Intelligence Debate > Creation/Evolution poll xD

[Asa]

Okay. robomantis, jmac27, OGIGA, I'll start off the first post where we left off on.

 

[AFK]

I want to know the forgiving love of Jesus.

What the heck? I NEVER posted this (along with others). Who is editing my posts???

 

[AFK]

Bob, a villager of a small village in Ghana says to Jill, "I think AFK lives in America."Jill replies, "If you can't prove that, AFK does not live in America."

Bob helplessly states, "Look, I have no money. I have no computer to go to. I can't use a telephone. How can I ever find out?"

Jill concludes, "Okay then. Problem solved. Our default conclusion, then, is that AFK does not live in America."

never did i use the logical fallacy of negative proof, e.g. "If you can't prove that, AFK does not live in America."

thus, this is a false analogy.

I assert that Jill's conclusion that you don't live in America is "affirmative."

this assertion commits 3 logical fallacies:

1. false analogy (see above)

2. negative proof (see above)

3. straw man (NEVER did i even talk about affirmative statements. you're confusing affirmative statements with positive statements)

 

[AFK]

that doesn't show anything other than people disagreeing with me. some people just simply become so emotionally and personally invested in a belief that if it gets challenged, they feel threatened/insulted. i think that's what's happening to you, hence you obsessively following me around. i'd appreciate it if you stop it and get over it. it's becoming a little annoying.

Listen to yourself for once. You yourself even said that your approach may have been emotional. When you think you are beginning to threaten or insult somebody's beliefs, that's when you should focus on respect. Apparently, you miserably failed at that so instead of talking to you like a Mr. Nice Guy, I'm just treating you the way you treat others. That's the only way you've influenced me so far. Thank you.

what is your point? if you want to annoy me by stalking me, that's your choice of how you want to spend you time.

 

[AFK]

dictionary.comeither way, even your preferred dictionary shows multiple definitions. it still stands that you referring to a different definition (with your dictionary, it would be definition 2b1) proves/disproves nothing.

Is there a problem with multiple definitions? Aren't you the one who gave "faith" a single definition?

Dictionary.com gave multiple definitions and from different sources. I normally wouldn't put such a long segment of text in a forum post, but for the sake of being extra verbose, here it is:

14 results for: faithDictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

—Idiom

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

[Origin: 1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

Faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

a female given name.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key

n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fidēs; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source

faith

c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

WordNet - Cite This Source

faith

noun

1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion]

2. complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

3. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion]

4. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms - Cite This Source

faith

see act of faith; in bad (good) faith; leap of faith; on faith; pin one's hopes (faith) on.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.

Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source

faith1 [feiθ] noun

trust or belief

Example: She had faith in her ability.

Arabic: ثِقَه

Chinese (Simplified): 信任

Chinese (Traditional): 信任

Czech: důvěra

Danish: tillid; tiltro

Dutch: vertrouwen

Estonian: usk

Finnish: usko, luottamus

French: confiance

German: das Vertrauen

Greek: πίστη, εμπιστοσύνη

Hungarian: bizalom

Icelandic: trú; traust

Indonesian: keyakinan

Italian: fiducia

Japanese: 信頼

Korean: 믿음, 신뢰

Latvian: ticība; paļāvība

Lithuanian: (pasi)tikėjimas

Norwegian: tillit, (til)tro

Polish: wiara

Portuguese (Brazil): confiança

Portuguese (Portugal): fé

Romanian: încredere

Russian: вера

Slovak: dôvera

Slovenian: zaupanje

Spanish: confianza

Swedish: tro, tillit

Turkish: güven

faith2 [feiθ] noun

religious belief

Example: Years of hardship had not caused him to lose his faith.

Arabic: إيمـان

Chinese (Simplified): 信仰

Chinese (Traditional): 信仰

Czech: víra

Danish: tro; religion

Dutch: geloof

Estonian: usk, usund

Finnish: usko

French: foi

German: der Glaube

Greek: πίστη

Hungarian: hit

Icelandic: (guðs)trú

Indonesian: iman

Italian: fede

Japanese: 信仰

Korean: 신앙, 믿음

Latvian: ticība

Lithuanian: tikėjimas

Norwegian: tro(sretning), religion

Polish: wiara

Portuguese (Brazil): fé

Portuguese (Portugal): fé

Romanian: credinţă

Russian: вера

Slovak: viera

Slovenian: vera

Spanish: fe

Swedish: tro

Turkish: inanç

faith3 [feiθ] noun

loyalty to one's promise

Example: to keep/break faith with someone

Arabic: وَعْد، إخْلاص، ثِقَه

Chinese (Simplified): 信义

Chinese (Traditional): 信義

Czech: slovo

Danish: troskab

Dutch: erewoord

Estonian: ustavus

Finnish: lupaus

French: parole

German: das Versprechen

Greek: τήρηση υπόσχεσης

Hungarian: ígéret

Icelandic: tryggð, trúnaður

Indonesian: kepercayaan

Italian: parola

Japanese: 誓約

Korean: 성실, 충성

Latvian: uzticība; solījums

Lithuanian: ištikimybė

Norwegian: troskap

Polish: słowność

Portuguese (Brazil): fidelidade

Portuguese (Portugal): promessa

Romanian: cuvânt

Russian: обещание

Slovak: dodržanie slova

Slovenian: obljuba

Spanish: palabra

Swedish: förtroende

Turkish: sözüne sadık kalma

See also: faithful, in (all) good faith, Yours faithfully

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source

Main Entry: faith

Function: noun

1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH

2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

U.S. Gazetteer - Cite This Source

Faith, SD (city, FIPS 20980) Location: 45.02588 N, 102.03643 W

Population (1990): 548 (249 housing units)

Area: 3.2 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)

Zip code(s): 57626

Faith, NC (town, FIPS 22600) Location: 35.58806 N, 80.46123 W

Population (1990): 553 (234 housing units)

Area: 1.9 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)

U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source

Faith

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Acronym Finder - Cite This Source

FAITH

FAITH: in Acronym Finder

Acronym Finder, © 1988-2007 Mountain Data Systems

In the all English definitions, the only definition with anything close to rationality says

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Now, if this is really the dictionary that you used, can you explain to everybody how you came up with your single definition?

faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.

you are trying to disagree with basic debate procedure. most words in the english language have multiple meanings. in order to go forward in any discussion, the context and syntax gives clues as to which meaning is prescribed. the text that you are arguing against is me defining which definition of "faith" i am using. thus, you are saying that i am not allowed to clarify which definition of a word i can use. this is at the least silly, not to mention self-contradictory.

this commits 2 logical fallacies:

1. arguing semantics (which is a junior high tactic, analogous to changing the topic/creating a red herring)

2. contradiction

 

[AFK]

wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm

it's a negative. end of argument.

This is getting more and more fun. Thank you for demonstrating that you can't understand what you read (assuming you read what you recommend others to read). I just read what you showed us all and it supports your logic, halfway. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you skimmed too fast and skipped this part:

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise or that it is false unless proven otherwise.

Now I'm interested in seeing if you'll discredit Sagan or modify your logic (I'm dreaming).

Again, let me repeat: Claiming that something does not exist is also an affirmative claim. Like you said, AFK, the burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you don't want to listen to me, you can listen to Sagan or yourself. Deal?

i don't care if something is an affirmative claim. it still stands as a negative statement.

this commits the following logical fallacy:

1. straw man

 

[AFK]

what constitutes a negative and positive statement is fundamental logic and philosophy. you refusing to accept the foundations of philosophy tells me that the socratic method does not work on you, thus you are unfit for logical discussion.

Here you going again with that. I didn't study philosophy, but if you're arguing what you call "fundamental logic and philosophy" by Socrates, then I will have to disagree with both of you. Sorry, I deny your verdict on whether or not somebody is fit for logical discussion.

If you don't think a negative statement is [sometimes] affirmative, then I'll say that you are unfit for logical discussion. Thank you very much.

i never made any claims regarding affirmative statements.

considering the countless logical fallacies i've pointed out and the number of times you prematurely cry "victory" over straw man arguments (even if straw man arguments are effective propaganda tools used by lying, unethical politicians), it's very clear you do not understand logic enough to have a logical discussion.

 

[AFK]

When you guys eventually figure out that our God is true don't say i didn't warn you. I tried everything in my power to get you to beleave God will eventually prove himself!

When you guys eventually figure out that there is no God, don't say we didn't warn you. At that point, you will realize you've wasted your life on a lie and did not direct your time, money, and energy towards more beneficial things in life.

Nice try with Pascal's Wager though!

