Just because you can't answer to the countless ways I refute your argument doesn't mean I said nothing. It isn't MY fault your logic is flawed, nor is it my fault that you can't support your own points. Which ones have I ignored, and how do they answer my points? They don’t, do they? Let me guess... you're at a loss for how to refute my arguments, so you'll pretend I've been ignoring you and that you're still somehow right. Nice try. Oh, I highly doubt that. What if you're believing in the wrong one? Then we're both screwed. What if God wants people to use logic to seek the truth, even if they're wrong in their conclusion, instead of blindly following something people wrote down thousands of years ago? Then you lose and I win. What if I'm right? Then your life has caused harm to others, such as the gays you despise, and you have diverted other people from their goals in order to waste time praying to something that doesn't exist. What if Buddhism is right? You've spent your life hating the gays and throwing up irrational, poorly reasoned arguments while I have actually attempted to answer the question of God's existence and have attempted to secure social justice for the people you scorn. I guess you can look forward to reincarnation as a fly in that scenario. You lose every bit as often as I do, if not even more. I would also like to point out that, in absence of evidence for God's existence, there is very little chance that he exists. That means that even if you lose a little and I lose a lot, I come out better in the long run. My belief is much more likely to be correct than yours. But even if you're justified in your belief, that doesn't mean it's true. You can say that it is better to believe in God than to not believe while maintaining that God doesn't actually exist. I still won't buy it, because I value truth more highly than I value hedging my bets. Your God would punish me for being wrong even if I honestly strive to know the truth? That would make your God evil in the worst degree. If the God of the Bible exists and truly cares about people, He would not punish me for being mistaken since I have actually searched for the truth myself, rather than assuming I was right, as you do. If I am right, on the other hand, then my life will have had a positive impact on the world. I can die happy knowing that. You, on the other hand, will have hurt others in the name of something that doesn't even exist. I've rationalized your post to death and you know it. That's why, rather than answer me, you demanded I respond in questions. You haven't answered, you can't answer, and you won't answer, because you know that you'll look like even more of an idiot if you try. You haven't shown the evidence for God, you haven't shown the evidence for the opening of the bible being true, you haven't shown why other interpretations of God are wrong, you haven't shown why other interpretations of the Bible are wrong, you haven't shown why God alone could have created the universe, and you haven't show why my arguments are flawed. You're losing on every single argument in this thread. I know it, you know it, and every person who has read the arguments knows it. I'm asking for a source because you're grossly misrepresenting science with a huge strawman of vague concepts that science doesn't actually hold. In other words, you're making stuff up. What are you even saying here? Is this vague one-liner supposed to be some sort of response to one of my questions? Which one are you responding to, and how does this refute it? This is like me asking you "what created God?" According to the very nature of time and the universe, a creator wasn't necessary since there was no "before." Even if you can show something had to create the universe, how do you know it was something with person-like qualities? It could have been some sort of transcendent natural law that independently existed forever or a 'megauniverse' that always existed beyond our universe and spawned it. Each of those has as much evidence (none) as your God, and parsimony means I would accept those ideas first. There could be any number of uncaused causes, from the universe itself to the two I list above. All of them would be logically accepted before any God in general, and before your specific God as well. According to your argument here, you can't understand it either, since you aren't God. At that point, I should reject everything you say as wrong because you can't comprehend either. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT GOD EXISTS OR HAS THE POWER TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. Until you do, your argument is worth as much as the stuff that dog slops all over the lawn. You, of course, don't know where I'm coming from, either. You can't understand because you're using the basic premises of your worldview to make your conclusion. That's why you'll reject logical and reasoned arguments in favor of blind faith hidden in an ideological shell. You won't accept reason because your worldview literally prohibits you from doing so. That is why your arguments are so absurdly stupid, and that is why you're losing them in this thread. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. You deserve an award for being this mindless. I HAVE READ YOUR BIBLE! I was a Christian the first fourteen years of my life. That's WHY I reject it! I reject it because the bible is WRONG! It contradicts observed evidence in multiple circumstances and contains factual errors and inconsistencies. It has been retranslated to the point that no one actually has a clue how much of it is the same as the original. What really takes the cake, though, is that you just accept that the Bible is God's word! You can ONLY accept this because you believe in God in the first place! Your belief is just one big circle, and the whole thing is illogical and wrong. I WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD UNTIL YOU SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT IT IS. Until you do that, accepting your argument is logically fallacious and stupid. God's word won't be proof of God unless it is proven that what CLAIMS to be God's word is actually God's word. On second thought, THIS is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and members of nearly every religion in existence have claimed to experience their respective Gods (or principles). plenty of people claim to have encounters with God, and lots of them are not Christian. According to you, this makes ALL OF THEM right! I've dealt with what you claim to be His Word. I reject it because it isn't true. I have given clear and logical grounds for my rejection of the Bible, which you have NOWHERE proven to be God's word. You choose to ignore those arguments because you can't answer them. There are logical reasons to not accept the Bible as God's word, and you haven't given me A SINGLE REASON to accept it. I HAVE heard it. I reject it because there are holes in its evidence and reasoning. Why are you assuming I've never heard about Jesus before? I've heard about plenty of religions and was Christian at an earlier point in my life. My unbelief is well founded and logical, something that can't be said about your absurdly flawed arguments. I don't have to disprove him, moron. You have to prove his existence. The burden of proof lies on you, since you make the claim that God exists. Otherwise, you have to believe in every God that people have ever dreamed up, along with unicorns and fairies and all the other things you can't disprove. Everything you say is just another assumption, and you haven't given me reason to accept any of them. If you had even the smallest amount of elementary understanding, you would have been able to counter the objections I made. You didn't, and there's definitely a reason for that. You don't have any grasp of logic, which is why you assume I'll believe your egregious bullshit at the drop of a hat. I'm not that stupid. Wrong. You can only assume this, since you, by your own admission, have NO WAY OF KNOWING how old the statement is. Hinduism predates that statement itself anyway, as it's the oldest religion in the world. If age is how we measure truth, the Hindus have you beat. Older being better is a logical fallacy for a reason, and unless you want to be so absurd as to argue from the assumption that your worldview is true, you'll never be able to show that this statement is true, or the oldest statement. You accused me of not reading your post earlier, but you clearly show here that you won't take the time to read mine. There is no evidence that the statement is true, and no one has to prove otherwise until you prove that it is. Not only that, but I directly show you that since the statement has no supporting evidence, this refutes the idea that we should accept it as true. Your entire argument here is fallacious, since it inverts the burden of proof. Your assumption is no more valid than me assuming that magical wish granting omnipotent squid exist. You can't objectively prove otherwise, so according to your crap 'logic,' I'm right. Then prove I'm lying when I say that God doesn't exist. You cant? I must be right then. The burden is directly upon you to show that there is evidence backing up your claim, since logically I have to reject your statement if it isn't supported. Otherwise, I end up believing everything everyone tells me because I can't disprove any of it (Do you believe all of the ridiculous claims you hear in infomercials on TV? According to you, you have to unless you can prove they’re wrong. Do you have a 50 gallon tub of Oxi-clean in your basement? Probably not.). Why do you get to be assumed right when I don't? You have a huge double standard. Your lie/ guilt argument doesn't have anything to do with the burden of proof, since YOU have to provide evidence for YOUR claims. I've already given direct reasons for unbelief anyway, so you’re STILL wrong even under your idiotic standard. The Vedas outline a God pretty damn well, are at least as old as the Bible, and don’t reference the Bible. Does that make them right? Just because your book outlines what God supposedly did doesn’t mean it’s right, and since you have a whopping zero pieces of outside evidence supporting it, I have no reason to accept it before I accept anything else. Did you know: you’re full of crap. You continue to amaze me with your stupidity. The Bible doesn’t tell us how God did anything. All it says is that he said stuff and then it somehow happened. It doesn’t provide for how he did it, which is another reason I reject it as an explanation for the universe. It isn’t an explanation for anything, it’s a sort of vague cop out that doesn’t give me anything to test or give me a way to compare it to other views on the universe’s beginning. This makes it a completely worthless non- argument and is another reason to look to other viable explanations first (none of which you answered). For the second time, quit making stuff up. I figured you’d try to pull this tactic sooner or later. I’ve just given you seventeen legitimate questions, only a few of which you even bothered to address and none of which you refuted, so instead of admitting defeat or trying to respond you’ll take a cop out on the idiotic and untrue assumption that I don’t know anything about God or the Bible. It is abundantly clear that you don’t know enough about basic logic to understand how pathetically stupid your arguments are, so you’ll back off since you can’t answer. It could’ve worked if I actually WAS ignorant of the Bible, but unfortunately for you, I’m not. I know what the Bible says and I know, in detail, why I reject it. Your inability to refute my arguments is not my problem. Cute, but since I’m winning every point in this debate, I think you’ve got the roles reversed. You can’t be this stupid. There’s no way you aren’t a troll or something. The only way this argument could ever be true is if you accept the Bible as God’s word and you accept God’s existence before you start. You haven’t shown even remote amounts of evidence for either of those things, so your argument here is circular, fallacious, and downright moronic. There are differences between the bibles available today, moron. Objective evidence proves you wrong once again. Really? I though Jesus + nothing equals some bearded guy.
Smokescreen things you can't answer. My arguments aren't smokescreens, genius. They're the logical reasons I have to not believe in God. You, on the other hand, make circular arguments and bold, unfounded assertions. I would say the smokescreens are coming from you. You mean an empty vessel waiting to be indoctrinated? Make no mistake; I'm not confrontational with every Christian that walks my way. I will, however, engage in discussion and/or debate when they present an argument for God's existence or believing in God. The only reason I'm arguing with you right now is that you presented such an argument, and one that I believe (and have shown) is incorrect in several ways. The only way anyone can ever learn the truth is through free discussion and debate, and I will not allow you to shut out ideas you don't like by closing discussion down and ignoring me. I will agree that I can come across as overzealous, but I am arguing with you because I am convinced that you are presenting an untrue argument. The idea that trying to refute false arguments is bad is ridiculous. I have known people like "yours" too. They rarely think for themselves, have a poor grasp of logic, and generally believe whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, or unwarranted. I leave them alone, for the most part. The only time I debate with them is when they start trying to feed other people their poorly reasoned arguments. I know plenty about what I seek to dispute in this thread. I seek to dispute the truth of your argument and have shown logically why it is false. You, on the other hand, clearly know nothing about real atheists or the reasons they dispute God's existence. You mean you don't have the responses to argue. You've posted in this thread enough to show that you have both the time and the inclination. I refuse to let your arguments go ignored as long as they are untrue or poorly reasoned, so if you want me to stop you can either quit making arguments or back up the ones you already have and show me why they are valid. Indeed, the wise man proclaims it from the rooftops =). Surely, you are much more of a fool than I, not even trying to think for yourself. Even if I try and am wrong, I am less of a fool than you. My first post as to why you were wrong was fairly level-headed, I think. Only when you started ignoring me and claiming 'victory' did I lose my cool. Of course, this doesn't matter anyway. Me being mean doesn't make me wrong. You say you aren't in the business of making Christians, but you make a post trying to convince people that Jesus exists. Don't try to backpedal; own up to the fact that you began this thread to present an argument for God's existence. You pretending to have answered me isn't fooling anyone, not in the least. You have provided zero satisfactory answers to the questions I posed and have instead chosen to engage in an ad hominem attack here, rather than defend the argument you made in the opening post. My message is that your argument contains numerous errors and is logically flawed. I will not let you just "tell" people your argument as a fact until you can substantiate it in a logical way. My house is quite safe, and your worldview is the one deteriorating. This is the problem. You're only willing to discuss anything when you get to make all the points and give all the answers. You effectively shut out everyone else from contributing when one of them might have an important argument. If you make a thread presenting an argument for God, you should be prepared to debate other people regarding that argument, rather than shutting them out and just making mare claims. No. I will not let you use this forum as a pulpit. If you present an argument, you should be able to defend it, plain and simple. Your inability to do that is none of my concern. What is my concern is that your argument is deeply flawed and outright false in multiple areas, and I will argue against it since it is such.
"Genesis 1:1, Proven by Modern Science!" So you believe in science, right ? Maybe you should then believe when science says that man come from the apes.
I never argue with a person who says that his ancestors were apes, because He/She should know more about who their ancestors were than I do. I have constantly seen here, (a) Person act just like an ape . . .but I have yet to see any ape act like (a) Person . JESUS CHRIST +nothing =EVERYTHING!
That "option" is probably in the same place that it is, in your daily Newspaper. GOD wouldn't be much of GOD, if HE couldn't See To It, that HIS WORD, would Remain THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, through the Centuries as well as all the translations, huh ? JESUS CHRIST+nothing=EVERYTHING!
That sentence only makes sense to a human being that already has a deep committed faith, however, to anyone that applies actual logic, it sounds like something out of the confessions of a madman. You're argument has been discounted at every opportunity, you cannot proove the existence of god, and science doesn't need to disprove it as NOWHERE does science rely on god in any way shape or form. You need to learn that your faith is yours, not anybody elses, nor should it be, the very nature of faith requires you to believe in it, not you and everyone around you. It isn't an unarguable statement, you not listening to the arguments is worlds apart from no arguments being put forward.
You have ABSOLUTELY no way to stop me! In fact, you'd have better success walking through a pride of Hungry Lions wearing Pork chop Panties , than to stop me, AT ANYTHING. Still, I do admire your spunk. . .but even more still, you are one who knows not, that you know not. . . BTW, Here's the GOOD NEWS [GOSPEL]: JESUS CHRIST+nothing=EVERYTHING!
When you don`t find a reasonable argument you are making jokes, ok. So you use science as it fits you, ok.
To those of you who have been about how Nehemiah has been rude to non-Christians, he's also been rude to a Christian who disagreed with him on a single point. I would like to apologize on behalf of (I believe) the majority of my congregation. It's in cases like this that I remember the exhortations of Church leaders, recorded in the bible, against unseemly behavior, as it reflects upon Christians everywhere.
Why don't you show them the Commandment that states 'I'm suppose to be not Rude': How about this one (and don't forget to tell them who JESUS is talking to. . . if you know): "JESUS said to them, "If GOD were your FATHER, you would love ME, for I proceeded forth and came from GOD; nor have I come of MYSELF, but HE sent ME. Why do you not understand MY speech? Because you are not able to listen to MY word. You are of your father the devil (JESUS is calling the "religious" leaders of HIS Day, 'the devil's offsprings'; pretty "rude", huh?), and the desires of your father (Is this JESUS, playing the "Dozens"?) you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning ('Ya daddy, the devil, is a murderer and a liar...'), and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the FATHER of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe ME. (John 8:42-45)." What about the following: "'Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 'Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 'Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. 'Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. 'He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward (Matthew 10:16-42)." Josh, you don't know enough Scripture, let alone THE GOD of THE Scripture, to even attempt to have "fellowship with darkness". Try learning FIRST, the difference between TRUTH and "rude", or you'll spend the rest of your 'straddle the fence "lukewarm" life' apologizing for you know not what.
Truth can be rude as falsehood can. And if you love your enemy, and love your neighbor as yourself, Rudeness will definitely be a lot less common. I haven't read your extended quotes for the simple reason that people, myself included, have asked you to tone down the font which hurts to read.
No, you're lying. Or else you don't have a Bible of your own. I could care less whether you read my posts or not. People like you make me want to puke. If you don't like my fonts, etc. then just ignore all my posts. If all the so-called "experts", have a problem with colors, fonts, etc. they would the ones writing and promoting the various programs, rather than the one attempting to get people not to use them. I use them, because they are there, and for effect. Again if you and/or anybody don't like it, IGNORE ALL MY POSTS. BTW, here's THE GOSPEL: JESUS CHRIST +nothing =EVERYTHING!
Actually, I do. By refuting every single one of your moronic arguments, I prevent you from indoctrinating more people into your mindless bullcrap. You have lost every argument we have engaged in and everyone knows it. As such, you are unable to preach to the crowd. In fact, every time you post, you help me convince people as to how utterly moronic your brand of God is. Really? I don't know anything even though you are the one who has shown a marked inability to respond to anything I've said? You, my friend, are the ignorant one here. You don't understand my position, don't understand the reasons why your arguments are wrong, and don't understand why failing to respond to me makes you look like an idiot. That doesn't make any of those things any less true. Here's the bad news: you'll never convice anyone here unless you make actual responses to my arguments.