10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
Then prove the existence of the supernatural, win a million $ from JRef and the Nobel prize
on top of that otherwise can it.
If you can't prove it you can't know it.
If you believe in the supernatural without proof then you are assuming it exists and that
definitely makes an ASS out of U.
Ditto for your belief in god and everything else you believe contrary to all the evidence.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_of_the_supernatural.html
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHinds“...They are so-called assumptions because you call them that. ...”
I did not admit I made any assumptions when I referred to so-called assumptions. They are so-called assumptions because you call them that.
You are the one that calls truth and fact assumptions and assumptions truth and fact. You got it backwards.
they ARE assumptions. There is no evidence that there is a god etc.
Originally posted by RJHindsBoth links say the usual stupid crap that religious morons like yourself give out: no 'evidence' there to see -Just the usual load of crap from morons like yourself who demonstrated they do not understand logic nor scientific method. I am not going to bother to iterate through it to explain the many stupidities within those links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI_0nh7Tg10
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_of_the_supernatural.html
This is consistent with the proven fact that theists having, on average, have a lower IQ than that of atheists -the more extremist the theist, the more stupid he is likely to be ( and not to mention the more dangerous ) .
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by divegeesterFunny you should mention that! Dasa spelt backwards means lion in arabic
I take it you assume your "Lord" created the animals; why do you think he gave the big cats (for example) a carnivorous instinct to prey on and eat other animals?
dont kill animals!
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyLet me have a go, then. I'll use exactly the same premise as you've been using, just to be fair. For the sake of argument, as you like to say, if you were to lose your Christian faith, would there then be a risk that you might start eating mentally disabled children?
Reframing my questions to try and make them sound absurd is not a response to my question FMF.
10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo, but it might mean that I would start to devalue them and even begin advocating their extermination before being born like a Fabian socialist might.
Let me have a go, then. I'll use exactly the same premise as you've been using, just to be fair. For the sake of argument, as you like to say, if you were to lose your Christian faith, would there then be a risk that you might start eating mentally disabled children?
11 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo when you bear in mind the vast number of people who are not Christians like you, how do you explain the fact that they are not eating mentally disabled people?
No, but it might mean that I would start to devalue them and even begin advocating their extermination before being born like a Fabian socialist might.
11 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwAt least FMF has more gonads that googlefudge. For you see, googleman just mocks you for your position without providing and substanative debate and then refuses to engage in any dialogue whatsoever. He acts as scared as Clinton on judgement day.
Seriously FMF, did I have to tune into this debate to read THAT!
It's just too immature. Really.
😲
Originally posted by josephwYou're being rather unfair, as - if you read the thread - you will find that it is whodey, and not me, who has introduced the non-Christians "eating mentally disabled people" example/analogy, and not me. I have simply tackled him and his premise on the terms he set.
Seriously FMF, did I have to tune into this debate to read THAT!
It's just too immature. Really.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI think another thing accomplished here has been a pretty clear glimpse of how fragile and misanthropic your own moral compass is.
If nothing else has been accomplished on this thread, I dare say that some 146 posts on a thread Dasa started may be a record.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am purposely not quoting the eternal Vedas because no one here accepts the Vedas as authority...........but they readily accept the recently fabricated animal killers doctrine instead due to a dishonest heart.
Is the reason you are afraid to quote the Vedas on important matters is because
you are the only one that is defending your point of view of what they say?
The flesh eaters have a diseased mind and heart and cannot bring themselves to embrace honesty.
I have given a list of errors and falsities from the Christian doctrine may times and no one has any care for hearing the truth.
This is the utterly poor state of affairs with Islam Christianity and Judaism, that they stand and defend falsity to the death.
It is a very sad state of affairs for defenders of these false religions.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by DasaYou are using the word "false" here as if it were an objective claim about word it describes. As far as I am concerned, your religion is no more or less false than Islam and Christianity. Now, this statement by me is subjective, as are claims about religions you do not happen to subscribe to. If you could differentiate between objective statements and subjective statements, then your advocacy for your religion might be a little more effective.
It is a very sad state of affairs for defenders of these false religions.