Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Joe Nation wrote:

Setanta wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

That is the only proof Creationists have that their God exists, His unending brutality which, as all masochists do, they accept, they cherish, they proclaim as love.

Joe(except when they declare we should be afraid, sore afraid.)Nation

What I don't understand is how religionists continue to profess god's love even while most humanity lives in shite.

0 Replies

"real life", "sir", you skipped half my reply and have yet to deal with the basic reality of your equivocation. You know it's there: you admit to using two different definitions. It's very, very easy to see. So please stop lying about it, if you'd like to retain pretensions of dignity.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

"real life", "sir", you skipped half my reply and have yet to deal with the basic reality of your equivocation. You know it's there: you admit to using two different definitions. It's very, very easy to see. So please stop lying about it, if you'd like to retain pretensions of dignity.

You imply that I use two different definitions to refer to the same thing. This is false.

The confusion is on your end. Check between the keyboard and the chair and you will find it there.

Go back and read your various statements where you could not decide whether I had misapplied it or not. I'll not waste my time hunting them up, you know they are there.

Yes I skipped replying to half of your post. Consider yourself fortunate that I responded to any of your flaky accusations at all.

Put together some thoughts that reflect the conversation as it has actually occurred, or do not bother at all.

0 Replies

Off some proof for creationism, jackass, or don't trouble this thread at all.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Setanta wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.
Not the God I worship, but a god nevertheless.

Liar.

PPL, PPL, I'll say it again.

Joe Nation wrote:

Setanta wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

That is the only proof Creationists have that their God exists, His unending brutality which, as all masochists do, they accept, they cherish, they proclaim as love.

Joe(except when they declare we should be afraid, sore afraid.)Nation

Not the God I worship.

Most people fail to notice what most preachers are wont to reveal: namely that the God of this system of things is not the God who created us. Now, I realize this thread is about providing proofs for creationism, which I have already described as a fools errand, so perhaps a new thread is necessary.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You imply that I use two different definitions to refer to the same thing. This is false.

Nope, it's quite true. You seek to apply your misapplied, now *personalized* (and uncommon) definition of 'supernatural' to a situation in which it does not apply, but where the same word is used. This has been explained to you repeatedly, so unless you're just plain stupid, you are *equivocating*, or in other words implying a meaning where one simply does not exist.

The fact that your very rationalizations on the word have drastically changed over time should explain very much what you're trying to do, at the very least to yourself (by now you're either being delusional or dishonest), which is to find a way in which a singularity fits *one* definition of 'the supernatural', and then apply it to the scientific method's exclusion of 'the supernatural' (different definition), thereby equivocating in order to cast aspersions on science.

You know that it's what you're trying to do, "real life". In your various excursions into sophistry you often end your statements with things along the lines of 'is investigating the supernatural scientific?' and other lines of mendacious BS.

0 Replies

In case you're preparing to lie to me yet again, "real life", here's one of your summaries of your points, not too long ago:

"It's supernatural by definition. Deal with it.

Do you consider a belief in the supernatural to be a 'scientific view'?"

Note: in case I wasn't clear enough, the motive isn't just to cast aspersions on science, but to attempt to make ideas held to be scientific and held to be accurate by scientists *equivalent* to your ridiculous delusions found in your holy book.

0 Replies

And yes, "real life", see the topic of this thread. We all know that you're foisting this nonsense so you can pretend that science is comparable to creationism, as in just a matter of choosing between equals. Believe it or not, even if that dishonesty were accurate, it would not constitute evidence for creationism. At best it's an implied argument from ignorance, where one attacks the perceived 'alternative' in the hopes that it will somehow show their own ideas to be accurate.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Most people fail to notice what most preachers are wont to reveal: namely that the God of this system of things is not the God who created us.

So, you believe in more than one god? You are a polytheist? You are alleging that most preachers "are wont" to preach polytheism as well?

Oy . . .

0 Replies

There's always been more than one god; even before the jesus of the bible was created.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Most people fail to notice what most preachers are wont to reveal: namely that the God of this system of things is not the God who created us.

So, you believe in more than one god? You are a polytheist? You are alleging that most preachers "are wont" to preach polytheism as well?

Oy . . .

Is it a committee or just two gods? I hope it's more than two, two is binary and gets boring quickly or somebody decides that GOD-A is better somehow than GOD-(bless his heart)-B. Leads to bloodshed, always has.

So, help me here, Set, the first God, the Creator One was kind of a contractor/builder god. Once his OR her work was done, it was off to some other universe while the new set of Gods (the management Gods, I guess) took over.

OH,,, this is a lot clearer now. The management gods are good gods, full of love and hope and grace and there is music and wonderful roses, they tell me, but THE WORLD (a victim of the shoddy construction/creation of the now absent god) is full of flaws and challenges, leaky pipes and faulty joinings (or as we like to say tsunamis and earthquakes.)
Not God's work, the present one, the good one and not his fault.
No wonder George Bush is a fan.

Joe(Peachy. and totally delusional)Nation

0 Replies

That's as good a thesis as any i could have come up with. I was struggling bad enough with the one god imaginary friend claptrap, and then Neo springs this on us . . .

Didn't anybody get a signed mechanics lien? Didn't anybody check the punch list?

0 Replies

This is a total surprise to me too. I thought we were in a one god world, despite the efforts of the Hindu and the Catholics.

Actual quote from my education
("I would now like to explain", said Sister Mary Trinita, "how there can be Three Persons in One God." )

um. She lost me after I started to think about calling her Sister Trinitata.
I was 15.

Joe(I'm laying down to think about all of this. I hope there is a God named Bob. I think that would be a very good name for a God.)Nation

0 Replies

The bible makes distinctions between the true God and many false gods. I don't see why you object to my pointing this out. The bible also refers to a god, or ruler of this world. This would be the entity who was able to offer the entire world to Jesus at Matthew 4:9.

I'm not asking for you to get in line as believers here, simply to acknowledge that the bible makes note of same.

It does however, lend a new meaning to the term "God save the Queen" don't you think?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The bible makes distinctions between the true God and many false gods. I don't see why you object to my pointing this out. The bible also refers to a god, or ruler of this world. This would be the entity who was able to offer the entire world to Jesus at Matthew 4:9.

I'm not asking for you to get in line as believers here, simply to acknowledge that the bible makes note of same.

It does however, lend a new meaning to the term "God save the Queen" don't you think?

That last sentence is very funny!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neologist wrote:
The bible makes distinctions between the true God and many false gods. I don't see why you object to my pointing this out. The bible also refers to a god, or ruler of this world. This would be the entity who was able to offer the entire world to Jesus at Matthew 4:9.

I'm not asking for you to get in line as believers here, simply to acknowledge that the bible makes note of same.

It does however, lend a new meaning to the term "God save the Queen" don't you think?

That last sentence is very funny!

Gallows humor, CI. Gallows humor.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Most people fail to notice what most preachers are wont to reveal: namely that the God of this system of things is not the God who created us.

How many gods are there neo?

Edit: Oops, I see Setanta beat me to it.

0 Replies

See, Neo, we are trying to understand Creationism? If you start tossing in new portions of information without providing some background, I, for one, get a little confused.

Your task here is offer proof that this existence had a creator.
Has?
Had one and now is under new management?
Please help.

You or Real Life can end this discussion with a few keystrokes.

Joe(I look forward to it.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

See, Neo, we are trying to understand Creationism? If you start tossing in new portions of information without providing some background, I, for one, get a little confused.

Your task here is offer proof that this existence had a creator.
Has?
Had one and now is under new management?
Please help.

You or Real Life can end this discussion with a few keystrokes.

Joe(I look forward to it.)Nation

First of all, let me apologize for using the term 'wont to reveal' when I meant to say 'wont to conceal'. My statement about Satan being the god of this world was not meant to advance the theme of this thread; it was an off topic reply to posts by you and Set, I've started another thread"
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=119313
I hope that helps.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The bible makes distinctions between the true God and many false gods. I don't see why you object to my pointing this out. The bible also refers to a god, or ruler of this world. This would be the entity who was able to offer the entire world to Jesus at Matthew 4:9.

I'm not asking for you to get in line as believers here, simply to acknowledge that the bible makes note of same.

Genesis 2:8 (in the King James Version):

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:

Who was god talking to?

Genesis 2:22:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Who are "us?" Are you going to try to feed some bullshit about who "God" was talking about, or are you going to be honest enough to admit that there is no textual authority for assuming who "us" might be? In fact, this is a blatant example of polytheism, but you won't admit that. Nowhere in Genesis Chapter two is a single reference to a "false god." You just make the **** up as you go along, because you cling desperately to your belief set, and would rather abandon honesty and common sense than to abandon your superstitious fairy tale of choice.

Now, this is another piece of dishonesty on your part:

neologist wrote:

My statement about Satan being the god of this world was not meant to advance the theme of this thread; it was an off topic reply to posts by you and Set . . .

You're trying to absolve yourself of any responsibility for this series of exchanges. In fact, this entire sequence stems from one your preachy moments when you wanted to drop us some pearls of your wisdom about what the purpose of the bobble is:

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Setanta wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.
Not the God I worship, but a god nevertheless.

Liar.

. . . and didn't respond well to having the scurrilous character of your cartoon character god thrown up in your face.

Additionally, you did not at any time state that "Satan is the god of this world" until just now, when you're squirming to escape the implications of what you had already said, which had a definitely polytheistic implication.

As for whether or not any of this is "on topic," it hardly mattes when, after more than 230 pages, not a scrap of credible "proof" for creationism has been advanced. This thread might as well be a playground, given that it isn't being used by any of the bible thumpers for the purpose intended.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know