Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 07:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I say that is not a debate resolution. My preference for organized debates is to oppose experienced debaters.

Ones who expound the virtues of the Kalam cosmological argument, presumably.

"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
27-08-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 07:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Like most Jews, Christians and Muslims, I believe in one, not three or more gods.

I said Chas is horologically challenged. You seem to be dictionary challenged. How much did you have to drink when you wrote your response to me?

Roger Penrose may offer an alternatively theory of reality but has to overcome our classical understandings of energy, entropy and conservation to explain an infinite series of bangs or a finite series of bangs--same as you.

I asked for a definition of "God", not Jusus Christ, you dishonest person, you.
The Jews used to believe in many deities, including the Jews who wrote the Bible.
You are hardly one to tell Dr. Penrose anything about anything, you gigantic jerk. He has books and videos and lectures that explain everything in detail. As opposed to your pamphlets you peddle about your Jebus cult.

Beg pardon, sir. I was responding to Mark's request to debate Jesus Christ. Can you actually type "Jesus Christ"? I'm sure doing so would please Jesus. Drinking Beverage

Why do you ask for a definition of God? Are you an ignostic and require a definition you can work from? Rolleyes

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 11:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 07:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I say that is not a debate resolution. My preference for organized debates is to oppose experienced debaters.

Ones who expound the virtues of the Kalam cosmological argument, presumably.

I hardly am a proponent of the argument. I would rather simply point out the logical, self-defeating propositions most atheists assume, like "One cannot disprove a negative" even though the statement itself is expressed as a negative.

You have to trust in the cross to lose your sin. You have to trust in canards and leaps of logic to become a "true" skeptic.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 07:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 06:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wow. So you're not a Christian. They believe in the Trinity. Jebus is not (alone) "the only god". Jebus is not Yahweh. And here I thought you believed in the OT. Weeping

No one asked you for the definition of Jesus Christ. Liar. You do have a way of rearranging reality.

Roger Penrose, and other cosmologists propose that there were an infinite series of bangs and re-bangs. What happened/happens apart from this universe is unknown. There is no "consensus" derived from the Big Bang, that indicates there is any scientific opinion about what came before this universe.

Chas is not whorologically challenged. How dare you, sir.

Like most Jews, Christians and Muslims, I believe in one, not three or more gods.

I said Chas is horologically challenged.

And you are wrong.

Quote:You seem to be dictionary challenged.

And you are wrong.

Quote:How much did you have to drink when you wrote your response to me?

You are humor-challenged.

Quote:Roger Penrose may offer an alternatively theory of reality but has to overcome our classical understandings of energy, entropy and conservation to explain an infinite series of bangs or a finite series of bangs--same as you.

No. You do not understand those concepts; you are unqualified to make statements of fact in those areas, or science in general.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-08-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You have to trust in the cross to lose your sin. You have to trust in canards and leaps of logic to become a "true" skeptic.

How the fuck would you know? Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-08-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 11:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ones who expound the virtues of the Kalam cosmological argument, presumably.

I hardly am a proponent of the argument. I would rather simply point out the logical, self-defeating propositions most atheists assume, like "One cannot disprove a negative" even though the statement itself is expressed as a negative.

You have to trust in the cross to lose your sin. You have to trust in canards and leaps of logic to become a "true" skeptic.

Hi Q,

Personally, I have never had a bone to pick with you. To me, you are a typical theist whose belief system is indeed consistent with what has come down to us from the history of Christianity. You are normal in that respect.

Now in regards to "You cannot prove a negative," it is true regardless if you are a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, or anything. It isn't an atheistic attribute, you see. It is just the normal logical process each of all share.

The reason we cannot prove a negative is because there is nothing observable in existence to prove in regards to the existence of God. With "negative" meaning "nothing," there is nothing observable to prove. So that's why we cannot prove a negative, and why you get faced with "The burden of proof is upon he who makes the positive claim of existence."

However, since we cannot prove a negative due to the lack of any observable physical evidence of the entity in regards to God, we can however use demonstrable evidence to indicate non existence.

Would you be open to exploring this method?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
27-08-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You have to trust in the cross to lose your sin.

Do you realize how silly this sounds to non-Christians?

"You have to trust in the gallows..."
"You have to trust in the axe..."
"You have to trust in the firing squad..."
"You have to trust in the electric chair..."
etc.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
27-08-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
To lose your sin huh? Ya mean the sin that can't be detected but that the Christees claim we need saving from. That shit?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-08-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 07:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 03:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I'm here to discuss Jesus Christ, and we can start by defining Him as the only God."

"I think they were rather afraid of the debate itself."

Ok, Q, let's go to the boxing ring to "discuss Jesus Christ." Waddya say?

I say that is not a debate resolution. My preference for organized debates is to oppose experienced debaters.

Oh. So my debating skills don't match yours? Mmmmm. You wrote

"I'm surprised atheists here avoided entering the Boxing Ring with me ...I think they were rather afraid of the debate itself."

I say you're a gutless wind-bag.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
27-08-2015, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 06:28 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(27-08-2015 02:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I hardly am a proponent of the argument. I would rather simply point out the logical, self-defeating propositions most atheists assume, like "One cannot disprove a negative" even though the statement itself is expressed as a negative.

You have to trust in the cross to lose your sin. You have to trust in canards and leaps of logic to become a "true" skeptic.

Hi Q,

Personally, I have never had a bone to pick with you. To me, you are a typical theist whose belief system is indeed consistent with what has come down to us from the history of Christianity. You are normal in that respect.

Now in regards to "You cannot prove a negative," it is true regardless if you are a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, or anything. It isn't an atheistic attribute, you see. It is just the normal logical process each of all share.

The reason we cannot prove a negative is because there is nothing observable in existence to prove in regards to the existence of God. With "negative" meaning "nothing," there is nothing observable to prove. So that's why we cannot prove a negative, and why you get faced with "The burden of proof is upon he who makes the positive claim of existence."

However, since we cannot prove a negative due to the lack of any observable physical evidence of the entity in regards to God, we can however use demonstrable evidence to indicate non existence.

Would you be open to exploring this method?

Nice try. You're the 7th person to explain this to him, and some have tried a few times. Yet he still doesn't get it. I take my hat off to you for your persistence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: