Poll: Which view is more reasonable?
Someone created something out of nothing
No one created something from nothing
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Arguments for God!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2010, 01:36 PM
 
RE: Arguments for God!
my answer is Z- Universe is nature!
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 01:50 PM
 
RE: Arguments for God!
(17-03-2010 08:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You know, I can't help but think that martinb59 came to this site with unrealistic expectations. He stated in his very first thread that he didn't believe that anyone was really an atheist, as the evidence in favor of his god was so obvious that anyone could see it. When it turned out that, hey, these people really don't believe, and we didn't take everything he said at face value, that overturned his belief that every believed deep down.
He came here expecting to win converts left and right, or at least to have his assertions taken at face value and then ignored. When we actually responded with valid objections, he wasn't prepared for them, and he got mad.
Ah, well. It was a good run while it lasted. Farewell, martinb59.

I keep getting the emails from threads I have posted on and emails that people have sent me. Let me explain the departure one more time. I didn't expect converts, I was expecting "Thinking Atheists", don't pat yourself on the back, being on this site only confirmed the blindness atheists have to the truth.

I was wasting my time writing responses to ridiculous, ignorant (look the word up) people and comments. Supermanlives last comment about prayer is a classic example of that. Prayer doesn't work, he comes up with some ridiculous 50% statistic, he has no idea what prayer is, says that it is an epic fail based on science. If you pray to God to give you a supermodel, in Ferrari, that likes gamers and Bill Nye, and if that doesn't happen you say that "prayer doesn't work, therefore God doesn't exist" you are right then, prayer doesn't work and God doesn't exist. Here's a tip that prayer won't work.

In the "fictitious" Bible he talks about there are many prayers that don't get answered, the way people wanted them to be answered. So why would you think that all prayers get answered if they don't get answered in the Bible? Here is a test, someone answer that in an intelligent way. I have already written a post on it.

His comment about the Bible being fiction ignorant. His comment about Simon Greenleaf is equally ignorant, he was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, he wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", is considered a classic of American jurisprudence, a book that is still used in classes today. He originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. Why would Greenleaf put his professional reputation on the line for a book of fiction? To ignore what the Smithsonian says about the Bible is foolishness also and burying your head in the sand.

What is lacking on this site is Intellectual honesty. I think I saw one comment where I thought that took place. How many times did I say on this site good points, well thought out etc. I even said modern day Christian Religion has nothing to with God. That is intellectual Honesty

Look it up it is all over the internet, that is where maturity comes in.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

I was I perfect in that? No, but I was way better than most on this site. Stop patting yourself on the back, between the intellectual dishonesty, and the ignorant posts and comments, I determined it was a waste of my time. People have emailed me privately and those discussions are going good, if anyone else wants to martinb59@cox.net.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 02:47 PM
 
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 01:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(17-03-2010 08:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You know, I can't help but think that martinb59 came to this site with unrealistic expectations. He stated in his very first thread that he didn't believe that anyone was really an atheist, as the evidence in favor of his god was so obvious that anyone could see it. When it turned out that, hey, these people really don't believe, and we didn't take everything he said at face value, that overturned his belief that every believed deep down.
He came here expecting to win converts left and right, or at least to have his assertions taken at face value and then ignored. When we actually responded with valid objections, he wasn't prepared for them, and he got mad.
Ah, well. It was a good run while it lasted. Farewell, martinb59.

I keep getting the emails from threads I have posted on and emails that people have sent me. Let me explain the departure one more time. I didn't expect converts, I was expecting "Thinking Atheists", don't pat yourself on the back, being on this site only confirmed the blindness atheists have to the truth.

I was wasting my time writing responses to ridiculous, ignorant (look the word up) people and comments. Supermanlives last comment about prayer is a classic example of that. Prayer doesn't work, he comes up with some ridiculous 50% statistic, he has no idea what prayer is, says that it is an epic fail based on science. If you pray to God to give you a supermodel, in Ferrari, that likes gamers and Bill Nye, and if that doesn't happen you say that "prayer doesn't work, therefore God doesn't exist" you are right then, prayer doesn't work and God doesn't exist. Here's a tip that prayer won't work.

In the "fictitious" Bible he talks about there are many prayers that don't get answered, the way people wanted them to be answered. So why would you think that all prayers get answered if they don't get answered in the Bible? Here is a test, someone answer that in an intelligent way. I have already written a post on it.

His comment about the Bible being fiction ignorant. His comment about Simon Greenleaf is equally ignorant, he was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, he wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", is considered a classic of American jurisprudence, a book that is still used in classes today. He originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. Why would Greenleaf put his professional reputation on the line for a book of fiction? To ignore what the Smithsonian says about the Bible is foolishness also and burying your head in the sand.

What is lacking on this site is Intellectual honesty. I think I saw one comment where I thought that took place. How many times did I say on this site good points, well thought out etc. I even said modern day Christian Religion has nothing to with God. That is intellectual Honesty

Look it up it is all over the internet, that is where maturity comes in.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

I was I perfect in that? No, but I was way better than most on this site. Stop patting yourself on the back, between the intellectual dishonesty, and the ignorant posts and comments, I determined it was a waste of my time. People have emailed me privately and those discussions are going good, if anyone else wants to martinb59@cox.net.

Read this study on the 'power of prayer'...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

If anyone wants to read the intellectual honesty that martin ripped off, here's the link...
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/1...honesty-4/

Wikipedia article on Intellectual Honesty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

"Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

- One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
- Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
- Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
- References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided"

Simon Greenleaf - "Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics." - from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

And, yes, he did also write "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence". Makes me wonder, though, if he was so big on evidence, would he have been a Christian apologetic knowing what we know today about science, evolution, etc?

You can believe whatever you want about the bible, martin. Read it with whatever rose coloured glasses you own. I have decided NOT to follow it, hence why I am an Atheist and you are not.

And, BTW, "I even said modern day Christian Religion has nothing to with God." Guess what? Modern day Christianity all stems FROM the belief in a god. Christianity establishes itself in the NT...but the NT stems from the OT. No OT...no NT. It's like how knowledge of advanced mathematics can only come about once you understand the basics.

The NT was written to abandon the old way thinking of the OT. Do you really think the NT would have been written if the OT didn't exist? You have to put the horse before the cart if you want to get to your destination, martin.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:03 PM
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 01:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(17-03-2010 08:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You know, I can't help but think that martinb59 came to this site with unrealistic expectations. He stated in his very first thread that he didn't believe that anyone was really an atheist, as the evidence in favor of his god was so obvious that anyone could see it. When it turned out that, hey, these people really don't believe, and we didn't take everything he said at face value, that overturned his belief that every believed deep down.
He came here expecting to win converts left and right, or at least to have his assertions taken at face value and then ignored. When we actually responded with valid objections, he wasn't prepared for them, and he got mad.
Ah, well. It was a good run while it lasted. Farewell, martinb59.

I keep getting the emails from threads I have posted on and emails that people have sent me. Let me explain the departure one more time. I didn't expect converts, I was expecting "Thinking Atheists"

No. You were expecting people who would accept your bull without question. That much is apparent from the threads you started.

Quote:I was wasting my time writing responses to ridiculous, ignorant (look the word up) people and comments. Supermanlives last comment about prayer is a classic example of that. Prayer doesn't work, he comes up with some ridiculous 50% statistic, he has no idea what prayer is, says that it is an epic fail based on science. If you pray to God to give you a supermodel, in Ferrari, that likes gamers and Bill Nye, and if that doesn't happen you say that "prayer doesn't work, therefore God doesn't exist" you are right then, prayer doesn't work and God doesn't exist. Here's a tip that prayer won't work.

In the "fictitious" Bible he talks about there are many prayers that don't get answered, the way people wanted them to be answered. So why would you think that all prayers get answered if they don't get answered in the Bible? Here is a test, someone answer that in an intelligent way. I have already written a post on it.

