[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

You have not actually addressed any of my arguments, you just used fallacies that you do not understand to explain why my arguments are wrong, while not actually addressing the argument itself. You are using the fallacy fallacy to argue your points. Poisoning the well does not apply in this case as the information I provided was relevant to my argument, a trend in this forum has been for people to dismiss information, therefore I concluded that this would likely happen to me. As Poisoning the Well needs information to be irrelevant, this would not apply. You do not understand ad populum. I am not appealing to the masses, I am merely using trend to predict behavior of the people replying to my posts. Ad populum would be like saying many people follow religion, so it must be correct. While I may be using equivocation, I argue that embracing science is definitely a factor in someone's intelligence. So intelligence is not independent of world views. For example, if someone does not believe in education, they probably aren't going to be intelligent if they refuse to be educated. You have refused to listen to scientific evidence. Many people on this forum refuse to even read articles provided. How is adherence to science beneficial? It allows you to learn about the natural world. Science is never inherently bad or good. It is what people do with it that makes the difference. Science is not the cause of the problem, the people using it are. You use an example of the false cause fallacy in your argument. Science is objectively beneficial, what people do with it is subjective. While I do use the appeal to modernity, you failed to read the rest of my argument. While the bible is old, that doesn't make it automatically incorrect. I state that it is likely different from it's original meaning because of continuous translations from one language to another. Languages have their own unique nuances that make direct translation impossible. If this were possible, Google Translate would work perfectly. I do use an argument of hearsay here, but just because this is a fallacy doesn't mean that this point is unimportant or untrue. I do not use Guilt By Association. I'm not saying that all religious parties commit atrocities, but it is a fact that some do. I even state that some here in this forum do so. While religion isn't wrong just because some people who practice are bad, I believe and I think that there is evidence to suggest that religion can influence people to do terrible things. Religion tells people that it is okay to discipline your wife, so it influences people to beat their spouses. I do make an appeal to emotion here in order to convince people that we as a species would be better off without religion. Do you really want more people that beat their wives in the world? Do you think that shows how civilized and intelligent we are? You use an appeal to authority when you mention God. Just because he is an authority we should listen to him, regardless of his actions. We make our children, does that mean they should follow everything we say with no beliefs of their own? This results in a stagnant society. I want to follow a God that is merciful. I want to follow a God that does not believe that anyone of his creations is less valuable than the other. I do not want to follow a God that that does commands one of his creations to beat the other just because they believe that their way of discipline is useful. I did make an argument, you just choose not to listen to the actual argument, but just dismiss them as fallacies. (Sometimes incorrectly.) Your entire response is an argument from fallacy. I merely use fallacies to argue because that is how you seem to want to argue. Lastly you end the post by insulting my intelligence instead of reading my arguments. This is ad hominem. Please refrain from being so condescending the next time you argue. I do not think you will change your position based on my argument. I think this will be the case based on the evidence that you argue with fallacies, rather than attacking the argument itself. This is merely an exercise in discourse. Hopefully someone else will read this and think.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

While God may have told people to write down his word, he also gave them free will to interpret his word . . . Why would the Lord deem them worthy of respect? If God really condones all this violence and hatred towards people, no matter how powerful he is, he is no better than an animal, neither worth respect or worship. If this is the people God wants in his heaven, I would rather burn in hell for all eternity.

I want to follow a God that is merciful. I want to follow a God that does not believe that anyone of his creations is less valuable than the other. I do not want to follow a God that that does commands one of his creations to beat the other just because they believe that their way of discipline is useful.

Welcome to the forum Mr Lien. You've mentioned God twice now. Perhaps you could tell us on what scientific evidence you base your view of God? We base our view on the Bible. Your god seems to one of your own imagination. In fact, your view seems to stem from another fallacy -- wishful thinking.

The God of the Bible certainly values some people over others. Jesus Himself thought Canaanites were dogs.

Mt 15:22-26
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

But He thinks Christians are special.

1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light . . .

Are you going to be hypocritical and ignore our evidence on what the God of the Bible is like?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

T...I must say that you refrained from doing the Tu quoque which is also extremely common)....

You have not actually addressed any of my arguments, you just used fallacies that you do not understand

Q.E.D.

to explain why my arguments are wrong, while not actually addressing the argument itself. You are using the fallacy fallacy to argue your points. Poisoning the well does not apply in this case as the information I provided was relevant to my argument, a trend in this forum has been for people to dismiss information, therefore I concluded that this would likely happen to me.

Did it happen? Where was the information to dismiss? Is the poisoning-the-well approach OK if you feel it's going to happen? Does anticipation make a trespass less? A simple assertion, a sentence that only contains your view of us is not information about the issue, just an assertion. You did dismiss any potential arguments beforehand, which did not have any connection to the actual issue. The fallacy stands.

As Poisoning the Well needs information to be irrelevant, this would not apply. You do not understand ad populum. I am not appealing to the masses, I am merely using trend to predict behavior of the people replying to my posts. Ad populum would be like saying many people follow religion, so it must be correct. While I may be using equivocation, I argue that embracing science is definitely a factor in someone's intelligence.

Actually you claim that embracing science is a factor in intelligence. You do not provide evidence, research results, possibly opposing results, nor try to balance them. If it is definitely a factor, then there must be some data to prove it. However, we do not strive for intelligence but for Heaven.

So intelligence is not independent of world views. For example, if someone does not believe in education, they probably aren't going to be intelligent if they refuse to be educated. You have refused to listen to scientific evidence. Many people on this forum refuse to even read articles provided.

Intelligence is not = well-educated (another equivocation). Well-trained gluteals can get you educated and an intelligent person might just prefer to become a manual laborer. Many levels of intelligence may produce similar education. I did not refuse to listen to scientific evidence as you didn't provide any. Scientific evidence is in peer-reviewed research that can be cited, assessed, reproduced and quoted. Your post contained nothing of that kind. You might - as I mentioned - be right but without evidence material I am not ready to embrace your views.

How is adherence to science beneficial? It allows you to learn about the natural world. Science is never inherently bad or good. It is what people do with it that makes the difference. Science is not the cause of the problem, the people using it are. You use an example of the false cause fallacy in your argument. Science is objectively beneficial, what people do with it is subjective.

Can you see that you simultaneously claim that science is "not good or bad" but it is "objectively beneficial" (which is not the same word as "good" but does contain the aspect of "good", doesn't it?) Once again, the assertion that it is "objectively beneficial" is not evidence but just an opinion if you don't provide any material to justify that you subjective definition of "beneficial" can be generalized. You're making hasty generalizations and replacing actual evidence with your personal testimony. That is acceptable in many religions (including ours) but actually not in science. Your fallacies remain.

While I do use the appeal to modernity, you failed to read the rest of my argument. While the bible is old, that doesn't make it automatically incorrect. I state that it is likely different from it's original meaning because of continuous translations from one language to another.

The Bible is not translated in the way you depict it: Greek -> Latin -> Gothic -> Old High German -> Anglo-Saxon -> Middle English, etc. It is translated always and again from the original oldest papyri. Your claim becomes (a fallacy) Straw man argumentation as it attacks a position that is your own invention.

Languages have their own unique nuances that make direct translation impossible. If this were possible, Google Translate would work perfectly. I do use an argument of hearsay here, but just because this is a fallacy doesn't mean that this point is unimportant or untrue.

As I mentioned, we do not claim that you're wrong. Only that (now we're getting somewhere and we agree) hearsay is not evidence. One form of hearsay is just using your own opinions in the present indicative and claim that they're evidence. Please assess why hearsay would be valid in your case but the thousands of testimonials abut Jesus not? The same with your other emotional apples, please. The point might be important and true and I really would like to see if you can justify your points

I do not use Guilt By Association. I'm not saying that all religious parties commit atrocities, but it is a fact that some do. I even state that some here in this forum do so. While religion isn't wrong just because some people who practice are bad, I believe and I think that there is evidence to suggest that religion can influence people to do terrible things. Religion tells people that it is okay to discipline your wife, so it influences people to beat their spouses. I do make an appeal to emotion here in order to convince people that we as a species would be better off without religion. Do you really want more people that beat their wives in the world? Do you think that shows how civilized and intelligent we are?

The guilt by association is a fallacy exactly because of what you produced above. The Bible (and evolution, and Intelligent design, and microbes, and Juche) can be true even if it causes nasty things. The reliability of a religion or a scientific theory do not depend on their consequences (oh, yes, this is also an ad consequentiam). As human beings on Earth, it is quite possible that we'd be "better off" without religion. Many can make an emotional appeal that the world would be better off without the television ever been invented. Do they need evidence to back their claim? They don't need it but it would be useful if they wished to make a point that has significance. Please, consider this. We, however, do not strive to make this earth more comfortable but to get more people into Heaven. Thus, the context of saying that "Christianity is wrong" is independent of its effects on earth. The fallacy stands.

You use an appeal to authority when you mention God. Just because he is an authority we should listen to him, regardless of his actions.

Yes, we accept His authority and obey Him. We openly admit it. If you wish to oppose that in a manner that has an effect on us, you should provide us with better evidence than God to show us that His evidence material is false or inferior compared to yours. Plain assertions are not adequate.

We make our children, does that mean they should follow everything we say with no beliefs of their own? This results in a stagnant society.

This is false analogy. God Creates logic and is beyond it. I surely would not want my children to obey me if I told them to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Why is a stagnant society worse than a "progressive one" regarding access to Heaven?

I want to follow a God that is merciful. I want to follow a God that does not believe that anyone of his creations is less valuable than the other. I do not want to follow a God that that does commands one of his creations to beat the other just because they believe that their way of discipline is useful.

This is just your personal testimony, an anecdote. Without evidence we dismiss it for now. If you provide evidence, we'll re-assess it. In fact, I would also be very happy to have a God who forgives everything but the evidence material (you do not count it as strong evidence but we do for reasons that are available on this Forum) that we have - the Bible - tell us that this is not the case. God 's good may cause things that we fail to understand and experience as terrible (e.g., see the the Book of Job for some examples).

I did make an argument, you just choose not to listen to the actual argument, but just dismiss them as fallacies. (Sometimes incorrectly.) Your entire response is an argument from fallacy.

In fact, you did not make arguments but plain simple sentences with very inadequate references to some posts on our Forum. You made hasty generalizations about our state of mind based on some posts. But you're doing much better now. The Tu quoque that you're displaying here is still something that you might want to discard. An argument is something that also contains evidence apart from your own musings.

I merely use fallacies to argue because that is how you seem to want to argue.

This is an ad hoc escape and even if it were true (it might be but please provide the evidence) it would be the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. You're the guest. You're here to prove a point. Do it with evidence. The ad hominem can also be an ad hominem attack, not simply claiming an issue wrong because "we're retarded" but just making insults to belittle us. It does not help you get your point through. You can do better without the ballast of insults.

Lastly you end the post by insulting my intelligence instead of reading my arguments.

I am not interested in your personal opinions or feelings but in evidence. An appeal to pity (ad misericordiam) is not the way to improve your skills (and it is a fallacy).

This is ad hominem. Please refrain from being so condescending the next time you argue. I do not think you will change your position based on my argument. I think this will be the case based on the evidence that you argue with fallacies, rather than attacking the argument itself. This is merely an exercise in discourse. Hopefully someone else will read this and think.

I will assess your arguments if you make them. As an example, your idea of there being a continuous chain of Bible translations is a false one based on available evidence. You need to learn the difference between your own opinions and evidence. You might know this, in which case you need to learn how to express it. Make the best possible case against God and Bible but refrain from the emotional ballast even if you dislike us and the God the Bible depicts. Concentrate on the claim, find if it has evidence apart from what you feel is right. Present evidence that is not just your own hasty observation ("I feel like this because I read something on this Forum"). At this very moment, the Bible seems to know this better than you.

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

What evidence do you have of your God besides a book that a bunch of men wrote thousands of years ago that has been translated over and over? Could you stop using fallacies for one moment to actually think for yourself? If you decide to argue using the appeal to modernity fallacy to respond to my comment about the bible, please read my earlier post. I am not hypocritical for ignoring your evidence, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe the God of the Bible is what exists, especially considering he did not write all Bibles in existence now. Can you prove to me that he is indeed writing his word using a human? Or is that human just lying to you to sway your views? Is God speaking to you, telling you that this is his word? If so, why should I believe what you say? I do not experience this. Often I could say I experience the opposite. Often I feel like God tells me he looks down on his creations and asks, "What have I done?" I feel like he has moved on from this universe, and has abandoned us, thinking it is too cruel to destroy his own creations. I have no evidence other than what exists in my own mind, and neither do you. The Bible cannot be used for this evidence because God does not tell me he has written this. So unless, I witness God making the Bible, I will not believe it to be the true word of a creator. This was a bit lengthy, and merely represents a thought experiment. I don't think God is talking to me, it is probably thoughts within my own mind that wonder what he could be thinking.

I am of an agnostic view. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to confirm or deny the existence of any creator. I believe in some sort of Big Bang, there is much evidence to support it, but anything that came before this is unknown. And even if your God does exist, I still have the free will to not worship him. Just because something creates something, and gives it free will, does not mean that it will be loved or worshiped. Of course, this mighty being could do whatever it wants to me. I will not worship something out of fear, but respect. After all, a truly all powerful being could choose to do whatever it wants regardless of whether I follow it's rules or not.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

What evidence do you have of your God besides a book that a bunch of men wrote thousands of years ago that has been translated over and over? Could you stop using fallacies for one moment to actually think for yourself? If you decide to argue using the appeal to modernity fallacy to respond to my comment about the bible, please read my earlier post. I am not hypocritical for ignoring your evidence, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe the God of the Bible is what exists, especially considering he did not write all Bibles in existence now. Can you prove to me that he is indeed writing his word using a human? Or is that human just lying to you to sway your views? Is God speaking to you, telling you that this is his word? If so, why should I believe what you say? I do not experience this. Often I could say I experience the opposite. Often I feel like God tells me he looks down on his creations and asks, "What have I done?" I feel like he has moved on from this universe, and has abandoned us, thinking it is too cruel to destroy his own creations. I have no evidence other than what exists in my own mind, and neither do you. The Bible cannot be used for this evidence because God does not tell me he has written this. So unless, I witness God making the Bible, I will not believe it to be the true word of a creator. This was a bit lengthy, and merely represents a thought experiment. I don't think God is talking to me, it is probably thoughts within my own mind that wonder what he could be thinking.

I am of an agnostic view. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to confirm or deny the existence of any creator. I believe in some sort of Big Bang, there is much evidence to support it, but anything that came before this is unknown. And even if your God does exist, I still have the free will to not worship him. Just because something creates something, and gives it free will, does not mean that it will be loved or worshiped. Of course, this mighty being could do whatever it wants to me. I will not worship something out of fear, but respect. After all, a truly all powerful being could choose to do whatever it wants regardless of whether I follow it's rules or not.

Thank you. I can accept your nice questions, but I still hope that you will assess why what you feel/experience/do or do not believe would be more valid than what we believe. This is a short list. You can find all this in more detail on this Forum or other Christian sites.

• Internal consistency. The Bible was produced over centuries in an era with almost zero literacy, yet it remains internally consistent throughout the ages.
• Prophecies. There are quite a few fulfilled ones. Isaiah predicted the reign of Cyrus centuries before the actual event (Isaiah 44:28). Micah predicted the birthplace of Jesus (Micah 5:2) and Isiah foresaw His superpowers (Isaiah 53:12), to name just a few.
• The Bible knew of science unknown to its contemporaries. These include the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10), sea currents (Psalm 8:8) and water deep within the mantle in the “Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11). This water was only recently discovered (A nearly water-saturated mantle transition zone inferred from mineral viscosity, Science Advances 07 Jun 2017: Vol. 3, no. 6, e1603024, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603024 , http://advances.sciencemag.org/conte.../e1603024.full).
• Archeology supports the Bible. For instance, the historicity of Pontius Pilate was questioned until evidence was found, the Pilate Dedication Stone: “Tiberieum, (Pon)tius Pilatus, (Praef)ectus Iuda(eae).”
• In addition, Faith™ in Jesus changes us in a manner that is compatible with the Bible. Our old guilts and doubts have been washed away.

Luke 10:20
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

A last word, about agnosticism. Now I'm making some personal observations so please, do not take these as hard evidence. Just trying to make things a bit less black-and-white for you. I am only inquiring if you think that agnosticism is the way to take. It kind of simplifies a complex issue into a denial of "I don't know". There are other options. You might consider the issues regarding their evidence and their probability. If you don't know if there is a God you might try narrowing down the question, e.g., "Is there a God and fulfills the Criteria for Krishna" - Blue skin, lifting mountains, etc.? What is the prior probability, what is the evidence? Do you take him as plausible or not (I don't but let us not go into the evidence I use in this case)? "Is there a Jesus who walked on earth" (I do have faith in Him and reading the Bible well might make you see it, too)?" Simple agnosticism is a bit lazy, don't you think? Again, do the same about the Big Bang (and, actually, the secular scientists are making claims about the state of affairs before it and investigating the possibility of multiple universes interacting with gravity with visible marks - I'm not convinced at all, but you should acknowledge that there's a lot to be said about things before the Big Bang, we do it all the time, as the Bible actually tells us something about the pre-Creation Universe; Genesis 1:1-2). Agnosticism can lead to meaningless statements such as "there must be something over there", which cannot really be discussed as there is no hypothesis to test (you did not do that, don't get me wrong), or "I'm not religious but spiritual".


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

What evidence do you have of your God besides a book that a bunch of men wrote thousands of years ago that has been translated over and over? Can you prove to me that he is indeed writing his word using a human?

The King James Bible, which is what we use here, was translated directly into English from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It hasn't been translated from one language into another and then into yet another and another and so on. You could perhaps question the reliability of the texts it was based on, though, or the accuracy of the translation. Not that I do, of course, but some have.

I am not hypocritical for ignoring your evidence, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe the God of the Bible is what exists, especially considering he did not write all Bibles in existence now.

We don't believe God wrote the Bible but that He inspired it, that He guided the authors, and will preserve His Word for all time.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . .

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1 Pet 1:25a But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

Jn 10:35c And the scripture cannot be broken . . .

Is God speaking to you, telling you that this is his word?

No, I have never heard a deep booming voice from the heavens telling me the Bible is God's Word. God speaks to me through the Bible, which tells me it is God's Word.

Often I feel like God tells me he looks down on his creations and asks, "What have I done?"

There have been times when God has regretted making man.

Gen 6:6-7 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

I feel like he has moved on from this universe, and has abandoned us, thinking it is too cruel to destroy his own creations.

God doesn't think that's too cruel at all.

Pro 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

So unless, I witness God making the Bible, I will not believe it to be the true word of a creator.

But the Creator wrote the Bible. Therefore what it says about creation should be evidence of its Authorship.

Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

I am of an agnostic view. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to confirm or deny the existence of any creator.

But there is more than enough evidence to confirm the existence of the God of the Bible. All of creation is evidence.

Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Rom 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse . . .

[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

Q.E.D.
Did it happen? Where was the information to dismiss? Is the poisoning-the-well approach OK if you feel it's going to happen? Does anticipation make a trespass less? A simple assertion, a sentence that only contains your view of us is not information about the issue, just an assertion. You did dismiss any potential arguments beforehand, which did not have any connection to the actual issue. The fallacy stands.Actually you claim that embracing science is a factor in intelligence. You do not provide evidence, research results, possibly opposing results, nor try to balance them. If it is definitely a factor, then there must be some data to prove it. However, we do not strive for intelligence but for Heaven.Intelligence is not = well-educated (another equivocation). Well-trained gluteals can get you educated and an intelligent person might just prefer to become a manual laborer. Many levels of intelligence may produce similar education. I did not refuse to listen to scientific evidence as you didn't provide any. Scientific evidence is in peer-reviewed research that can be cited, assessed, reproduced and quoted. Your post contained nothing of that kind. You might - as I mentioned - be right but without evidence material I am not ready to embrace your views. Can you see that you simultaneously claim that science is "not good or bad" but it is "objectively beneficial" (which is not the same word as "good" but does contain the aspect of "good", doesn't it?) Once again, the assertion that it is "objectively beneficial" is notevidence but just an opinion if you don't provide any material to justify that you subjective definition of "beneficial" can be generalized. You're making hasty generalizations and replacing actual evidence with your personal testimony. That is acceptable in many religions (including ours) but actually not in science. Your fallacies remain.The Bible is not translated in the way you depict it: Greek -> Latin -> Gothic -> Old High German -> Anglo-Saxon -> Middle English, etc. It is translated always and again from the original oldest papyri. Your claim becomes (a fallacy) Straw man argumentation as it attacks a position that is your own invention.As I mentioned, we do not claim that you're wrong. Only that (now we're getting somewhere and we agree) hearsay is not evidence. One form of hearsay is just using your own opinions in the present indicative and claim that they're evidence. Please assess why hearsay would be valid in your case but the thousands of testimonials abut Jesus not? The same with your other emotional apples, please. The point might be important and true and I really would like to see if you can justify your pointsThe guilt by association is a fallacy exactly because of what you produced above. The Bible (and evolution, and Intelligent design, and microbes, and Juche) can be true even if it causes nasty things. The reliability of a religion or a scientific theory do not depend on their consequences (oh, yes, this is also an ad consequentiam). As human beings on Earth, it is quite possible that we'd be "better off" without religion. Many can make an emotional appeal that the world would be better off without the television ever been invented. Do they need evidence to back their claim? They don't need it but it would be useful if they wished to make a point that has significance. Please, consider this. We, however, do not strive to make this earth more comfortable but to get more people into Heaven. Thus, the context of saying that "Christianity is wrong" is independent of its effects on earth. The fallacy stands. Yes, we accept His authority and obey Him. We openly admit it. If you wish to oppose that in a manner that has an effect on us, you should provide us with better evidence than God to show us that His evidence material is false or inferior compared to yours. Plain assertions are not adequate.This is false analogy. God Creates logic and is beyond it. I surely would not want my children to obey me if I told them to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Why is a stagnant society worse than a "progressive one" regarding access to Heaven?This is just your personal testimony, an anecdote. Without evidence we dismiss it for now. If you provide evidence, we'll re-assess it. In fact, I would also be very happy to have a God who forgives everything but the evidence material (you do not count it as strong evidence but we do for reasons that are available on this Forum) that we have - the Bible - tell us that this is not the case. God 's good may cause things that we fail to understand and experience as terrible (e.g., see the the Book of Job for some examples).In fact, you did not make arguments but plain simple sentences with very inadequate references to some posts on our Forum. You made hasty generalizations about our state of mind based on some posts. But you're doing much better now. The Tu quoque that you're displaying here is still something that you might want to discard. An argument is something that also contains evidence apart from your own musings.This is an ad hoc escape and even if it were true (it might be but please provide the evidence) it would be the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. You're the guest. You're here to prove a point. Do it with evidence. The ad hominem can also be an ad hominem attack, not simply claiming an issue wrong because "we're retarded" but just making insults to belittle us. It does not help you get your point through. You can do better without the ballast of insults. I am not interested in your personal opinions or feelings but in evidence. An appeal to pity (ad misericordiam) is not the way to improve your skills (and it is a fallacy).I will assess your arguments if you make them. As an example, your idea of there being a continuous chain of Bible translations is a false one based on available evidence. You need to learn the difference between your own opinions and evidence. You might know this, in which case you need to learn how to express it. Make the best possible case against God and Bible but refrain from the emotional ballast even if you dislike us and the God the Bible depicts. Concentrate on the claim, find if it has evidence apart from what you feel is right. Present evidence that is not just your own hasty observation ("I feel like this because I read something on this Forum"). At this very moment, the Bible seems to know this better than you.

