independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 17th Nov 2018 4:10pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > do u believe NOW??
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 10/28/18 2:55pm

IanRG

lust said:

IanRG said:



lust said:


EmmaMcG said:
Exactly. If their argument is based on a picture of Jesus NOT burning in a fire, then my argument can be based on a picture of Jesus burning in a fire.

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens.

.


As one of the most assertive people in recent media history, he certainly had no evidence and was often so easily dismissed by looking at the evidence.


.


My favourite was his assertion that Mother Teresa had nothing really to do because he looked out over Calcutta from his luxury hotel room long after the famines and wars and proclaimed that it was not so bad there.



Sounds like you’re trying to dismiss a valid quote about burden of proof with an ad hominem statement about it’s author. And let’s not go down the Teresa rabbit hole.

Perhaps you’re more amenable to Carl Sagan “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” or shall we rule that out because....turtle necks?!
[Edited 10/28/18 12:51pm]

.
Sagan was a trusted scientist reliant in his job on evidence. This is completely different from Hitchen`s evidence less assertions. As no one is stating the picture is proof of anything but you made the extraordinary assertion that 10,000 is 3 contrary to the evidence, then perhaps, you should be guided by the sayings of Sagan before the dogma of Hitchens.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 10/28/18 3:59pm

lust

avatar

Camileyun said:

lust said:



Bingo. Either he doesn’t exist OR he does but doesn’t intervene because he can’t or doesn’t care OR can but he saves books about himself and paintings of his son but let’s this shit happen in which case he’s a massive cunt! In his defence,
I think it’s the former.

Wow, remind me not to stand next to you during a lightening storm!


lol

I have a high level of confidence that I can continue to call any of the multitude of gods that people believe in whatever I want and will only be at risk at the hands of those who believe in them.

And if I’m wrong and burn in eternal hellfire for the crime of exercising reason, I’ll burn with the smug satisfaction that I’m a more moral being than the thug that put me there.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 10/28/18 4:03pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:

lust said:



Sounds like you’re trying to dismiss a valid quote about burden of proof with an ad hominem statement about it’s author. And let’s not go down the Teresa rabbit hole.

Perhaps you’re more amenable to Carl Sagan “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” or shall we rule that out because....turtle necks?!
[Edited 10/28/18 12:51pm]

.
Sagan was a trusted scientist reliant in his job on evidence. This is completely different from Hitchen`s evidence less assertions. As no one is stating the picture is proof of anything but you made the extraordinary assertion that 10,000 is 3 contrary to the evidence, then perhaps, you should be guided by the sayings of Sagan before the dogma of Hitchens.



I think I’ll hop off the IanRG merry go round now if you don’t mind. I’ve seen how that ride ends. Actually no, I haven’t. They just go round and round and round and you obsess on the same thing ad infinitum. It’s really quite dull.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 10/28/18 4:15pm

EmmaMcG

IanRG said:



EmmaMcG said:


13cjk13 said:


By their logic it does.



Exactly. If their argument is based on a picture of Jesus NOT burning in a fire, then my argument can be based on a picture of Jesus burning in a fire.

.


But other than the OP, who is arguing that? Not even the Church.


.


Being able to burn a picture does not prove a thing about the existance of what the picture is supposed to be of. This is poor science and failed logic.


.


You still have not answered why you have burned hundreds of pictures of Jesus.

[Edited 10/28/18 11:51am]



I was replying to the OP.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 10/28/18 4:55pm

IanRG

EmmaMcG said:

IanRG said:

.

But other than the OP, who is arguing that? Not even the Church.

.

Being able to burn a picture does not prove a thing about the existance of what the picture is supposed to be of. This is poor science and failed logic.

.

You still have not answered why you have burned hundreds of pictures of Jesus.

[Edited 10/28/18 11:51am]

I was replying to the OP.