Okay. So there are three possible results to a prayer:

- Yes
- No
- Wait

Don't you see how mind-numbingly stupid that is?
If these are the three possible results to a prayer, there is absolutely no way to prove that prayer doesn't work, because you can always say that "no" or "wait" was the answer. So you need evidence that prayer gives you the "yes" answer every once in a while. If this is true, then prayer should beat the purely unbiased odds.
Take a coin flip. It should be heads 50% of the time. If you pray for heads and it comes up heads 75% of the time through repeated trials, that's strong evidence that prayer works. But if you pray for heads and it comes up heads 50% of the time, then there is absolutely no evidence in favor of prayer, as the same results were obtained as if no prayer had been done at all.
Once again, the burden of proof is on you. Conduct a study. Prove that prayer works. Otherwise you're simply babbling.

Quote:His comment about the Bible being fiction ignorant.

Actually, it was a very apt description, and this highlights what I said about your expectations. You come here and expect the Bible to matter in the discussion. Here's a hint: we're atheists. To us, the Bible really is in the same category as "Jack and the Beanstalk". If you want to prove that it isn't, then present your evidence. So far, you haven't done so, and the Bible remains squarely in the "fairy tale" slot.

Quote:His comment about Simon Greenleaf is equally ignorant

I don't know about Simon Greenleaf. This is between you and supermanlives.

Quote:To ignore what the Smithsonian says about the Bible is foolishness also and burying your head in the sand.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? This is the argument from authority fallacy. It doesn't matter what the Smithsonian says unless the Smithsonian has the evidence to back it up.

Quite a lot moved to the bickering thread, if anyone is interested.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:20 PM
 
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 02:47 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  
(18-03-2010 01:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(17-03-2010 08:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You know, I can't help but think that martinb59 came to this site with unrealistic expectations. He stated in his very first thread that he didn't believe that anyone was really an atheist, as the evidence in favor of his god was so obvious that anyone could see it. When it turned out that, hey, these people really don't believe, and we didn't take everything he said at face value, that overturned his belief that every believed deep down.
He came here expecting to win converts left and right, or at least to have his assertions taken at face value and then ignored. When we actually responded with valid objections, he wasn't prepared for them, and he got mad.
Ah, well. It was a good run while it lasted. Farewell, martinb59.

I keep getting the emails from threads I have posted on and emails that people have sent me. Let me explain the departure one more time. I didn't expect converts, I was expecting "Thinking Atheists", don't pat yourself on the back, being on this site only confirmed the blindness atheists have to the truth.

I was wasting my time writing responses to ridiculous, ignorant (look the word up) people and comments. Supermanlives last comment about prayer is a classic example of that. Prayer doesn't work, he comes up with some ridiculous 50% statistic, he has no idea what prayer is, says that it is an epic fail based on science. If you pray to God to give you a supermodel, in Ferrari, that likes gamers and Bill Nye, and if that doesn't happen you say that "prayer doesn't work, therefore God doesn't exist" you are right then, prayer doesn't work and God doesn't exist. Here's a tip that prayer won't work.

In the "fictitious" Bible he talks about there are many prayers that don't get answered, the way people wanted them to be answered. So why would you think that all prayers get answered if they don't get answered in the Bible? Here is a test, someone answer that in an intelligent way. I have already written a post on it.

His comment about the Bible being fiction ignorant. His comment about Simon Greenleaf is equally ignorant, he was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, he wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", is considered a classic of American jurisprudence, a book that is still used in classes today. He originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. Why would Greenleaf put his professional reputation on the line for a book of fiction? To ignore what the Smithsonian says about the Bible is foolishness also and burying your head in the sand.