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Your entire argument just proves my point. I produce evidence. You ignore it. I could physically link to scientific evidence or you could just Google it. You dismiss my arguments in which I provide evidence available in this thread. I said that links that have been provided, and have been ignored, why would it be any different for me? It may be an assertion, and that was the whole point. I wasn't poisoning the well. Look up poisoning the well. I said didn't want to bother posting links to evidence that would just be ignored. It may be just me, but ignoring evidence that is provided isn't irrelevant to discrediting or ridiculing what someone is about to say. How many more times do I have to say this? I don't want to post links to evidence that will likely be ignored because of the fact that previous links to evidence have also been ignored.


Science is a factor in intelligence. Look it up. I mean do I really have to do this? Look at the human race. Look at what it has done through science. Look at the definition of intelligence. It is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. Science has given us so much knowledge. We know now how the human body works and we can apply that to saving people. We know how the solar system works, so we made calendars that predict certain events to a fair degree of accuracy. We've learned how to make combustion engines to carry us across large distances. I could go on. Electricity. Guns. Computers. We certainly have applied more knowledge and skills thanks to the scientific approach. I don't need data tables and articles to prove this, I can just use my eyes.


Education and well-educated are completely different. Education is the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction. If you refuse to learn, you are not intelligent, because you cannot acquire knowledge or new skills. I apologize for not saying, "You probably aren't going to be intelligent if you refuse to learn." Honestly, I could just delete the probably there. This is just a matter of semantics and the limits of human language.



I was using "you" in a general sense. I didn't mean you specifically. I meant people on this site who are likely religious, because of obvious reasons. I have evidence that people have ignored scientific evidence. This thread is an example. People post links to articles, and they are ignored. I never said I specifically posted those articles, nor would I need to. See above.


Do I really have to argue the semantics of the difference of the words beneficial and good? I said science is neither absolutely good or bad. It is not beneficial to all things on Earth, but in some ways, science can be beneficial to many things. Do I really have to ask everyone if science has benefited them? I am of the opinion that science can be beneficial to anyone and anything, given the right circumstances. I believe it is objectively beneficial because science is a process, not a thing. It can benefit anything depending on how it is done. I never claimed that science being objectively beneficial is evidence??? Is that the only part of the quote that you read? I give you why I think science is objectively beneficial. It lets you learn about the natural world. How exactly could this ever be interpreted as a negative thing? Again you're more concerned with fallacies of an argument than the argument itself.


I did not create a straw man. You basically just supported my claim by stating that it is indeed translated from one language to another. I never mentioned what languages it was translated from. Seriously, stop using the fallacy fallacy as your argument, it is getting really old.


Hearsay in this case is valid because in order for the information to be true to its original meaning, it needs to come from the original source, not copies produced by translation. Hearsay in this case means discrediting a source because it does not come from an original source. I don't think you understand what the argument of hearsay is.


I really don't understand why you keep pointing out my fallacies and not attacking my arguments. Please look up the fallacy fallacy. I don't think you understand guilt by association fallacy either. The Bible can be true even if it causes nasty things is not related to this fallacy. Guilt by association is attacking an argument because of the views of the person making an argument, not the argument itself. Do I really have to explain your own definitions to you? Also I never said that something isn't true because of it's consequences. I just said that because of what the bible said, it can influence people to do terrible things. Learn your own fallacies. I want to convince people to discard religion because it makes people do terrible things. I don't think Christianity is incorrect because of it's affects on Earth. I think it's factually wrong and it makes people do terrible things. No fallacy here.


So you basically think that doing whatever your God says makes it okay just because he created you and you told you to? That is so messed up. What if your God told you to murder your friends? Would you do it if you got into heaven?


Your false analogy fallacy doesn't apply to me, all people who believe in God or everyone. Just because you believe God is above logic doesn't mean everyone does. The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't want to blindly follow a God that wants me to harm my fellow man, just so I can get into heaven. You can do that I suppose. I guess you can be a sheeple that does whatever it is told. If this is true for most religious people, this problem is a lot worse and a lot different than I thought. If you really truly want this as your world. I don't want any part of it, whether I believe in God or not. My original, "You bible humpers are literally retarded. Either kill yourselves, sterilize yourselves or don't have children in order to stop the collective intelligence of the human species lowering," was never an argument. I didn't really want to argue because it's so damn tiresome and ultimately pointless. I learned a lot from this. If this is the God you believe in, I never ever want a part in it. I don't care if I burn in hell.


My point was that why should I argue with evidence if you don't? I was never here to provide an argument with my original statement. You attacked my intelligence and asked for evidence. I obliged. I explained why the intelligence of the human race would be better off without people like you. I explained why science is beneficial and how it makes us more intelligent. I never set out to prove that God doesn't exist. You can find many physics and science textbooks on the subject. All you did was use the fallacy fallacy to attack my fallacies in my arguments, not the arguments itself. You never refuted my opinion with evidence, just fallacies. You did not give me proof that God exists. I do not believe the Bible exclusively proves the existence of the God you believe in. I gave you reasons why. You will not give me other evidence. Even if you do prove to me that your version of God exists, I will probably never worship him. I will be proud to call myself one of Satan's followers. I will fight against God if your version of him exists. You can pity me all you want, but I pity you. You are a slave. You want to go to heaven, where perfection is all there is, and that perfection will ruin your humanity, your individuality. I hope you're happy condoning horrible atrocities committed against your fellow man. I sincerely hope licking your God's boots is worth it for you. I weep for you. I weep for your children. I weep for humanity if this is what it's destined to become.


Lastly, I'm not responding to anymore fallacy arguments. It's getting super boring. You want to convince ME that your God exists, give me some evidence. Otherwise, I'll be over here with my Physics textbooks, learning about the wonders of the universe. I will continue believing that you are ignorant and unintelligent, and should not continue coexisting with humanity. Join your God in heaven, I'm sure we'll all be happier with you there. Humanity will progress in scientific discoveries without you, it'll be okay. And if your God does exist, I hope to hell that humanity finds a way to overcome the chains of its malevolent creator.


Cheers,
Allyson Rose Lien



PS You have reminded me why I never argue with religious people. It's agonizing and pointless like everyone says.


