A question for the religious ones.

[carn_the_nmfc]

invite her to the church that you attend to. It might just help

 

[TigerCraig]

Cross referencing to an earlier similar thread:

Is Hank the name of the giant one eyed flying squid?

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by otaku
.

Your last statement is one of the most idiotic i have ever heard Frodo.

Firstly you didn't hear it. Secondly, read some of your own posts idf you want to see some really idiotic ones.

Secondly the denial of the existence of God or gods is dishonest because you can't rationaly discount the possibility..

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Frodo

Secondly the denial of the existence of God or gods is dishonest because you can't rationaly discount the possibility..

the belief of the existence of God or gods is dishonest because you can't rationaly prove it..


Please explain this Frodo. You've shirked the issue twice already...

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Do you really think that the majority of people who have read this aren't thinking, "Gee, that Frodo is one class idiot"?

Dont lower yourself to the standard of those who can only argue by insult

You're saying that people who don't believe God exists are lying to themselves because there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

Wouldn't this be the same for people who do believe in God as there is no proof that he does exist?

Please explain yourself here, because it seems there is a massive contradiction in your logic.

Read what I wrote. Apart from the brainwashed a person believing in God may do so because they have experienced God.

Conversely, apart from the brainwashed who will call themselves athiests a person cannot be an athiest because of a material or spriritual experience, therefore they must be dishonest to themselves and/or others.

Another contradiction. You say athieism is impossible because there is no proof. Wouldn't believing be impossible too as there is no proof?

Many people have experienced God, that is irrefutable proof to them, you can't argue about that

I'm surprised anyone would have the hide to argue this viewpoint of mass inconsistency.

Life is full of surprises, but it's all logical if you want to open your mind to it

 

[Stevo]

These so called "experiences of God" are no more than a faith induced interpretation of phenomena.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Stevo
These so called "experiences of God" are no more than a faith induced interpretation of phenomena.

How do you know that?

I doubted God for most of my life, but one experience changed that...I had no faith,I still don't believe in any religion, so I know you are wrong.

 

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Frodo
How do you know that?

I doubted God for most of my life, but one experience changed that...I had no faith,I still don't believe in any religion, so I know you are wrong.

I've never heard of a "revelation" which couldn't be reasonably explained without resorting to unknown causal entities.

Nonetheless, I don't know that what I said is true. By the same token, those people who have had a revelation can not know for certain that they have experienced God. And since it those people who are positing the existence of currently unknown causal entities, it is they who must provide evidence.

Experiences which can't be verified can't, and shouldn't, be accepted as good evidence.

 

[Slax]

Religion is something created by man to explain what could not be explained. Anything that happens out of the ordinary or no rational explanation can be found is deemed by some to be an act of god.

I am yet to see or read anything that counts as a miracle that provides a true and accurate account of what happened. And believe me if I found a bloke who could turn water into wine I'd make sure I was mates with him.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Frodo
Firstly you didn't hear it. Secondly, read some of your own posts idf you want to see some really idiotic ones.

Secondly the denial of the existence of God or gods is dishonest because you can't rationaly discount the possibility..

Firstly, you dont have to physically hear something to have heard about it. It is all in the interpretation of the language.

Secondly, you didnt defend the notion that if i believe 100% that there is no god, how can i be dishonest?

It cant be anymore dishonest than saying "i believe in a god". You can't rationaly discount the possibility that there is no god. You can beliee there is a god, but you cannot prove it. Therefore saying you are religious in no more internally dishonest than saying you are an atheist.

Many people have experienced God, that is irrefutable proof to them, you can't argue about that

how can you experience the intangible? If god was tangible, he would leave traces of himself. He only ever "talks" to crazy people. Donesnt this tell you something?

I hae never experienced god, and i am 100% certain that i never will. He doesnt exist. i am 100% certain of this fact. Therefore, by definition, i am an atheist.

Thus, your statement about atheism being impossible is either the mumblings of a senile old man, or the ravings of a lunatic.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by otaku
Firstly, you dont have to physically hear something to have heard about it. It is all in the interpretation of the language.

Secondly, you didnt defend the notion that if i believe 100% that there is no god, how can i be dishonest?

It cant be anymore dishonest than saying "i believe in a god". You can't rationaly discount the possibility that there is no god. You can beliee there is a god, but you cannot prove it. Therefore saying you are religious in no more internally dishonest than saying you are an atheist.



how can you experience the intangible? If god was tangible, he would leave traces of himself. He only ever "talks" to crazy people. Donesnt this tell you something?

I hae never experienced god, and i am 100% certain that i never will. He doesnt exist. i am 100% certain of this fact. Therefore, by definition, i am an atheist.

Thus, your statement about atheism being impossible is either the mumblings of a senile old man, or the ravings of a lunatic. [/B]

Back to the good old otaku rationale that if you can't beat an opponent in debate then throw insults instead.

Your a waste of time, child.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Frodo
Back to the good old otaku rationale that if you can't beat an opponent in debate then throw insults instead.

Your a waste of time, child.

I am soooooooo sorry Frodo. It seems that you can't answer some simple questions, so you will throw up your little smokescreen of being "insulted" to get out of answering questions.

If you look at that last post of mine, you will see that i hae raised a heap of questions about your statement. you now refuse to answer them, claiming i am insulting you.

Fine, so be it. It just goes to show how thin skinned you really are, and how your arguments and statements can be easily shot down.


So, if you dont want to be involved in a debate, then dont join in frodo. Most especially, dont make absolute statements that are obviously full of shyte.

now go back to your senile mumblings, old man.

 

[Richoagain]

Frodo mate, you've been utterly slaughtered in this debate. Try not to dig yourself any deeper with trying to pin the 'can't win so you throw insults' tag on anybody.

 

[Rodion]

Agree. I think there's an intelligent case to be made for Christianity but when you get morons like Frodo spouting a lot of hooey, that's when the inaccurate stereotype of religion as a self-delusional crock of nonsense rears its ugly head again.

 

[bunsen burner]

hey Frodes: Speak to the towel.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Frodo
Back to the good old otaku rationale that if you can't beat an opponent in debate then throw insults instead.

Your a waste of time, child.

Best laugh I have had this week. Hypocrisy is funniest when it is unintentional.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Slax
And believe me if I found a bloke who could turn water into wine I'd make sure I was mates with him.

Wouldn't we all?

 

[Stevo]

Originally posted by skilts
Wouldn't we all?

I wouldn't. He'd attract homeless scum like flies to faeces.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Richoagain
Frodo mate, you've been utterly slaughtered in this debate. Try not to dig yourself any deeper with trying to pin the 'can't win so you throw insults' tag on anybody.

and

Originally posted by Weaver
Best laugh I have had this week. Hypocrisy is funniest when it is unintentional.

and

Originally posted by Bunsen Burner
hey Frodes: Speak to the towel.

Does this tell you something Frodo?

Or are you now going to sulk, and no longer play with the "nasty people who make fun of you"?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
hey Frodes: Speak to the towel.

Better replace that with a tissue.