What is lacking on this site is Intellectual honesty. I think I saw one comment where I thought that took place. How many times did I say on this site good points, well thought out etc. I even said modern day Christian Religion has nothing to with God. That is intellectual Honesty

Look it up it is all over the internet, that is where maturity comes in.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

I was I perfect in that? No, but I was way better than most on this site. Stop patting yourself on the back, between the intellectual dishonesty, and the ignorant posts and comments, I determined it was a waste of my time. People have emailed me privately and those discussions are going good, if anyone else wants to martinb59@cox.net.

Read this study on the 'power of prayer'...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

If anyone wants to read the intellectual honesty that martin ripped off, here's the link...
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/1...honesty-4/

Wikipedia article on Intellectual Honesty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

"Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

- One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
- Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
- Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
- References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided"

Simon Greenleaf - "Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics." - from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

And, yes, he did also write "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence". Makes me wonder, though, if he was so big on evidence, would he have been a Christian apologetic knowing what we know today about science, evolution, etc?

You can believe whatever you want about the bible, martin. Read it with whatever rose coloured glasses you own. I have decided NOT to follow it, hence why I am an Atheist and you are not.

And, BTW, "I even said modern day Christian Religion has nothing to with God." Guess what? Modern day Christianity all stems FROM the belief in a god. Christianity establishes itself in the NT...but the NT stems from the OT. No OT...no NT. It's like how knowledge of advanced mathematics can only come about once you understand the basics.

The NT was written to abandon the old way thinking of the OT. Do you really think the NT would have been written if the OT didn't exist? You have to put the horse before the cart if you want to get to your destination, martin.

Look genius...I said it was all over the internet, never claimed it was mine, also quit quoting wikipedia like it is the end all, do you even know what wikipedia is about, can you imagine any intellectual standing up in front of his peers and saying "according to wikipedia..." or "gentleman as proof that God does not exist I would like to show you this youtbue video made by a kid in his bedroom, he makes some good points" do a little more research than that, you are my main reason for thinking this is a waste of time my time.

Call it an ad hominem, but I don't think you are sharp enough to understand what I was saying about modern day Christianity and God. You have once again proven your ignorance of the Bible. So how can I have any sort of intelligent conversation with someone like that?
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:25 PM
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 03:20 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Call it an ad hominem, but I don't think you are sharp enough to understand what I was saying about modern day Christianity and God. You have once again proven your ignorance of the Bible. So how can I have any sort of intelligent conversation with someone like that?

By explaining what it is you mean.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:35 PM
 
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 03:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-03-2010 03:20 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Call it an ad hominem, but I don't think you are sharp enough to understand what I was saying about modern day Christianity and God. You have once again proven your ignorance of the Bible. So how can I have any sort of intelligent conversation with someone like that?

By explaining what it is you mean.

Tried many times, It's like teaching a pig to sing all it does is annoy the farmer and frustrate the pig. And no supermanlives that is not my quote, so save your wikipedia search. Unbeliever, you know this site how do I unsubscribe, I don't want to get anymore emails, or host if your reading kick me off please.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:43 PM
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 03:35 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Unbeliever, you know this site how do I unsubscribe

*shrugs*

I have no idea. I haven't unsubscribed from anything here, as I didn't subscribe in the first place, and I'm not familiar with this forum software. Sorry.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:44 PM
RE: Arguments for God!
(18-03-2010 03:35 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Tried many times, It's like teaching a pig to sing all it does is annoy the farmer and frustrate the pig. And no supermanlives that is not my quote, so save your wikipedia search. Unbeliever, you know this site how do I unsubscribe, I don't want to get anymore emails, or host if your reading kick me off please.

Not that I have any harsh feelings towards you Martin, but the constant bickering is getting tiresome.

Towards the top of the page, right user "User Form", you should have a little account thing(Welcome back, Martinb59. You last visited: Whenever). Click "User CP". In the right menu, there should be "Subscribed Threads". Go there to unsubscribe.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2010, 03:45 PM
RE: Arguments for God!
Scratch that, I found it.

Go to your User Control Panel. On the list of tools should be one thing titled "Subscribed Threads". Click it, then click Remove All Subscriptions.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: