

My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.

 

[Slyhunter]

My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.

Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.

 

[BillyP]

My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.

Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.

 

[Boss]

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.

Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.

Energy and gravity didn't come from something else. God created the universe, time and reality. You can assume anything you like, it doesn't make it a fact. No... you're an atheist who doesn't believe in God, why do you avoid that?

 

[Boss]

You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.

I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.

Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.

I do have faith there isn't Zeus.

 

[hobelim]

I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.

God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.

If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.

In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.

In other words, you got nothing. Got it.

No, I showed you something of great value that would assist you if you were genuinely seeking proof of God.

If a person is blind and does nothing to correct their vision they will never see anything whoever shows it to them.

Nothing is what you are after so nothing is what you got.