14
   

Am i the only one?

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 12:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
OK, Einstein, how would you distinguish what has been set in motion from that which had been directly created? What's your "guess." As with that "guess" hoseshit, which you came up with because you were getting hammered about the concept of belief, and as is pointed out above, you just attempt to twist words to fit you simplistic and naïve and unthinking claims about logic. Guess and believe are not cognate. But the question of how one distinguishes obvious evidence and random coincidence is even more crucial than you apparently realize.

Logic is not your friend, Frank, because you don't recognize it when it comes along. Logic does not dictate that if there were a god, one would see the evidence all around, unless you can tell us how one would distinguish the result of natural processes deriving from a cosmogony with no god, and the result of natural proesses in a cosmogony set in motion by a god. So, no, one would not see the evidence all around for lack of a means to make a distinction. It is because you apparently are not able to see a basic logical objection like this that i consider what you spew around here, with your trade mark certainty, to be simplistic, naïve and unthinking. It appears that your theses always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 12:14 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

No, what gets me frustrated is that you twist atheists positions to fit your utterances.


QUOTE an example of me doing that...if you can.

Quote:


You are an intellectual fraud.


No I am not.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 12:22 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

OK, Einstein, how would you distinguish what has been set in motion from that which had been directly created? What's your "guess."


I am not Einstein.

IF there is a god...and IF the god set things in motion...whatever results from the "setting in motion" are attributable to that god.

The god could have simply set things going...and allowed them to go where random chance sent them.



Quote:
As with that "guess" hoseshit, which you came up with because you were getting hammered about the concept of belief, and as is pointed out above, you just attempt to twist words to fit you simplistic and naïve and unthinking claims about logic.


I have never gotten hammered here, Setanta...although I notice that you often claim to be hammering people. Hey...you are not the only one who claims victories often.



Quote:
Guess and believe are not cognate. But the question of how one distinguishes obvious evidence and random coincidence is even more crucial than you apparently realize.


Really.

Okay...whatever that means.


Quote:
Logic is not your friend, Frank, because you don't recognize it when it comes along.


Yeah, I do, Setanta. And I recognize frustration and uncontrolled anger...such as you are displaying.


Quote:
Logic does not dictate that if there were a god, one would see the evidence all around, unless you can tell us how one would distinguish the result of natural processes deriving from a cosmogony with no god, and the result of natural proesses in a cosmogony set in motion by a god.


IF there is a creator god...EVERYTHING is evidence of that god.

Live with it, Setanta...or fight it. Either way...you are entertaining me.




Quote:
So, no, one would not see the evidence all around for lack of a means to make a distinction. It is because you apparently are not able to see a basic logical objection like this that i consider what you spew around here, with your trade mark certainty, to be simplistic, naïve and unthinking. It appears that your theses always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.


Hey...you managed to work "simplistic", "naive, "unthinking" into the conversation. Not bad.

Heat getting to ya?
Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 12:47 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
. It appears that your thesis always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.


Frank's superior intellect provides him with the "gall" to tell everybody else they're wrong. We can depend on Frank to parrot this idea for the foreseeable future. I got off his merry-go-round knowing that I'm not missing much new information.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 12:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
. It appears that your thesis always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.


Frank's superior intellect provides him with the "gall" to tell everybody else they're wrong.


I seldom say anyone is wrong...but when I do, it usually is justified.

And your comment that I "tell everyone else they are wrong" is an absurdity.




Quote:
We can depend on Frank to parrot this idea for the foreseeable future.


I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...so I cannot rule in or out things like gods.

I will continue to say that for as long as is necessary.

And you will read what I write...because you cannot help yourself, ci.



Quote:
I got off his merry-go-round knowing that I'm not missing much new information.


I doubt anyone is buying that nonsense, ci. But it is so cute to watch you try to sell it as often as you do. Wink
0 Replies
 
Enaj
 
  2  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 01:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Give me an example of something that is "intricately made" suggesting that it was designed by an intelligence.


You would be one.

You do not think that you are intricately made?

Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 04:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
One can always tell that Frank is fresh out of ideas, and cannot respond to criticism when he trots out the anger routine. I'll bet the thinks he's clever.

You're sunk by language again Frank. That simple-minded "whatever is, is" BS won't fly here, because evidence has a specific meaning. It means a body of facts, a body of information. So vague bullshit like your "whatever is, is" doesn't quality. If something is not evident, if it is not clearly to be seen, it is not evidence. If one cannot tell whether or not the naturalistic world is a product of a cosmogony from a god, or a cosmogony with no god, then it constitutes no evidence for either proposition.