.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Why have you burned hundeds of pictures of Jesus?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 10/28/18 4:58pm

IanRG

lust said:

IanRG said:
. Sagan was a trusted scientist reliant in his job on evidence. This is completely different from Hitchen`s evidence less assertions. As no one is stating the picture is proof of anything but you made the extraordinary assertion that 10,000 is 3 contrary to the evidence, then perhaps, you should be guided by the sayings of Sagan before the dogma of Hitchens.
I think I’ll hop off the IanRG merry go round now if you don’t mind. I’ve seen how that ride ends. Actually no, I haven’t. They just go round and round and round and you obsess on the same thing ad infinitum. It’s really quite dull.

.

I agree. It is dull to just see post after post after post pushing the atheist line without these ever addressing any criticism in what they say. It is always move on and go to the next meme argument.

.

Can you see the difference between Hitchen's no evidence and Sagan's extraordinary evidence?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 10/28/18 5:14pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:



lust said:


IanRG said:
. Sagan was a trusted scientist reliant in his job on evidence. This is completely different from Hitchen`s evidence less assertions. As no one is stating the picture is proof of anything but you made the extraordinary assertion that 10,000 is 3 contrary to the evidence, then perhaps, you should be guided by the sayings of Sagan before the dogma of Hitchens.

I think I’ll hop off the IanRG merry go round now if you don’t mind. I’ve seen how that ride ends. Actually no, I haven’t. They just go round and round and round and you obsess on the same thing ad infinitum. It’s really quite dull.

.


I agree. It is dull to just see post after post after post pushing the atheist line without these ever addressing any criticism in what they say. It is always move on and go to the next meme argument.


.


Can you see the difference between Hitchen's no evidence and Sagan's extraordinary evidence?



Yes, Hitchens is establishing who has the burden of proof and Sagan is commenting on the standard of proof that is required by whom carries that burden.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 10/28/18 5:28pm

lust

avatar

Now, back on topic.

There are many anecdotal stories like this and not just for the YHVH beliefs but all beliefs and religions. And not just religions but we see similar stories about grandmas photo or rainbows and odd clouds over Paisley Park.

Anecdotes like this are as meaningless as they are innevitble in a world of billions of emotional people and emotional events.

So how do we assertain that there even IS a phenomenon taking place before we even get to speculate on what may be the cause?

Well firstly let’s look at bibles and how sometimes they survive fires.
If their survival is due to a divine fireman, we
have an empirical and therefore measurable claim. So, once we establish that bibles as as flammable as Jane Austen, we need to see bibles out survive other books in house fires at a rate that is disproptionaly high. I assume either no such study has been done which would seem strange when there’s so many motivated Christians trying to save souls OR there is no such phenomenon.

Apply the same standards to light beams in churches and quake hit cities and if the “god effect” can’t be demonstrated then that’s evidence that he/she (if he/she exists) does not interact with the world in that way.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 10/28/18 5:50pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

13cjk13 said:



SuperFurryAnimal said:




EmmaMcG said:


That proves nothing. I've burned hundreds of pictures of Jesus and they all went up in flames.


Doesn't prove that Jesus doesn't exist.



By their logic it does.



Exactly. If their argument is based on a picture of Jesus NOT burning in a fire, then my argument can be based on a picture of Jesus burning in a fire.


Jesus may not like every picture they took of him.
Trump turns from 'humbling' grief to midterm fire and furry
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 10/28/18 5:54pm

IanRG

lust said:

IanRG said:

.

I agree. It is dull to just see post after post after post pushing the atheist line without these ever addressing any criticism in what they say. It is always move on and go to the next meme argument.

.

Can you see the difference between Hitchen's no evidence and Sagan's extraordinary evidence?

Yes, Hitchens is establishing who has the burden of proof and Sagan is commenting on the standard of proof that is required by whom carries that burden.

.

No.

.

Hitchens was excusing his inability to provide evidence when he disagrees with someone by passing back the responsibility to person who made the assertion first. It is an avoidance tactic because he knew he could prove his many assertions. No one here is making an assertion that the picture proves God exists. You made various assertions about Christchurch and 9/11 and I disproved these based on evidence.

.

Yes.

.

Sagan was arguing about the need for different qualities of proof. He borrowed his saying from Marcello Truzzi (who in turn was paraphrasing Hume et al). Whilst Truzzi and Sagan were both linking this to those with the burden of proof, they were both talking about applying it to claims by psychics and things like near death experience claims respectively. In the book Sagan uses this, he also states:

.

...My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence were provided by such a god...on the other hand if such a god does not exist then our curiosity and intelligence are the essential tools for survival. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species.

.

Here he is talking about beliefs not proofs and encourages us all to foster our curiosity and intelligence to create knowledge for welfare of us all regardless of whether God exists. He does not require those who believe differently from him to prove God exists - This is atheist dogma. Sagan has also borrowed the saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Edited 10/28/18 17:56pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 10/28/18 6:14pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:



lust said:


IanRG said:


.


I agree. It is dull to just see post after post after post pushing the atheist line without these ever addressing any criticism in what they say. It is always move on and go to the next meme argument.


.


Can you see the difference between Hitchen's no evidence and Sagan's extraordinary evidence?



Yes, Hitchens is establishing who has the burden of proof and Sagan is commenting on the standard of proof that is required by whom carries that burden.

.


No.


.


Hitchens was excusing his inability to provide evidence when he disagrees with someone by passing back the responsibility to person who made the assertion first. It is an avoidance tactic because he knew he could prove his many assertions. No one here is making an assertion that the picture proves God exists. You made various assertions about Christchurch and 9/11 and I disproved these based on evidence.


.


Yes.


.


Sagan was arguing about the need for different qualities of proof. He borrowed his saying from Marcello Truzzi (who in turn was paraphrasing Hume et al). Whilst Truzzi and Sagan were both linking this to those with the burden of proof, they were both talking about applying it to claims by psychics and things like near death experience claims respectively. In the book Sagan uses this, he also states:


.



...My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence were provided by such a god...on the other hand if such a god does not exist then our curiosity and intelligence are the essential tools for survival. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species.



.


Here he is talking about beliefs not proofs and encourages us all to foster our curiosity and intelligence to create knowledge for welfare of us all regardless of whether God exists. He does not require those who believe differently from him to prove God exists - This is atheist dogma. Sagan has also borrowed the saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Edited 10/28/18 17:56pm]



“No one is asserting that picture proves god exists”

And yet the title of the thread is “Do you believe NOW??”

You’re over complicating everything as usual Ian. It’s like you have this epistemological need to filibuster threads. For the sake of discussion, I withdraw my comments re Christchurch in the hope that you can move on from it and
get back on topic. Just don’t do your usual trick of projecting your own interpretations on to all of Christendom. If you don’t believe in the divine fire
service then my comments aren’t aimed at you. Clearly many
People do hold such beliefs.

People believe all sorts of crazy things. For example, they may believe an obviously satirical comment to be true and then like a dog with a bone, demand to know why said satirical thing happened. For example, the burning of loads of Jesus pictures!

Learn when to move on, for the sake of advancing discussion. And if you find Atheists dull, maybe avoid threads that are aimed at us.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 10/28/18 6:30pm

IanRG

lust said:

IanRG said:

.

Here he is talking about beliefs not proofs and encourages us all to foster our curiosity and intelligence to create knowledge for welfare of us all regardless of whether God exists. He does not require those who believe differently from him to prove God exists - This is atheist dogma. Sagan has also borrowed the saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Edited 10/28/18 17:56pm]

“No one is asserting that picture proves god exists” And yet the title of the thread is “Do you believe NOW??” You’re over complicating everything as usual Ian. It’s like you have this epistemological need to filibuster threads. For the sake of discussion, I withdraw my comments re Christchurch in the hope that you can move on from it and get back on topic. Just don’t do your usual trick of projecting your own interpretations on to all of Christendom. If you don’t believe in the divine fire service then my comments aren’t aimed at you. Clearly many People do hold such beliefs. People believe all sorts of crazy things. For example, they may believe an obviously satirical comment to be true and then like a dog with a bone, demand to know why said satirical thing happened. For example, the burning of loads of Jesus pictures! Learn when to move on, for the sake of advancing discussion. And if you find Atheists dull, maybe avoid threads that are aimed at us.

.

I know this gets complicated for you, but the title is not body of the discussion. I already said to you:

.

IanRG said:

Your assumption, arguably directed by the thread title, is that the painting of a person who inaccurately represents how Jesus would have looked being mirculously saved from the destroyed church is seen as evidence to prove God. Beliefs, including your's, are not solely the product of indisputable "proofs".

.

A number of people here have stated that no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God - even the title talks about beliefs not proofs. You can seek to make this about me rather than addressing what I said, but you are fooling no one. Prove me wrong - show me where people in this thread have argued this is proof of God.

.

If a theist made a clearly false statement would you move on? Not on your nelly. You are like a dog with a bone. Hoping I will move on just because you don't want something being reasonably discussed is wishful thinking.

[Edited 10/28/18 18:31pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 10/28/18 6:35pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:



lust said:


IanRG said:


.


Here he is talking about beliefs not proofs and encourages us all to foster our curiosity and intelligence to create knowledge for welfare of us all regardless of whether God exists. He does not require those who believe differently from him to prove God exists - This is atheist dogma. Sagan has also borrowed the saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


[Edited 10/28/18 17:56pm]



“No one is asserting that picture proves god exists” And yet the title of the thread is “Do you believe NOW??” You’re over complicating everything as usual Ian. It’s like you have this epistemological need to filibuster threads. For the sake of discussion, I withdraw my comments re Christchurch in the hope that you can move on from it and get back on topic. Just don’t do your usual trick of projecting your own interpretations on to all of Christendom. If you don’t believe in the divine fire service then my comments aren’t aimed at you. Clearly many People do hold such beliefs. People believe all sorts of crazy things. For example, they may believe an obviously satirical comment to be true and then like a dog with a bone, demand to know why said satirical thing happened. For example, the burning of loads of Jesus pictures! Learn when to move on, for the sake of advancing discussion. And if you find Atheists dull, maybe avoid threads that are aimed at us.

.


I know this gets complicated for you, but the title is not body of the discussion. I already said to you:


.



IanRG said:


Your assumption, arguably directed by the thread title, is that the painting of a person who inaccurately represents how Jesus would have looked being mirculously saved from the destroyed church is seen as evidence to prove God. Beliefs, including your's, are not solely the product of indisputable "proofs".



.


A number of people here have stated that no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God - even the title talks about beliefs not proofs. You can seek to make this about me rather than addressing what I said, but you are fooling no one. Prove me wrong - show me where people in this thread have argued this is proof of God.


.


If a theist made a clearly false statement would you move on? Not on your nelly. You are like a dog with a bone. Hoping I will move on just because you don't want something being reasonably discussed is wishful thinking.

[Edited 10/28/18 18:31pm]



Then Ian. I am happy to accept your assertion that nobody here believes that such events are caused by a god and are therefore just natural coni coincidences with the caveat that I’m open to change my mind if someone now comes to state that they do hold such beliefs. Beliefs that you well know are held by many people (even if not on this thread)
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 10/28/18 7:56pm

IanRG

lust said:

.

IanRG said:

I know this gets complicated for you, but the title is not body of the discussion. I already said to you:

.

IanRG said:

Your assumption, arguably directed by the thread title, is that the painting of a person who inaccurately represents how Jesus would have looked being mirculously saved from the destroyed church is seen as evidence to prove God. Beliefs, including your's, are not solely the product of indisputable "proofs".