PSS Feel free to insult my intelligence for having a vagina. I'll be over here with the 140 IQ developing software to help Satan in the upcoming war. At least he appreciates me for who I am. Thanks for giving me all the information I need to tell me who to follow.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

Science is a factor in intelligence. Look it up. I mean do I really have to do this? Look at the human race. Look at what it has done through science. Look at the definition of intelligence. It is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. Science has given us so much knowledge. We know now how the human body works and we can apply that to saving people. We know how the solar system works, so we made calendars that predict certain events to a fair degree of accuracy. We've learned how to make combustion engines to carry us across large distances. I could go on. Electricity. Guns. Computers. We certainly have applied more knowledge and skills thanks to the scientific approach. I don't need data tables and articles to prove this, I can just use my eyes.

I have evidence that people have ignored scientific evidence. This thread is an example. People post links to articles, and they are ignored. I never said I specifically posted those articles, nor would I need to. See above.

Yes, you boast about not providing evidence and choosing your own observations over data. Why would we rely on your testimony over the Testimony of God? You start by making a claim that we are "literally retarded". Please, explain to me (I am included in the claim) how I am "literally retarded".

I said science is neither absolutely good or bad. It is not beneficial to all things on Earth, but in some ways, science can be beneficial to many things. Do I really have to ask everyone if science has benefited them? I am of the opinion that science can be beneficial to anyone and anything, given the right circumstances. I believe it is objectively beneficial because science is a process, not a thing. It can benefit anything depending on how it is done. I never claimed that science being objectively beneficial is evidence??? Is that the only part of the quote that you read? I give you why I think science is objectively beneficial. It lets you learn about the natural world. How exactly could this ever be interpreted as a negative thing? Again you're more concerned with fallacies of an argument than the argument itself.

Actually you never gave evidence (only your opinion) about science "being objectively beneficial". I am happy to see that you can see the issue in a wider context now. Next question: Why does "being a process" make science objectively beneficial? Are all processes beneficial (such as the heat death of the universe, or gangrene)? Becoming a Saved Christian is a process, too! We have the concept of "process theology" (there are references but you don't appreciate them so I'll provide them upon request). Is it objectively beneficial because it is a process? Or because it is not a thing? Are all things inherently not beneficial?

I did not create a straw man. You basically just supported my claim by stating that it is indeed translated from one language to another. I never mentioned what languages it was translated from. Seriously, stop using the fallacy fallacy as your argument, it is getting really old.

Actually, you stated that "...it is likely different from it's original meaning because of continuous translations from one language to another". Continuous translations indicate a chain of event. Repeated is perhaps what you were striving for. You need to repeat them because language changes while the original Hebrew and Greek don't.

Hearsay in this case is valid because in order for the information to be true to its original meaning, it needs to come from the original source, not copies produced by translation. Hearsay in this case means discrediting a source because it does not come from an original source. I don't think you understand what the argument of hearsay is.

How can you trust the original source? Do you know that our perception, memory, and comprehension are unreliable (references available upon request).

I don't think you understand guilt by association fallacy either. The Bible can be true even if it causes nasty things is not related to this fallacy. Guilt by association is attacking an argument because of the views of the person making an argument, not the argument itself.

Guilt by association is actually slander replacing evidence, associating the opponent to issues that are considered nasty, Nazism, genocide, abuse, etc. You did say that the Bible can make people do terrible things and in this very thread you've doubted the validity of the Bible. As I wrote, the ethics of a religion can be discussed but if you discuss them in the same post/thread that you mention it being false, you're making the association. Separate the validity from the ethics and then we're talking. We fully admit that the Bible is not nice and gentle. We can discuss that, too. We also take it as being True™. We can discuss that two. Separate the "factually wrong" from the "consequences" in a clear manner and we're talking.

So you basically think that doing whatever your God says makes it okay just because he created you and you told you to? That is so messed up. What if your God told you to murder your friends? Would you do it if you got into heaven?

This is a complex question (it is a fallacy). It includes the unproven premiss of God commanding something like that. This does not deserve an answer.

My original, "You bible humpers are literally retarded. Either kill yourselves, sterilize yourselves or don't have children in order to stop the collective intelligence of the human species lowering," was never an argument. I didn't really want to argue because it's so damn tiresome and ultimately pointless. I learned a lot from this. If this is the God you believe in, I never ever want a part in it. I don't care if I burn in hell.

Nor do I want to argue in the meaning of "fight". I thought about argument in the definition of "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory" was what what wanted to do, and my posts made it clear that I did not response to a "fight" but to the "set of reasons". I honestly thought that you came here with good intentions to discuss our point of view and that you would provide your point of view with your evidence (and not just opinions) to us. However, was that not your intention at all? You had pre-determined that discussion was useless so you just started with insults? What was your actual goal then if not to start a fight?

My point was that why should I argue with evidence if you don't? I was never here to provide an argument with my original statement. You attacked my intelligence and asked for evidence. I obliged.

You gave assertions and opinions but not evidence apart from that. An opinion is very weak evidence. A quick glance at a random thread on a forum not much more. You may take the Bible to be weak evidence, but you did not discuss the data about prophecies, etc. That is our evidence that is available, can be accessed and assessed. Please, assess it.

Did I attack your intelligence? How? I criticized your use of argumentation. I am fully aware that an intelligent person can use unjustified assertions and a "literal retard" (as you like to express it) can be taught to use flawless logic. Please, separate the content from the person, this includes obviously also yourself.

I explained why the intelligence of the human race would be better off without people like you. I explained why science is beneficial and how it makes us more intelligent.

You explained how you think about these issues. It was still personal testimony, not evidence. You niftily avoided the evidence by stating that you never meant to give references because we wouldn't read them anyway. It that is not poisoning the well, them I am a platypus (which is, obviously, possibly even if unlikely, and with ample observations it can be proven or falsified).

You did not give me proof that God exists. I do not believe the Bible exclusively proves the existence of the God you believe in. I gave you reasons why. You will not give me other evidence.

I did give you examples of Bible being in harmony with observational data. You are free to assess that.

Even if you do prove to me that your version of God exists, I will probably never worship him. I will be proud to call myself one of Satan's followers. I will fight against God if your version of him exists. You can pity me all you want, but I pity you. You are a slave. You want to go to heaven, where perfection is all there is, and that perfection will ruin your humanity, your individuality. I hope you're happy condoning horrible atrocities committed against your fellow man. I sincerely hope licking your God's boots is worth it for you. I weep for you. I weep for your children. I weep for humanity if this is what it's destined to become.

A slave can be right. A man licking boots can be right. Do you despise slaves and all those who are oppressed equally?

Lastly, I'm not responding to anymore fallacy arguments. It's getting super boring. You want to convince ME that your God exists, give me some evidence. Otherwise, I'll be over here with my Physics textbooks, learning about the wonders of the universe. I will continue believing that you are ignorant and unintelligent, and should not continue coexisting with humanity. Join your God in heaven, I'm sure we'll all be happier with you there. Humanity will progress in scientific discoveries without you, it'll be okay. And if your God does exist, I hope to hell that humanity finds a way to overcome the chains of its malevolent creator.
...
PSS Feel free to insult my intelligence for having a vagina. I'll be over here with the 140 IQ developing software to help Satan in the upcoming war. At least he appreciates me for who I am. Thanks for giving me all the information I need to tell me who to follow.

You're again referring to my character. You're also justifying your views with your IQ. You're repeating your claim that we are literally retarded and should not be allowed to continue living. Yes, I shall use a tu quoque as you apparently accept it as a valid argument. Let us see: I am retarded and unfit to live, I should "kill myself, sterilize myself and not have children" (your words), I accept horrible things and I am boring. You wrote a sentence there that you ought to study: "I hope you're happy condoning horrible atrocities committed against your fellow man."

Really? Which one of us is referring to the character of her interlocutor and directly claiming that he is unfit to live? My aim is to make you accept Jesus and enter Heaven with us. I do think (or at least I try to produce a thought but it may take a while due to my inferior cognitive capabilities) that you received more attention, goodwill, discussion and replies that your first post deserved.

Luke 6:31
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Now, does your sentence or Jesus give us more appropriate advice about treating our fellow men?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer


PS: What on Earth does your vagina have to do with your cognitive abilities? Are you misogynistic? Jesus isn't (Galatians 3:28).

[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

I'm done arguing with you people. It's clear you can't read. You're arguments are full of hypocrisy. I'm done trying to engage in an intelligent conversation. You are condescending. I provide evidence, you don't listen. I don't need to provide a study or website, when you could just look it up for yourself. Why would I waste my time if you're not going to read it? Why don't I think you will read it? This is because no one else on this thread read the evidence that was provided. You say you give evidence, I refute said evidence, and you continue with said refuted evidence. If you use the "creation is proof of God" I'm just going to ignore it because circular reasoning doesn't work. You don't understand the meaning of your own fallacies, you keep claiming a word means something it doesn't, without providing actual evidence for your definition of the word. (Sound familiar.) I even give you a definition of the word, and you're like "Nope. It actually means this." You don't even address the fallacy fallacy ever either. You cannot argue opinions with fallacies. I will provide one link, since you are unable to Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy I think you failed basic logic. (This is irrelevant, but this is extremely bad in my line of work) If you are too lazy to click that link, I will provide an example of the argument from fallacy. "<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If P, then Q.</span><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">P is a fallacious argument.</dd><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Therefore, Q is false.</span><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-size: 11.2px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">[6]</a>&nbsp;"</sup>Look up the word retarded, you fit the definition to a T. Your arguments are like that of a chat bot programmed by a freshman undergrad. You are indeed a platypus. (Yes, I'm insulting your character.) You prove my arguments with your counter-arguments???? What? The Bible is not in harmony with observational data. You are just wrong. (This is mentioned later. Keep track of this.) The slave can be right, I do not despise slaves or those that are oppressed. Don't you dare put words in my mouth. I despise the oppressor. Sure licking boots is great for self preservation, but if you sacrifice your honor, your morality, and commit crimes against your fellow man, you are a coward. You tell me to not use fallacies in my argument yet you do it. I'm not justifying my views with my IQ, I'm making a bloody joke. It went way over your head apparently. Same with the vagina joke. You have no self awareness at all. Have you looked at this thread? Have you looked at what the people have been posting, or are you just willfully ignorant? I was pointing out that so many people on this bloody thread are misogynistic. My IQ has nothing to do with my argument it has to do with the fact that the misogynistic pigs on here think of women as unintelligent breeding stock. The Bible is misogynistic. If you don't think that, you haven't read it. Me saying people here are retarded, unfit to live and shouldn't procreate are in no way equivalent to someone bragging about beating their wives and killing homosexuals in the name of God. I do not admit to violently assaulting someone. Nice try though. Your Bible is the worst thing when it comes to giving advice on treating your fellow man. Kill homosexuals, beat your wife, etc. I can admit that the Bible says some great things about this as well, unfortunately I see none of that on this thread. I was taught to love your neighbor. You're boring because you say the same stuff over and over like a broken record. Are you sure you're not a bot? You may want to get that checked out. Also thanks so much for giving my post attention, I really needed it to get me through my day. &nbsp;I'm that pathetic. I will never accept your version of God. If you read my previous post, you would know this. You would also know that I would rather burn in hell. Also, love the cherry picking. Great strategy. So popular. Much wow. Also I will say for the umpteenth that I provided plenty of observable evidence that you could look at if you at least tried. Also why should I be the one providing you with evidence if you're the one trying to convince me of something. Instead, you choose to argue with fallacies. Well, at least I didn't argue from someone's book that, you know, provides no actual historical evidence whatsoever. So many things in the Bible have been found to have no physical supporting evidence. (The great flood is an example.) You can research this on your own. Prophecies that come true in the same book are not prophecies at all, merely consequence of bad foreshadowing. Hm, this really seems like what I thought the responses would do. Thank you for contributing to my awesome ego and predictive skills. I mean I shouldn't be surprised considering your inferior cognitive abilities. *snort* I mean how could a mere peasant argue with the intelligence of a God. I love how you try to make me condescending with that "o<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: tahoma, verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">r at least I try to produce a thought but it may take a while due to my inferior cognitive capabilities," </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 14.6667px;"><font face="Verdana">poor me, she called me dumb, crap</font></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: tahoma, verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">. Way to victimize yourself. Your responses got way more attention than they deserved. Well, why did I respond even though I knew what the response would be? It's probably because I'm an irrational human being like everyone else. Maybe I wanted others to see this and laugh. Maybe I thought I could finally get through to someone, alas, I was wrong. Casual insults are much more fun, and less stressful. I know know why people don't even bother going passed them.&nbsp;</span><div><br></div><div>Also learn how to spell.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>I completely ignored your Bible quotes by the way, they are not proof or evidence for anything, they are just quotes from an ancient book that may or may have been written by an angry power hungry man in the sky.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>If you are actually a troll, I tip my hat to you. You have won the internet.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

[Elmer G. White]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

...Also why should I be the one providing you with evidence if you're the one trying to convince me of something...

You're the visitor who opened up her visit by insulting your host with assertions that were not backed up with data. We're not trying to convince you of God's Reality. Only Jesus can do that to an person who dares open her heart. We cannot convince you but we did try to teach you how to make your case against True Christians™ the best possible. We do enjoy the vanity of a challenge now and then, you know! You chose to dismiss it based on your preconceptions of religious people being retards. That is fine. You do have free will (Revelation 3:20)

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

You chose not to read the material provided, the Bible, and compare it with the observations. That makes it easy to dismiss claims. You're filled with anger. We've seen it many times. You want us to perish by our own hands of undergo self-mutilation in the form of producing eunuchs. We want you to feel Jesus's Love and be with us in Heaven. I still think it is possible but I can also see how James 5:16 would provide a more efficient strategy.

When you are ready to present your case in a calm and respectful manner, I can promise that we'll be here to help you along!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

That is what it is called "complete breakdown".If you don't recognize one, please check the part where he sends somebody to learn how to spell right after a spelling mistake.

[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

That's all you got?

I didn't dismiss you because I think religious people are retarded. I dismissed it because you didn't give me proper evidence to prove to me that God exists. How many times to I have to say that? Yet you constantly ask me to provide evidence of my claims. Why should I when you can't? So what if you're the "host?"


Wait. How can I make a case against you if all you do is refute every argument with fallacies. Did you even bother to read what an argument of fallacy is? Also I kept giving you definitions of words, and giving you data that you could observe with your eyes, but you kept ignoring it. I can't win with you people. Is that the whole point? That it's completely impossible to argue with you and get anything across.


I've read the Bible, I don't need you quoting verses for me. I can go and read sources by myself without having them pointed out to me, unlike you. You can't use everything that exists as evidence for God. It is a circular argument. Do you know what that means? Creations don't prove that God exist. There are so many other explanations for why things are here. We have scientific evidence. There doesn't have to be a God for things to exist. Go read a book other than the Bible. Don't ever say that our universe contains too much order to create life and planets. It doesn't, that's why we exist. Ever hear of antimatter? When the Earth began, there was antimatter and matter. Matter and antimatter annihilate each other, becoming vasts amount of energy. Luckily the universe wasn't perfect, and there was slightly more matter than antimatter. This is why we had matter to begin with. This comes from Stephen Hawking by the way. We have evidence of the Big Bang. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence. We have evidence of Entropy. This can also be called chaos in a way. The universe is expanding because of the Big Bang, so this chaos is increasing every moment. We exist because of the universe's chaos. The evidence you supposedly provided from verses have a lot of problems. The Bible is not consistent. It has many inconsistencies in it and you can find them on the web. You can't use the prophecies in the book either. Something written at one point in the book that comes true at another point in said book doesn't prove anything. Just because the Bible has some true historical things in it, doesn't make everything in it true. So what if archaeologists found evidence for one thing to be true in the Bible? One piece of evidence to the contrary could prove the Bible untrue. The verses in the Bible are pretty vague. They kind of explain scientific concepts, but not really. It's far more likely that you are thinking of scientific concepts and seeing certain Bible verses that sort of explain this. You are cherry picking verses in the Bible to "fit" them into modern scientific concepts. You're kind of affirming the consequent here. Just because these scientific concepts are true and the Bible vaguely describes them, does not mean the Bible is true.


Also, that was a grammar mistake, technically. Just saying since you all are so concerned with specifics. Here is an article that may or may not convince you. <<<potentially pornographic link removed by a helpful moderator>>>

[a.lyin'.kid]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

*I mean universe not Earth.

[Basilissa]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

That's all you got?

I didn't dismiss you because I think religious people are retarded. I dismissed it because you didn't give me proper evidence to prove to me that God exists. How many times to I have to say that?

Here's your evidence: the Holy Bible says He's real.

Wait. How can I make a case against you if all you do is refute every argument with fallacies.

That just means that your arguments were weak, sweetie.

Creations don't prove that God exist.

Sweetie, a "creation" is something that by definition has been "created," and something that was "created" by definition needs a "creator."

So... Would you care to try again?

Ever hear of antimatter? When the Earth began, there was antimatter and matter. Matter and antimatter annihilate each other, becoming vasts amount of energy. Luckily the universe wasn't perfect, and there was slightly more matter than antimatter. This is why we had matter to begin with. This comes from Stephen Hawking by the way.

So you do believe everything you see in a book, just not if that book is the Bible?

We have evidence of the Big Bang. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence. We have evidence of Entropy. This can also be called chaos in a way. The universe is expanding because of the Big Bang, so this chaos is increasing every moment.

Let me blow your mind: not every specialist agrees with the Big Bang theory. (Click on the image if it is too small to read).

You are cherry picking verses in the Bible to "fit" them into modern scientific concepts.

Prove it.

[SisterMarsha]

Re: THE TRUTH IS OUT - THE FEMALE ORGASM PROVEN TO BE MYTH !!!

I believe you are right Brother Percy. My Christian wife has never had one of these "orgasms", one time it took me three full minutes to produce a seed for Christ to sow, and still nothing!

💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦💦
That's why your wife gets on her knees to pray at my house