nothing of note in 50 yrs ffs
members dad was having the same arguments on the internet back in his day
nothing of note in 50 yrs ffs
members dad was having the same arguments on the internet back in his day
we will loose
Running a google search offers up quite a few theories on why the flag was as it was from that was how it unfurled, exhaust fan system of the actors/astronauts, their space ship etc.Originally Posted by plague
Being you can't have all of them which one you going with??
Magic Johnson has not been cured of aids. He still has it. He takes medication that helps him live and mitigates the effects of the disease on his immune system. Reality is he ain't cured as he still has it so don't try palming it off as a cure when it ain't
As for the bit about my old man and no significant developments in 50's years and your internet joke.
Did you miss the bit about medical research or are you that dodgy a scientist you ignore bits of relevant information that don't suit your agenda??
Don't know how you missed it. It was pretty clear as day my remark on lack of success in medical research
Will openly admit that I have not read the "good" book in it's entirety nor do I have any interest.
But thank you for proving what I have been saying, you've openly admitted that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and follow.
Hence what I have been saying that I find it hard to believe people who only believe parts of a story so I would be just to think that it's not just towards the Bible were you would use this practice.
Nawwww man. You didn't just........did you?
Also you are missing the biggest conspiracy out there and that is the Stevie Wonder isn't really blind.
That mother****er can 100% see.
Fact.
member, given that something like 3 in every 4 conceptions fails to develop into a child (auto-abort), does that make yahweh the single most prolific abortionist in history?
plus all the people he drowned because he was upset. rather petty.
what about the lady he hit with a meteorite.just cos she looked behind her? thou shalt not look behind when i say not to?
do as.i say, not as i do. that's your mates mottoops:
we will loose
Raise my consciousness. What a laugh. I was asking you to behave like a scientist and stick to your principles if this is your main (only) way of discovering truth. But you won't even do that. You cant even ask objective questions. You say my position is wishy washy re subjective experience then you ask me to testify to my subjective experience. Following that logic I can only conclude that you fully intend to learn nothing from our conversation.not quite. i'm just cutting straight to the point to save time.
if the bible is reliable, then the abrahamic god exists, cares abour us, will judge us etc. if ghe bible is unreliable, then all that may still be true, but it can't be used as supporting evidence. however, the hypothesis for a god usually comes the axiom of the bible being reliable. ergo, proper scientific enquiry is to test the veracity of the bible. hence the motivation behind a few of the questions
the other questions are to raise your consciousness about how truly arbitrary your religion is. i'm probably correct in thinking you're christian because you were raised in a christian family. most apples don't fall far from the tree. if we were both indian, we would be having the same coversation about hinduism...
As for your comment about apples and trees. Once again you have reached your conclusion without testing the evidence. If you even examined for one minute how I have plumbed the depths of football and examined every corner why would I not do the same for something much more important. You are the one who needs to open your eyes before you jump to conclusions. There are answers to biblical contradictions if you seek them out but the main point you seem to be missing is that the story of the Jewish people and then Christians is a living reality that the Bible was a record of. We don't follow a book but a person. Why would I settle for a lessor religion of words when Jesus is God incarnate. That's like following the Jets when Barcelona is playing out of the same stadium.
yo, member.
i can respect your desire to stand up for your beliefs and all, but bashing medical research and science as a whole in response to criticism of religion is definitely not the best way to make you seem like a sane individual.
so are you saying there's no lord krishna, or that he is just inferior to jc? what a about thor? ra? what a out the deities of our indiginous people? what about islam, who thinks jc is a prophet, but a less important one than mohammed (pbuh)? what about the jewish people, who don't accept that jc is the prophesised return of the messiah? what a our the funnily similar zoroastranarian (sp?) followers who inhabited the areas near the holy lands before the supposed time of moses.
just because you don't like a question, doesn't mean you should just shirk it. you should have comfortable answers for all of these questions.
we will loose
flare enuff. i've been caught out only skimming your posts.
i hope you don't only live to the life expectancy of 50 yrs ago. for reasons parkesy raised, i'm having doubts whether i should continue, because of how quickly you've regressed.
we will loose
Ok ill say it plainly then. You are a scientific hypocrite. Your fellow scientists on here should be calling you out on your lack of objectivity. You cant reach a conclusion about a person (me) or their religion without testing the evidence. No matter how you try to twist the conversation. If you cant stick to your principles we havent even left first base. You should also know as a scientist that you cant force a person to give you answers so your accusation of shirking is nonsense. I was hoping that you would see your hypocrisy first but it seems you cant. Your questions arent genuine. Guenuine Questions are meant to be asked to find out information from the person being questioned but you simply want to prove im an imbecile. You have no interest in my answers. I have already explained my position of Christianity versus other religions but you seem to have missed it. Once again. We follow a person, a human being who is also God, who gave proof and still gives proof that he is who he says he is even if you personally choose to ignore such evidence. No other great religion of our times makes these claims so when i look at other religions I find them inferior to the one that calls God their Father.
Ive gone far enough with this. Im too busy. My initial offer to answer genuine questions stands. But snake. Your lack of objectivity is as plain to see as the phone im typing on.
I don't know if i have missed the evidence provided elsewhere on this thread or in my life so far but can you share some of this with us? What proof do you actually have that makes it all 100%?
In my opinion its not proof, its that you have faith and a belief that he is there.
I don't agree but each to their own.
WE DON'T DO WALKING AWAY !
Said with an eloquence that I have sadly lacking.
Bang on the money.
Me I personally couldn't give a **** if he believes in science and logic or god.
He does though pick and choose how he wishes to take evidence on board. How he can have an arrogance when denying religion defies belief. His science is not even complete yet he takes it as gospel despite admitting things change with new discovery.
No drama if he says he doesn't believe as his views with science don't stack up but to have the arrogance with it just shows how insecure he is about it.
Still laughing at the massive contradiction he has with not believing conspiracy theories.
For someone who has such faith in science and logic any story that offers up so much doubt like both 9-11 and JFK should have him firmly in the not believing official story camp but for some reason he totally ignores any science or logic in the stories at all. Both have massive issues with science and logic holding up against the doubts and both official accounts although possible require some ridiculous amount of things with low probabilities all coming up trumps to have the stories be legit.
How someone with such faith in science and logic to put shit on religion and claim to be right based on science and logic yet can be in so much denial about science and logic with other things just shows how the beat of his drum is so inconsistent
Thought as much.
Your lack of knowledge does show through.
The funny thing is your lack of knowledge on the bible is what is holding you up form getting me to answer the question you are trying to ask.
The question you are trying to ask me is not the one your actually asking. I can see what the question is but until you ask it I can't answer it
I am waiting and ready when you know what the question is and actually ask it.
I've already got you to answer what I wanted and that is that the good book is a walking contradiction and that you only choose to follow the parts you see beneficial to you.
I provided you with the ammunition to contradict yourself and you happily did and do so.
I'll state again I find it hard to believe someone that only believes half of a story that is beneficial to them.
fmd this thread
after a quick internet search i found this
might not be enough though
there are some different interpretations of sanity. Many a scientist isnt
Have you been looking for evidence?
No, I can't make it 100% for you. If it were 100% proof you would have no free will in the matter, like the fact that we have no free will to deny the existence of the sun. Despite snakes insistence that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday, he would believe on Sunday, the more probably scenario is that if God appeared in the sky on Saturday he would be dead on Saturday. He did in fact appear but as one of us, but that limited his appearance to time like the rest of us. Science can't empirically prove the existence of a God that exists outside time and space, so other methods are needed. There are philosophical proofs for the existence of God. St Thomas Aquinas goes through them. They don't prove the God of the Bible but they philosophically prove the existence of an eternal being with specific properties - first cause etc. Not all philosophical proofs are equal and they don't convince everyone to the same degree. Being a witness or subjective experience is necessary to prove the God of the Bible and there is plenty of this throughout history. Like it or not, God chose an imperfect Jewish people to provide this revelation with their lives. Jesus gave the most perfect testimony in human history by submitting himself fully to the God of Israel and the proof is in his resurrection from the dead. Like St Paul says, if the resurrection didn't happen we Christians are the most foolish of all people. It's not like they didn't know how foolish their claims appeared to many people. If it did happen, then Jesus perfectly revealed who God is. Many people have testified to this with their lives and continue to do so, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. And again, despite snakes apparent "certainty" regarding the dating of the New Testament writings, it can be argued quite effectively that most of the New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD not after. Through them we have the testimony of eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus or who shed their blood in the belief in the resurrection. And the story goes on to this day. You even have a woman in Newcastle who received a miraculous cure from terminal cancer which was investigated thoroughly in the canonisation of St Mary of the Cross. You can go find her and talk to her this week if you want. Ask her what her prognosis was and what happened. You know, or you can wait and hope that the evidence comes to you. There are many other testimonies from people everywhere if you just look under enough rocks. I have my own testimonies but I'm not going share them with the pack of wolves on here. My main testimony is the life I lead in which I try to be in the service of my God and others.
Greek philosophers wanted to understand God before they believed but the Jews had it right when they wrote that you have to walk in faith and then you will see that it is true. God can't be contained in the mind like some scientific proof. This is because God doesn't want to be a generic God but a personal Father to each person. He is a God of relationship, person to person, not of abstract knowledge. That's bad news for the science tragics, who have all the data they need but never seek it.
Last edited by tha_hauss; 11-06-2015 at 05:34 AM.
Still didn't see one bit of credible proof in that statement
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