.

A number of people here have stated that no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God - even the title talks about beliefs not proofs. You can seek to make this about me rather than addressing what I said, but you are fooling no one. Prove me wrong - show me where people in this thread have argued this is proof of God.

.

If a theist made a clearly false statement would you move on? Not on your nelly. You are like a dog with a bone. Hoping I will move on just because you don't want something being reasonably discussed is wishful thinking.

[Edited 10/28/18 18:31pm]

Then Ian. I am happy to accept your assertion that nobody here believes that such events are caused by a god and are therefore just natural coni coincidences with the caveat that I’m open to change my mind if someone now comes to state that they do hold such beliefs. Beliefs that you well know are held by many people (even if not on this thread)

.

I said "no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God". I said this not as an assertion but just a statement and invited you to show if my statement of fact was wrong.

.

You change this to "your assertion that nobody here believes that such events are caused by a god".

.

Two very different statements. If you can't let this go, you need to learn the difference between statements and assertions, beliefs and proofs.

.

Good bye.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 10/28/18 8:22pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:



lust said:


.

IanRG said:


I know this gets complicated for you, but the title is not body of the discussion. I already said to you:



.




IanRG said:


Your assumption, arguably directed by the thread title, is that the painting of a person who inaccurately represents how Jesus would have looked being mirculously saved from the destroyed church is seen as evidence to prove God. Beliefs, including your's, are not solely the product of indisputable "proofs".




.



A number of people here have stated that no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God - even the title talks about beliefs not proofs. You can seek to make this about me rather than addressing what I said, but you are fooling no one. Prove me wrong - show me where people in this thread have argued this is proof of God.



.



If a theist made a clearly false statement would you move on? Not on your nelly. You are like a dog with a bone. Hoping I will move on just because you don't want something being reasonably discussed is wishful thinking.



[Edited 10/28/18 18:31pm]



Then Ian. I am happy to accept your assertion that nobody here believes that such events are caused by a god and are therefore just natural coni coincidences with the caveat that I’m open to change my mind if someone now comes to state that they do hold such beliefs. Beliefs that you well know are held by many people (even if not on this thread)

.


I said "no one in the thread is arguing that the picture being saved is proof of God". I said this not as an assertion but just a statement and invited you to show if my statement of fact was wrong.


.


You change this to "your assertion that nobody here believes that such events are caused by a god".


.


Two very different statements. If you can't let this go, you need to learn the difference between statements and assertions, beliefs and proofs.


.


Good bye.



Quite right Ian, quite right. Well said!
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 10/28/18 8:26pm

lust

avatar

lust said:

Now, back on topic.

There are many anecdotal stories like this and not just for the YHVH beliefs but all beliefs and religions. And not just religions but we see similar stories about grandmas photo or rainbows and odd clouds over Paisley Park.

Anecdotes like this are as meaningless as they are innevitble in a world of billions of emotional people and emotional events.

So how do we assertain that there even IS a phenomenon taking place before we even get to speculate on what may be the cause?

Well firstly let’s look at bibles and how sometimes they survive fires.
If their survival is due to a divine fireman, we
have an empirical and therefore measurable claim. So, once we establish that bibles as as flammable as Jane Austen, we need to see bibles out survive other books in house fires at a rate that is disproptionaly high. I assume either no such study has been done which would seem strange when there’s so many motivated Christians trying to save souls OR there is no such phenomenon.

Apply the same standards to light beams in churches and quake hit cities and if the “god effect” can’t be demonstrated then that’s evidence that he/she (if he/she exists) does not interact with the world in that way.


Just putting this back in focus lest the thread be lost in the quagmire incase anyone has anything valuable to add.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 10/29/18 1:53am

EmmaMcG

SuperFurryAnimal said:

EmmaMcG said:



Exactly. If their argument is based on a picture of Jesus NOT burning in a fire, then my argument can be based on a picture of Jesus burning in a fire.


Jesus may not like every picture they took of him.


I think you might be right. The bible does mention that Jesus hated when his apostles used snapchat filters.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 10/29/18 2:23pm

Astasheiks

avatar

Camileyun said:

lust said:
Bingo. Either he doesn’t exist OR he does but doesn’t intervene because he can’t or doesn’t care OR can but he saves books about himself and paintings of his son but let’s this shit happen in which case he’s a massive cunt! In his defence, I think it’s the former.
Wow, remind me not to stand next to you during a lightening storm!

For Real! eek confused sad

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 10/29/18 2:25pm

Astasheiks

avatar

deebee said:

If He does indeed exist, and possesses these miraculous interventionist powers, I can think of better uses for them.

victims-grenfell.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C520

[Edited 10/28/18 4:16am]

Where and When did this happen?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 10/29/18 4:49pm

IanRG

Astasheiks said:

deebee said:

If He does indeed exist, and possesses these miraculous interventionist powers, I can think of better uses for them.

victims-grenfell.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C520

[Edited 10/28/18 4:16am]

Where and When did this happen?

.

London 14/6/2017 - The Grenfell tower fire, the worst residential fire in the UK since WWII. This is a working class tower near affluent areas. It was made to look more attractive from the outside by the addition of panels on the outside that caused the fire to spread quicker and be worse. This meant fewer people were able to escape.

.

The argument is why would God save a picture that almost certainly does not look like him but let this building burn with all these deaths? The answer is complex and revolves around the most critical part of belief - If God is Good, then why do bad things happen? It is something believers need to, and do, consider all the time.

.

What is disturbing is that so many atheists hang off natural events and the adverse consequences of people's actions and inactions to find reasons to push their beliefs on people struggling with life's down sides. At least the OP's post in this thread is about finding the positive in an otherwise sad event, but nowhere near as sad as the Grenfell fire.

.

A picture or book that survived a fire is no more proof that God exists than the events that lead up to all these deaths is proof that God does not exist.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 10/30/18 6:34am

BombSquad

avatar

so God lets thousands of innocents die every day though terror, gun violence, murder, war, natural desasters or fire... but takes the time to save a fucking picture? alright.. if this proves that God exists then it also proves that he's a deranged mentally ill psychopathic cunt and monster, who simply hates humans. but at least he has a sense for art, oh well

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 10/30/18 10:12am

13cjk13

maplenpg said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Many times when there have been good sermons at my church or during the Euchorist you would have sun beams shine on the pulpit.

Obviously proof that God exists then! I hope it happened in a dark stormy day?

Or midnight.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 10/30/18 10:36am

deebee

avatar

Astasheiks said:

deebee said:

If He does indeed exist, and possesses these miraculous interventionist powers, I can think of better uses for them.

victims-grenfell.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C520

[Edited 10/28/18 4:16am]

Where and When did this happen?

Last year in London. Ian's post above gives the main info about it. There's a more detailed overview of how it happened and its ramifications here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...n-40272168 It was a really horrific tragedy.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 10/30/18 1:33pm

IanRG

BombSquad said:

so God lets thousands of innocents die every day though terror, gun violence, murder, war, natural desasters or fire... but takes the time to save a fucking picture? alright.. if this proves that God exists then it also proves that he's a deranged mentally ill psychopathic cunt and monster, who simply hates humans. but at least he has a sense for art, oh well

.

So, who here is saying this is proof of God? No one. Why does belief in atheism make so many so myopic?

.

But lets look at this as if this is an imagined choice between God saving a picture or every one who dies.

.

What would be outcome of God stepping in each and every time a human would otherwise die or be harmed? Lets keep this to Grenfell: Did God design and build Grenfell? No. Did God tell the neighbours they should complain that it looks unsightly? No. Did God design and install the unsafe decorative panels, establish the fire security system and advise people to not leave the building in case of a fire? All no. This tragedy is self-inflicted and on us. Inadvertently Lust's incomplete understanding of what Sagan was saying shows a crucial factor:

.

Sagan said:

...My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence were provided by such a god...on the other hand if such a god does not exist then our curiosity and intelligence are the essential tools for survival. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species.

.

Our survival and welfare is dependent on us developing knowledge by the application of our curiosity and intelligence. There have been around 100 to 115 billion humans. If everytime one of these placed themselves in the way of fire, God just stopped any harm coming to them, then we would have learned nothing and never would have created any fire safety procedures. So, every second of every day God would be saving millions of us from our so very stupid selves. Apply this to everything else in life and we would have never learned anything: not science, not safety, not to care, support and love each other in times of tragedy, not even why we need to wipe our own bums, nothing.

.

It may seem unfair but we all die. Part of the gift of life on earth is that it is transitory and it is hard. With it there is heart break and tragedy but there is also wonder and love and the opportunity for us to learn and be better than if God did everything for us. From a Christian point of view, we have the capability of being one with God, a capability bought for us by Jesus taking on all our tragedies as God' own tragedy. To be people who accept responsibility and seek to limit harm and support those when harm occurs and not just mindless beings reliant on our parent because we don't bother to do the most basic health and safety functions for ourselves.

.

Now, lets look at picture: Imagine it was saved by God just for a second. Firstly, it does not even look like God when he was here. It possesses no life, spirit, natural or even supernatural powers. It is just a picture. So, if God bothered to saved it, why would he? Because "in either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species". Part of our knowledge is knowledge about the things we cannot prove or disprove. But to quote Sagan again "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". One of these things is God. We are all given signs and indications of what we believe. If one of these is the saved picture, it is not proof but it would be a sign and a comfort to believers that God is with them during their time of struggle. The survivors, friends and family of the people lost at Grenfell may also have recognised signs of the same along with signs from round the world that we care about what happend to them, their family and their friends - and all the people saved because of the reviews of similar panels and fire safety processes aroiund the world.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 10/31/18 1:35am

lust

avatar

BombSquad said:

so God lets thousands of innocents die every day though terror, gun violence, murder, war, natural desasters or fire... but takes the time to save a fucking picture? alright.. if this proves that God exists then it also proves that he's a deranged mentally ill psychopathic cunt and monster, who simply hates humans. but at least he has a sense for art, oh well




Yep, spot on!

I bet there were exlamations of “god saved me” from some that escaped though! An oft claimed penomenom in such disasters which seems to be a cruel, if unintended,
indictment of the men, women and children whom god apparently didn’t deem worthy of such consideration.
[Edited 10/31/18 1:41am]
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 11/02/18 5:04pm

CherryMoon57

IanRG said:

BombSquad said:

so God lets thousands of innocents die every day though terror, gun violence, murder, war, natural desasters or fire... but takes the time to save a fucking picture? alright.. if this proves that God exists then it also proves that he's a deranged mentally ill psychopathic cunt and monster, who simply hates humans. but at least he has a sense for art, oh well

.

So, who here is saying this is proof of God? No one. Why does belief in atheism make so many so myopic?

.

But lets look at this as if this is an imagined choice between God saving a picture or every one who dies.

.

What would be outcome of God stepping in each and every time a human would otherwise die or be harmed? Lets keep this to Grenfell: Did God design and build Grenfell? No. Did God tell the neighbours they should complain that it looks unsightly? No. Did God design and install the unsafe decorative panels, establish the fire security system and advise people to not leave the building in case of a fire? All no. This tragedy is self-inflicted and on us. Inadvertently Lust's incomplete understanding of what Sagan was saying shows a crucial factor:

.

Sagan said:

...My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence were provided by such a god...on the other hand if such a god does not exist then our curiosity and intelligence are the essential tools for survival. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species.

.

Our survival and welfare is dependent on us developing knowledge by the application of our curiosity and intelligence. There have been around 100 to 115 billion humans. If everytime one of these placed themselves in the way of fire, God just stopped any harm coming to them, then we would have learned nothing and never would have created any fire safety procedures. So, every second of every day God would be saving millions of us from our so very stupid selves. Apply this to everything else in life and we would have never learned anything: not science, not safety, not to care, support and love each other in times of tragedy, not even why we need to wipe our own bums, nothing.

.

It may seem unfair but we all die. Part of the gift of life on earth is that it is transitory and it is hard. With it there is heart break and tragedy but there is also wonder and love and the opportunity for us to learn and be better than if God did everything for us. From a Christian point of view, we have the capability of being one with God, a capability bought for us by Jesus taking on all our tragedies as God' own tragedy. To be people who accept responsibility and seek to limit harm and support those when harm occurs and not just mindless beings reliant on our parent because we don't bother to do the most basic health and safety functions for ourselves.

.

Now, lets look at picture: Imagine it was saved by God just for a second. Firstly, it does not even look like God when he was here. It possesses no life, spirit, natural or even supernatural powers. It is just a picture. So, if God bothered to saved it, why would he? Because "in either case the enterprise of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the human species". Part of our knowledge is knowledge about the things we cannot prove or disprove. But to quote Sagan again "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". One of these things is God. We are all given signs and indications of what we believe. If one of these is the saved picture, it is not proof but it would be a sign and a comfort to believers that God is with them during their time of struggle. The survivors, friends and family of the people lost at Grenfell may also have recognised signs of the same along with signs from round the world that we care about what happend to them, their family and their friends - and all the people saved because of the reviews of similar panels and fire safety processes aroiund the world.


Amen!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 11/03/18 1:00pm

jaawwnn

avatar

Stop looking for proof, you're undermining your own faith.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 11/05/18 6:58am

BombSquad

avatar

IanRG said:

So, who here is saying this is proof of God? No one.

cool then. so we both agree that this is a nonsense thread and topic.
next lock

Why does belief in atheism make so many so myopic?



this shit again LOL fact check: atheism is by definition the absence of believe. so: FAIL

"belief in atheism" makes as much sense as the "desease of being healthy". unreal LMFAO

but I understand, again shit like that just exposes, that believers' envy must be enormous, towards those whose mind is free from boundaries and slavery, not trapped inside bronze age intellectual cages. this jail just forces you to make up a nonsense "belief" for anyone who simply doesn't have any belief LOL. go figure. poor lost souls

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 11/05/18 12:58pm

IanRG

BombSquad said:

IanRG said:

cool then. so we both agree that this is a nonsense thread and topic.
next lock

Why does belief in atheism make so many so myopic?



this shit again LOL fact check: atheism is by definition the absence of believe. so: FAIL

"belief in atheism" makes as much sense as the "desease of being healthy". unreal LMFAO

but I understand, again shit like that just exposes, that believers' envy must be enormous, towards those whose mind is free from boundaries and slavery, not trapped inside bronze age intellectual cages. this jail just forces you to make up a nonsense "belief" for anyone who simply doesn't have any belief LOL. go figure. poor lost souls

.

The fail is all yours and it is multifaceted.

.

Fact Check 1: Belief is not a religious term. You can have a belief in many different things. The definition of atheism is not "the absence of believe" - This does not even make grammatical sense so: FAIL. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Your myopia even hides your beliefs from you.

.

Fact Check 2: Desease is not even a word. I assume you mean disease of being healthy: Unreal LMAO, seriously this was not the place for you to not make sense. Was your error Fraudian or from a higher source? We may never know!

.

Fact Check 3: Belief is not the antonym of atheism (the opposite of atheism is theism not belief). Your myopia in your belief in atheism (ie your belief that there is no God) leads you to believe that you have no beliefs. So: FAIL

.

After this your conclusion that you have no beliefs just falls apart in the face of your beliefs, but believe what you want.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > do u believe NOW??