 

[AFK]

Darwinism is based on the fact that little bits add up, right? Well consider the fact that evolutionary text writers and journalists made up ridicuous statements and false evidence for Darwin. Christians have also made these mistakes, such as the case in new radical ideas. Such as the earth revolving around the sun. As assertion is not baseless than mercy and justice are also not baseless. Using your example of the Loch Ness monster. There has been multiple videos made on the subject, claiming they saw it. People can choose to believe this or not, no matter how strong the evidence. Convinced they are right, people ignore however strong the evidence is, so they can be comfortable in their delusion of immortality. But the truth is, people die. I know I will be prepared. One of my jobs as a Christian is, through peaceful means, let others be too.

i wasn't talking the loch ness monster. i was talking about the specific line of reasoning.

 

[Sparky]

How is it God??? God didnt exist until we did... Humans are god... hek, WE MADE GOD!!!

Jesus wasn't god until we said so.

Buddah wasn't god until we said so.

Anything can be god, ITS UP TO US!!!

I can say that little rock is god because it fell from the sky when someone

actually just kicked it to me.

 

[AFK]

and to attack those that do believe in God.

this is a discussion forum, not to mention that this thread is specifically titled as a DEBATE, so i'm just starting a discussion/debate. granted, i may have injected some emotion into my approach, but i genuinely feel that way - that it's a social problem, but again, i'm focusing on another topic at the moment, i.e. whether creationism or god exists. if my emotions offends, i don't think it's that difficult to ignore.

Whether you think your statement was offensive or not, I could've told you that it would offend a Christian. I think you could've presented your argument in a better fashion.

i think we're all mature enough to not overreact to inevitable emotions. we're all mature enough to be able to accept criticism.

AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us.

as i said above, my approach may have been emotional, but it's not really that overbearing that it needs to become melodramatic. also, i don't think anyone will associate all non-believers being the same as me.

I don't think they would treat you with so much hostility if you didn't label them as having a mental disorder for having a faith. People believe these things for many reasons. You need to consider that. Although I'm sure a lot of people just blindly follow religions out of fear or just shear ignorance, there are those that have an empirical stance on religion, arguing that it's illogical that God doesn't exist.

i was not exaggerating when i said that religion is a mental disorder. i truly believe it is. i don't know why people get so defensive about that. we all have mental disorders of varying degrees. my point is that religion is NOT benign, and it's definitely NOT beneficial (except for a few outstanding cases, but i'm speaking very generally here). religion fosters irrationality, fanaticism, etc. we have people playing planes into buildings and people fighting wars over religion. it's disgusting, and for the same reason that religious people preach to others because they think they are helping, i'm urging people to examine their faiths rationally. i feel they aren't thinking rationally (it's called "compartmentalization" - they might try to think rationally in most areas of life, but when it comes to religion, they don't want to or they block rationale out).

You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.

exactly. there is just simply no logical reason to believe (i dare anyone to bring up pascal's wager lol). and no, fear is not a logical reason.

also, the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative.

I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in exactly the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy.

sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. just become something is "strange" doesn't mean it's false. also, things are ONLY "strange" because we are not accustomed to the newness of a seemingly radical idea/discovery, e.g. just 100 years ago, jets would be stranger than fiction. i think what happens is that people often think more by their emotions than by rationality. people of power; e.g. governments, the media, corporations, etc.; are aware of this human weakness and capitalize on it by creating propaganda, political campaigns that focus more on sensationalism rather than facts, commercials that persuade emotionally, etc. etc. etc. if we want a chance, we have to rise above this and stop being so intellectually lazy/dishonest.

I don't think it's false because it's "strange," I just said it sounds crazy. I don't deny the possibility that science could be completely right. I have many radical ideas and thoughts that you and creationists both would disagree with. They're just ideas, though, not beliefs.

Science is full of assumptions and theory that many scientists base a lot of their work around. For example, many scientists believe that evolution is really how we got here although it's never been proven. Look, science holds slightly more value to me than religion because science has led to results that I can see and experience. I just personally think there are no absolute truths, be it science or not. There are endless possibilities and I just choose not to believe any one of them. And I agree with your stance much more than a creationist's stance, by the way. I just don't follow that one path as what I take as true. I consider and speculate on everything. You are far less close-minded than some of those arguing in favor of Christianity on this forum.

this sounds like being selective with what you want to believe. as for the epistemological question of how do we know something is true: things are reasonable to believe when there is good evidence. this truism, of course, requires self-honesty to work.

 

[AFK]

How is it God??? God didnt exist until we did... Humans are god... hek, WE MADE GOD!!!Jesus wasn't god until we said so.

Buddah wasn't god until we said so.

Anything can be god, ITS UP TO US!!!

I can say that little rock is god because it fell from the sky when someone

actually just kicked it to me.

in my original terms of engagement, i wanted to only respond to arguments. i'm compelled, however, to make a proactive statement here now (in concordance with your post, sparky):i think attributing things to god is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic. if something isn't understood, it must be magic; thus it is of god. it sounds and FEELS good because it SEEMS so convenient. (over)simplification is a psychological coping mechanism.

 

[Asa]

I moved these discussions over to another post, could you post them there please? Thanks .

Unfortunately AFK, It seems it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You are being offending, any logical person could see that. I am not easily offended and do not mind as much, but other people do. To tell the truth, I don't think by acting like you are, you will gain any atheistic following. You are being disruptive and in all conceivable manner, rude. I apologize to anyone who thinks this sounds harsh, but it is regretfully true. I think it's time this topic became locked, so we can move on to more friendly peaceful discussions, that have a meaning, rather to carry on a futile banter. No true philosopher can consider mistreating others to get his opinion made.

 

[AFK]

does it look like i'm concerned about popularity here?

i'm only concerned about speaking the truth. from the looks of it, no amount of tact will make the truth palatable, but palatability does not = respect.

i'm concise and laconic because i trust the reader to be intelligent enough to not require flowery tactful disclaimers.

 

[Sparky]

in my original terms of engagement, i wanted to only respond to arguments. i'm compelled, however, to make a proactive statement here now (in concordance with your post, sparky):i think attributing things to god is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic. if something isn't understood, it must be magic; thus it is of god. it sounds and FEELS good because it SEEMS so convenient. (over)simplification is a psychological coping mechanism.

Im not going to offend you in any way.. so im just going to say that a few people think a force of something powerful just created everything. Its so magical, we refer it to "god"

Of course, i don't believe in any of this.

 

[Asa]

does it look like i'm concerned about popularity here?i'm only concerned about speaking the truth. from the looks of it, no amount of tact will make the truth palatable, but palatability does not = respect.

i'm concise and laconic because i trust the reader to be intelligent enough to not require flowery tactful disclaimers.

Concise and laconic is not the word for it, if you truly do not care about tact. By constantly insulting people, it doesn't seem to me, you think they are very intelligent. This has become a mindless debate that will only result in loss of good will. I bear you no grudge.

 

[AFK]

i don't hold you any grudge too, but i don't think disproving someone is necessarily an insult...unless the recipient chooses to interpret it as such. i think that's what it means by "not taking it so personally." some people just simply aren't capable of a debate without feeling like they are personally attacked, and as i've said before, if one is unfit for debate, then that's fine...just don't pretend you are and dive right in.

p.s. a concise and laconic message is considered clinical as opposed to tactful. the former is conducive to and aims for logical resolution. the latter is conducive and aims for emotional resolution (regardless if a logical resolution is reached). both are effective forms of communication...at the right place and time.

Do you think you can argue the love of Jesus into me? When I stand before him on the Last Day I'll simpy explain to him that he doesn't really exist.

 

[Orin]

AFK- If I spent the time to explain where you're logic is in error would that really make a difference? If I explained to a hamburger how it should taste would it make it wamer or have more mustard? I think if you read the gospels that might change your heart.

 

[robo mantis]

Buy a bible and read it. Also on judgement day you will be trembling and you won't have a smart mouth.

 

[Asa]

i don't hold you any grudge too, but i don't think disproving someone is necessarily an insult...unless the recipient chooses to interpret it as such. i think that's what it means by "not taking it so personally." some people just simply aren't capable of a debate without feeling like they are personally attacked, and as i've said before, if one is unfit for debate, then that's fine...just don't pretend you are and dive right in.p.s. a concise and laconic message is considered clinical as opposed to tactful. the former is conducive to and aims for logical resolution. the latter is conducive and aims for emotional resolution (regardless if a logical resolution is reached). both are effective forms of communication...at the right place and time.

Do you think you can argue the love of Jesus into me? When I stand before him on the Last Day I'll simpy explain to him that he doesn't really exist.

What do you truly think will happen on the last day? Nothing?