Your attempts ar logic are pathetic, and usually involve, as was already noted, twisting words. Evidence is not working out for you here as a word you can manipulate to fit your simple-minded thesis.

I have no doubt that now that you're starting to lose it, it's only a matter of time until you trot out the personal slurs and the puerile images. When you try that feeble anger BS, that's usually the first sign that your rhetoric, never very elevated to begin with, is headed downhill.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 05:48 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

One can always tell that Frank is fresh out of ideas, and cannot respond to criticism when he trots out the anger routine. I'll bet the thinks he's clever.


Stop with the "anger", Setanta...it does not become you.

Quote:
You're sunk by language again Frank. That simple-minded "whatever is, is" BS won't fly here, because evidence has a specific meaning. It means a body of facts, a body of information. So vague bullshit like your "whatever is, is" doesn't quality. If something is not evident, if it is not clearly to be seen, it is not evidence. If one cannot tell whether or not the naturalistic world is a product of a cosmogony from a god, or a cosmogony with no god, then it constitutes no evidence for either proposition.


Nope, Setanta...your rage is making you suppose this. But it is not so.

IF there is a creator god...then EVERYTHING is evidence of that god.





Quote:
Your attempts ar logic are pathetic, and usually involve, as was already noted, twisting words. Evidence is not working out for you here as a word you can manipulate to fit your simple-minded thesis.


Ahh..more "pathetic" "twisted" "simple-minded."

You never tire of that sort of thing, do you, Setanta?

You have got to learn self-control...and develop the ability to deal with your insecurity and rage.


Quote:
I have no doubt that now that you're starting to lose it, it's only a matter of time until you trot out the personal slurs and the puerile images.


Well...I am not as clever as you, Setanta. I was hoping to work some comments about your morbid obesity; your personal ugliness; and your tendency to fly into a rage into this discussion...but I have not been able to think of a subtle way of doing it. I'll keep thinking about it...and who knows, perhaps something will come up.

I'll keep a picture of Jabba the Hutt handy. You are the embodiment of that fictional creature...and perhaps having a picture handy will prompt some way of doing what you seem to want me to do.

Always willing to accommodate you, Jabba.




Quote:
When you try that feeble anger BS, that's usually the first sign that your rhetoric, never very elevated to begin with, is headed downhill.


Oh, covering all bases...so you can pompously declare, "I told you so."

Nice try.

But all it does is to provide me with entertainment.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 05:54 pm
OK Einstein, explain how one can tell the difference between the natural world as result of the laws of physics and chemistry with no god, and the natural world as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry with a god. This should be good--or just pathetic, one of the two.

As predicted, you rely on the anger BS and trot out puerile images. I seriously doubt that you'll produce a plausible answer to the question above.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 06:10 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

OK Einstein, explain how one can tell the difference between the natural world as result of the laws of physics and chemistry with no god, and the natural world as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry with a god. This should be good--or just pathetic, one of the two.


I am sure Einstein would do a better job than I, Jabba...but for me, I will only say that I do not know how things would differ...or even if they would differ.

IF a creator god exists, though, what exists now would be the result...whether directly managed...or simply by letting a start run free.


Quote:
As predicted...


Yup...I predicted you would say that.

Quote:
...you rely on the anger BS and trot out puerile images.


Gosh, you really like that word "puerile" don't ya, Setanta. In almost every rage...you trot it out.

You gotta work on that. It gets stale.



Quote:
I seriously doubt that you'll produce a plausible answer to the question above.


Doubt away, Setanta. No price for me to pay for that.

Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 31 Aug, 2014 07:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
We've been discussing evidence Frank, that was a pretty feeble dodge--and, of course, you've descended to name-calling. So, you don't have a plausible answer. Bye, clown.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 1 Sep, 2014 02:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

We've been discussing evidence Frank, that was a pretty feeble dodge--and, of course, you've descended to name-calling. So, you don't have a plausible answer. Bye, clown.


Bye, Jabba.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Sep, 2014 11:04 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You are a liar, and you are a liar because you cannot accept that your fairy stories are not inerrant. The waters did not dry up, the river was diverted. The modifier "eventually" is not used in your phony baloney prophecies. Babylon was not desolated, it was simply abandoned.

You're self-delusion, and because you cling to your delusions so desperately, you have also become a liar. You have detailed putative prophecies, and not a tenth of what they say ever came to pass. You are apparently of the "two out of three ain't bad" school--it's not good enough to get around the abject failures of you so-called prophecies.

You are a liar.
You seem to think I am a liar. Am I correct in that interpretation? Perhaps I did not use the correct words. Here are a few references, in no particular order:

Prophecies relating to Cyrus
Quote:
This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus,
Whose right hand I have taken hold of
To subdue nations before him,
To disarm* kings,
To open before him the double doors,
So that the gates will not be shut:
 2 “Before you I will go,
And the hills I will level.
The copper doors I will break in pieces,
And the iron bars I will cut down.(Isaiah 45: 1,2)
Babylon
Quote:
The One saying to the deep waters, ‘Be evaporated,
And I will dry up all your rivers (Isaiah 44:27)
Quote:
There is a devastation on her waters, and they will be dried up.
For it is a land of graven images,
And because of their frightful visions they keep acting with madness.
39 Therefore, the desert creatures will dwell with the howling animals,
And in her the ostriches will dwell.
She will never again be inhabited,
Nor will she be a place of residence throughout all generations.(Jeremiah 50:38,39)
Quote:
And Babylon will become piles of stones,
A lair of jackals,
An object of horror and something to whistle at,
Without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 52:37)
Quote:
Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who will not regard silver; and as for gold, they will not delight in it. Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, and they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye will not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation; nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there” (Isaiah:13:17-20)
Description of how Cyrus came about the strategy of diverting the Euphrates may be found here:
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon07.html

Aside from these, I have no answer as to why a city, having been abandoned, would not also be desolated.
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Sep, 2014 11:17 am
@neologist,
Nor do I have an explanation for why the Euphrates, so important to the defense of the city would be considered to have "dried up", when it only had been sufficiently reduced to allow the city to be taken in one night.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 08:11 am
You're a liar because you are conflating events which happened in the 6th century BCE with the eventual state of the city in the 9th century CE. You're a liar because you're stretching the language to suit the goofy belief you want to forward. Your prophecies speak of the walls being thrown down, of the young men lying dead in the streets, of the people of the surrounding countryside leaving with their livestock. Those thins did not happen. You have yourself in the past noted that the Persians redirected that course of the river--there was not drought, the waters were not "desolated." You just play an idiot game with words to try to make it appear that your loony prophecies were sullfilled. They were not. You're a liar.
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 08:16 am
I notice that you continue to expect that getting a couple of things right (very debateably right) makes the prophecies "true." If you book of fairy tales were truly inspired by god and inerrant--they'd have gotten everything right. They didn't--that makes you a liar.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 11:17 am
@Setanta,
I'll leave it to those who happen on our exchange to judge for themselves if the prophecies regarding Babylon are notable. Cyberspace is loaded with them.

But I would also suppose that many who agree with me will also depart from my opinion that the prophecies and fulfillments thereof are important or relevant. To some, they may be considered only coincidence. I can understand that. To call me a liar for relating them is a stretch. Perhaps you consider all weather forecasters to be liars for every inconsistency in anticipated rainfall. However, I will confess to confirmation bias, if that makes you happy.

I readily admit that, so far and for over 40 years, my opinions have been generally in agreement with the Watchtower Society, to the point of rather than rejecting, instead, reserving points of perceived inconsistencies for further consideration. So far I have not been disappointed. But it has required effort.

I could generate a long list of such places. Babylon's eventuality has never been one of them. There are many references to Babylon in the scriptures including references to the 'water', including Revelation 17:15 describing a connection between 'waters' and 'peoples'. I believe that those who seriously wish to understand the Bible would do well to investigate it, for the drying up of the waters of typical Babylon and the drying up of the 'waters' of 'Babylon the Great' need not be dust bowl complete, just enough for the city to be overthrown.
G4Racer
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 11:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
A study of the Bible should be proceeded by a study of Inspiration. Though it would also be helpful to read it, do the study of Inspiration, then read it again from a non literal view. Progressive would cause it to make more sense and eliminate "contradictions, errors and omissions ". The tendency is to make something general when it should specific because it deals with a specific set of conditions which occurred or existed. The reverse is also true,specific when it should general.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:35 pm
@G4Racer,
That's called 'brain-washing.' It ignores common sense and logic to the whims of all those contradictions, errors and omissions. However, not to worry because the majority in this country believe as you do. They take the "progressive" view of the bible. 2 Cents Mr. Green Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:38 pm
@neologist,
Yeah . . . no doubt "cyberspace" is full of bullsh*t just like yours. Your claims are knowing lies, and they don't support any claim of god-inspired, inerrant scripture. You're a liar.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Am i the only one?
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 12:12:11