ForumGarden

Bryn Mawr;1343818 wrote: Excuse me but that's my line - you are the one refusing to answer my questions.


On know, I have answered your questions, your have not answered mine.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343817 wrote: No, Atheist are Atheist. Those who are not, but not believers in God can be many things, and I am not placing those things in catagorys.

Peace.Am I an Atheist, Mickiel?

Ahso!;1343821 wrote: Am I an Atheist, Mickiel?


You talk like one. You think like one, you react like one.

That is as much as I know.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343819 wrote: Anything created in a labortory is a mutation in my view. Your scraping.

Peace.


Ask any tobacco grower, TMV has been around for generations - it's natural, not created in a lab. You give biologists too much credit.

God in Job 41:11;" Whatever is under the whole Heaven is Mine!" Including Atheist as well as Theist, we all belong to God. Well that is enough on Atheism, now I want to go into Infinte Regression as proof of God.

Peace.

Bryn Mawr;1343825 wrote: Ask any tobacco grower, TMV has been around for generations - it's natural, not created in a lab. You give biologists too much credit.




I never said it was created in a lab, its a disease, which has no effect on humans. It cannot develop into human or animal life. I do not accept mutations or disease as support for life.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343819 wrote: Anything created in a labortory is a mutation in my view. Your scraping.

Peace.


Mickiel;1343828 wrote: I never said it was created in a lab, its a disease, which has no effect on humans. It cannot develop into human or animal life. I do not accept mutations or disease as support for life.

Peace.


Now I am having difficulty understanding your posts :-3

Given that approximately half of all type of living organisms are diseases (I'm being kind here, more than 99% of all living organisms are bacteria, diseases) then you are cutting down the range of life you are prepared to discuss to an extreme extent.

If I were prepared to exclude as great a percentage of possible examples as that I could prove anything in the world I want to.

Bryn Mawr;1343829 wrote: Now I am having difficulty understanding your posts :-3

Given that approximately half of all type of living organisms are diseases (I'm being kind here, more than 99% of all living organisms are bacteria, diseases) then you are cutting down the range of life you are prepared to discuss to an extreme extent.

If I were prepared to exclude as great a percentage of possible examples as that I could prove anything in the world I want to.




Yet none of those diseases or bactria produced animal or human life. Ever! And never will.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343819 wrote: Anything created in a labortory is a mutation in my view. Your scraping.

Peace.


Mickiel;1343831 wrote: Yet none of those diseases or bactria produced animal or human life. Ever! And never will.

Peace.


Life is life. If you wish to discuss the boundary between the animate and inanimate then it is of no purpose restricting yourself to human or animal, the crossing point comes at either the bacterial or the viral level.

Bryn Mawr;1343833 wrote: Life is life. If you wish to discuss the boundary between the animate and inanimate then it is of no purpose restricting yourself to human or animal, the crossing point comes at either the bacterial or the viral level.




There is no crossing point, there is no boundry, that is Atheist anticipation and quessing, thoughtless theory. We are not continous with the idiot idealogy of viral or bacteria evolving into humans. Human life is not based on viral experiments or lab bacteria. The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to be through natural means, and you have swallowed this hook line and sinker. Those same laws provide very credible evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural being, as I have shown. Atheism violates these basic laws of science. Atheism not only requires a tremendous amount of faith, but also a belief in miracles. And not only miracles, but natural miracles, an oxymoron. Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in, is one of the two most important choices you will ever make.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343834 wrote: There is no crossing point, there is no boundry, that is Atheist anticipation and quessing, thoughtless theory. We are not continous with the idiot idealogy of viral or bacteria evolving into humans. Human life is not based on viral experiments or lab bacteria. The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to be through natural means, and you have swallowed this hook line and sinker. Those same laws provide very credible evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural being, as I have shown. Atheism violates these basic laws of science. Atheism not only requires a tremendous amount of faith, but also a belief in miracles. And not only miracles, but natural miracles, an oxymoron. Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in, is one of the two most important choices you will ever make.

Peace.


What are you saying here? I do not understand what you are trying to put across!

At some point there is a crossover between that which is alive and that which is not - to me, that point is one side or the other of viruses purely because it is demonstrable that a bacteria is a form of life but it is debatable whether a virus is.

I have not suggested that human life is based on a viral experiment or lab bacteria but I would like you to quote those laws of science that prove the physical living world could not come to be through natural means - I know of no such laws.

You have shown no laws that prove the existence of a supernatural being, you have advanced arguments that have convinced you, personally, that such a being exists. These arguments are not universal and still need to be proven.

I am not atheist, I am agnostic, and until your arguments are proven, agnosticism requires no faith, it only requires doubt and reasonable doubt exists.

Bryn Mawr;1343837 wrote: What are you saying here? I do not understand what you are trying to put across!

At some point there is a crossover between that which is alive and that which is not - to me, that point is one side or the other of viruses purely because it is demonstrable that a bacteria is a form of life but it is debatable whether a virus is.

I have not suggested that human life is based on a viral experiment or lab bacteria but I would like you to quote those laws of science that prove the physical living world could not come to be through natural means - I know of no such laws.

You have shown no laws that prove the existence of a supernatural being, you have advanced arguments that have convinced you, personally, that such a being exists. These arguments are not universal and still need to be proven.

I am not atheist, I am agnostic, and until your arguments are proven, agnosticism requires no faith, it only requires doubt and reasonable doubt exists.




Gladly, the Law of Biogenesis, Life can only come from Life. The Laws of Conversation, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, which leads to only one conclusion; Creation. We are here, so we had to be created. These laws are universal, so are the arguements, and their only results. You are an Agnostic who reasons like an Atheist. Who talks like an Atheist. Who thinks like an Atheist. Come out of the closet.

Peace.

Mickiel, you keep referring to god as "he", what makes you believe god has a gender?

Ahso!;1343847 wrote: Mickiel, you keep referring to god as "he", what makes you believe god has a gender?


I don't believe God has a gender, and have NEVER said as such. I believe God is a Spirit, neither male or female, just not human. I use he because the bible uses he.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343848 wrote: I don't believe God has a gender, and have NEVER said as such. I believe God is a Spirit, neither male or female, just not human. I use he because the bible uses he.

Peace.Jesus referred to god as his father, didn't he? Also god impregnated Mary, right, so god must be a male. Otherwise anything goes as far as sex is concerned, right?

Mickiel;1343717 wrote: You didnot read my post correctly, common in Atheist. I didnot say God was building himself up, I said he was building humanity, using his unique ways to bring about growth in us. If your going to listen, then listen. Don't insinuate things and points I have not made.

Peace.


O.K I am pretty sure you were making common ground to Athiest being the thing building up in humanity which is gods opposition which is what weightlifters need when they lift weights is opposition/resistance if your saying god needs to build something up to have more resistance, as a weight lifter needs to add more weight/resistance. This to me points to the fact that God needs to get stronger so he makes his/her/its opposition stronger and again if god needs to geed stronger than god is not this perfect super powerful omni-presence god has become know to be. Though I dont need to insinuate anything about any of the points you are trying to make as I have yet to see a validated, and reasonable point your in any of your post besides the point of "If I spam enough what I say will be true no matter how little sense it makes". Either that or your point is that no person should be trying to understand what someone/thing that is perfect/all-powerful and omipotent is planning about anything as no person will ever be close to having enough perspective from that position to be able to make a "this is what I would do" opinion.

Ahso!;1343849 wrote: Jesus referred to god as his father, didn't he? Also god impregnated Mary, right, so god must be a male. Otherwise anything goes as far as sex is concerned, right?




As you search to find fault, I cannot stop your zeal to do so. No spamadazoa entered Mary, Christ was placed into her womb by God. There are no males or females in heaven. God being the Father, simply means he is the head of his family and creations.

Peace.

littleCJelkton;1343852 wrote: O.K I am pretty sure you were making common ground to Athiest being the thing building up in humanity which is gods opposition which is what weightlifters need when they lift weights is opposition/resistance if your saying god needs to build something up to have more resistance, as a weight lifter needs to add more weight/resistance. This to me points to the fact that God needs to get stronger so he makes his/her/its opposition stronger and again if god needs to geed stronger than god is not this perfect super powerful omni-presence god has become know to be. Though I dont need to insinuate anything about any of the points you are trying to make as I have yet to see a validated, and reasonable point your in any of your post besides the point of "If I spam enough what I say will be true no matter how little sense it makes". Either that or your point is that no person should be trying to understand what someone/thing that is perfect/all-powerful and omipotent is planning about anything as no person will ever be close to having enough perspective from that position to be able to make a "this is what I would do" opinion.




No, humanity needs to get stronger, humanity needs to be built up, thats what God is doing, and its what I clearly said. You, like Asho, are trying to find some kind of fault or weakness in my arguement, there is none, so you must fabricate it. A famiular tactic of the desperate, and I understand that. I cannot reason with the unreasonable, my post are simply not for you.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343859 wrote: No spamadazoa entered Mary, Christ was placed into her womb by God.Show me where the bible specifies that godly sperm was not used to impregnate Mary.

Ahso!;1343867 wrote: Show me where the bible specifies that godly sperm was not used to impregnate Mary.


Its in Matthews 1:20, latter part of verse. The angel told Joseph that the child in Mary was put there by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didnot have sex with her, it placed Jesus, into her womb. God has no sperm, sperm is physical, human, God is not human.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343868 wrote: Its in Matthews 1:20, latter part of verse. The angel told Joseph that the child in Mary was put there by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didnot have sex with her, it placed Jesus, into her womb. God has no sperm, sperm is physical, human, God is not human.

Peace.Not good enough. God is the holy spirit. Show me where it explicitly states no sperm was used.

God used sperm - and I want to go into that! :wah:

Ahso!;1343869 wrote: Not good enough. God is the holy spirit. Show me where it explicitly states no sperm was used.

God used sperm - and I want to go into that! :wah:


The term " Godly Sperm", is contridiction within itself. Sperm is physical, God is not physical, and the Holy Spirit is not physical. Jesus was reduced to a physical seed by Gods power, that seed was placed into Marys womb. That verse I gave is sufficent, just not for you. Jesus was not conceived by human spamodazoa, nor some kind of weird " Spiritual Sperm as you suggest." Thats one of the things that made Jesus so different, he was not conceived by humans, but by Gods Power. Its what made him sinless.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343872 wrote: The term " Godly Sperm", is contridiction within itself. Sperm is physical, God is not physical, and the Holy Spirit is not physical. Jesus was reduced to a physical seed by Gods power, that seed was placed into Marys womb. That verse I gave is sufficent, just not for you. Jesus was not conceived by human spamodazoa, nor some kind of weird " Spiritual Sperm as you suggest." Thats one of the things that made Jesus so different, he was not conceived by humans, but by Gods Power. Its what made him sinless.

Peace.I like to think my sperm is godly. And all my children were born sinless, too.

But you have an even bigger problem when it comes to this. If you cannot show me where Mary consented to this beforehand then I say by todays standards god raped Mary. And not only did god rape Mary, he also used a date rape drug on her to cause her to fall asleep before he did his deed.

What I'd really like to know though is whether or not that "angel" whom Mary awoke to find in her room was smoking a cigarette.

Mickiel;1343861 wrote: No, humanity needs to get stronger, humanity needs to be built up, thats what God is doing, and its what I clearly said. You, like Asho, are trying to find some kind of fault or weakness in my arguement, there is none, so you must fabricate it. A famiular tactic of the desperate, and I understand that. I cannot reason with the unreasonable, my post are simply not for you.

Peace.


Obviously in your replies to myself, Ahso, RC and others on this thread you find that if your contradict your self and say "that is not what I meant I meant that" to every argument made against whatever point you are trying to make you will somehow make it a truth. By dodging a weaving you are just proving more and more to everybody that reads this thread, alot of what is posted on this thread is nonsense. Your problem by the way is not bein able to reason with the unreasonalbe its being unable to be unreasonable with the those who are reasoned.

Mickiel;1343841 wrote: Gladly, the Law of Biogenesis, Life can only come from Life. The Laws of Conversation, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, which leads to only one conclusion; Creation. We are here, so we had to be created. These laws are universal, so are the arguements, and their only results. You are an Agnostic who reasons like an Atheist. Who talks like an Atheist. Who thinks like an Atheist. Come out of the closet.

Peace.


Who formulated the "Law of Biogenesis" and, more importantly, who proved it and how? You cannot quote what you want to prove, call it a law and expect people to consider it proven.

The laws of conservation of mass and energy say nothing about living systems. The reason I'm taking exception to your "logic" is nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God, it is not a matter of Atheism but of science and the abuse of reasoning. If you put together what purports to be a logical argument and it is full of logical fallacies then having them pointed out is a matter of logic and reasoning, not of religion.

recovering conservative;1343410 wrote: There is no such thing as free will. We do not have souls that extend beyond our bodies and live on after we die, and there is not one property of mind that cannot be correlated with physical brain function. The mind is what the brain does. And since our mental properties are created by the complex interactions of a physical brain -- none of our actions can be free of that physical, causal chain of events. So every choice we make, and action we perform, is constrained by physical factors of genetics, environment, and whatever the capabilities of our brains happening to have for reasoning, and making informed decisions. Most believers in this sort of excuse for divine judgment, make exceptions for people who are mentally ill or mentally deficient, because they may not even be able to make simple rational decisions. Yet somehow, the same people will believe that the rest of us who function at a somewhat higher level, can be judged on the basis of whether they accept or believe one of thousands of different, competing claims to have The One True Path To Salvation. In the end, it's a pressure tactic used to substitute the emotions of fear, when logic fails to be convincing.


We are much much more than just our brains. Just mush that totally disintegrates when our physical body dies. It is what leaves the body at that point, even in it's most minute form, that I am most interested in. That is what Unifies all of Creation. That is what makes you truly who you are.

If you don't believe you have Free Will, than I can not help you in that area. But I can tell you that you are mincing words when you use the word decision and Free-Will. The right to decide. The right to make a decision. Nothing can stop you from having the right to make a decision. That is the gift given to you from God. Perhaps they can take away the ability to act upon your decision, but they can not take away your right to make it (This process takes place outside of the Individual). In other words, the point that comes before you knowing of the ability to make a decision and then you making one. That is the point that is untouchable. Even by God Itself. It's (Gods) always been that way. Even God can not interfere with It's own ability to have Free Will. Even if It wanted to. It is a part of what It is. This does not mean that God is not perfect, what it means is that the existence for the allowance of Free-Will is a part of that perfection. I have said before that even the Source of all of Creation has some limitations. But not when it comes to It's ability of Free-Will (the ability to have the right to have the ability to choose). The same goes for you.

There are no true limitations to the word Free. Not in it's true sense and definition. Free means FREE. Free from all restrictions. If something has even one restriction, than it isn't and shouldn't be called 100% Free. At least in my opinion. Therefore, it would be wise to say that God is restricted only By Itself, and also the same is with you. What do I mean by this? Could God destroy Itself if It wanted to? No. Not entirely. Not in It's essence. It's Core. Could you do the same? No. You cannot destroy what is Eternal. You can not remove what is removal. Since God is everything, It can not be found when focused upon (because the act of focusing is also a part of it - and you can not focus vision upon the act of focusing). You can not and will not ever be "in front of" or "around" or "within view" of the True Source. This is why you will never see the Godhead. But you can only be a part of It. To know that you are One with It. You are either looking through It's eyes or you don't get to see what It sees. And it doesn't see like we Humans see. It sees in the way that EVERYTHING sees. And It does so all at once.To become a part of the Godhead means to give up your individuality. A price few have been willing to pay. And of course the unconditional Loving God never requires one to do so. Not one of us on this forum has reached that level of true selflessness. To give up our individual existence. To give up our consciousness of being separate yet same from our Creator. Otherwise we wouldn't be here (on this planet), doing what we are doing. Experiencing from our own personal viewpoint. It would be something else entirely. And by "It" I do mean God.

Bryn Mawr;1343884 wrote: Who formulated the "Law of Biogenesis" and, more importantly, who proved it and how? You cannot quote what you want to prove, call it a law and expect people to consider it proven.

The laws of conservation of mass and energy say nothing about living systems. The reason I'm taking exception to your "logic" is nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God, it is not a matter of Atheism but of science and the abuse of reasoning. If you put together what purports to be a logical argument and it is full of logical fallacies then having them pointed out is a matter of logic and reasoning, not of religion.




Come out of the closet, your an Atheist.

Peace.

littleCJelkton;1343876 wrote: Obviously in your replies to myself, Ahso, RC and others on this thread you find that if your contradict your self and say "that is not what I meant I meant that" to every argument made against whatever point you are trying to make you will somehow make it a truth. By dodging a weaving you are just proving more and more to everybody that reads this thread, alot of what is posted on this thread is nonsense. Your problem by the way is not bein able to reason with the unreasonalbe its being unable to be unreasonable with the those who are reasoned.


I have NEVER written in this thread" Thats not what I meant to say", I never dodge or weave, these are false accusations comming from a man whos belief system has been pounded on, and your crying about it, trying to use deceptive ways to defend yourself. You have not presented reason in your rebuttal, you present only false accusations and trickery, because thats all you got.

Peace.

Ahso!;1343874 wrote: I like to think my sperm is godly. And all my children were born sinless, too.

But you have an even bigger problem when it comes to this. If you cannot show me where Mary consented to this beforehand then I say by todays standards god raped Mary. And not only did god rape Mary, he also used a date rape drug on her to cause her to fall asleep before he did his deed.

What I'd really like to know though is whether or not that "angel" whom Mary awoke to find in her room was smoking a cigarette.




I will no longer respond to you in this thread. All you are using is sarcasm, senseless induendo and outrageous suggestion, none of which I am interested in. To result to such tactics to defend yourself, shows a lack of mature debate. When your backed into a corner, always use strong reason, not immature suggestion.

Good fortune on your journey.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343826 wrote: God in Job 41:11;" Whatever is under the whole Heaven is Mine!" Including Atheist as well as Theist, we all belong to God. Well that is enough on Atheism, now I want to go into Infinte Regression as proof of God.

Peace.


One may ask where did life first come from? From an explosion in space, well where did space come from? What caused the explosion? Where did the dynamics of the explosion come from? If it came from God, where did God come from? To avoid infinte regression, one must turn to an orgin of eternal existence which had no beginning. Only God can stop infinite regression, all other things must have a beginning, except God.

Infinte regression then is proof of God.

Peace.

The Rainbow is proof of God, everytime you see one in the sky, that is personal evidence of God. In Genesis 9:12-15 God makes a covenant with all of humanity never to destroy the earth with water again. A stunning proof of God that all can see with their own eyes.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343906 wrote: The Rainbow is proof of God, everytime you see one in the sky, that is personal evidence of God. In Genesis 9:12-15 God makes a covenant with all of humanity never to destroy the earth with water again. A stunning proof of God that all can see with their own eyes.

Peace.


If you can see it all it means that there is a rainbow. It may not actually exist and you are seeing things that are not there. In either case it does not prove that god exists. You choose to believe it is a sign of god it is not proof to anyone except you. Demanding people accept your proof is not exactly using strong reason as you suggest everyone else should do.

When your backed into a corner, always use strong reason, not immature suggestion.




How do yo suggest we reason with someone that does not put reasoned argument but merely makes statements and expects everybody to accept them.

gmc;1343909 wrote: If you can see it all it means that there is a rainbow. It may not actually exist and you are seeing things that are not there. In either case it does not prove that god exists. You choose to believe it is a sign of god it is not proof to anyone except you. Demanding people accept your proof is not exactly using strong reason as you suggest everyone else should do.



How do yo suggest we reason with someone that does not put reasoned argument but merely makes statements and expects everybody to accept them.




Again, a superficious defense and rebuttal with deception added. I have " NOWHERE" in this post demanded that people accept my proof, that is a purely false accusation, but its what you and others here choose to resort to. But I understand, you cannot use reason, or you may begin to see what I am showing. And I do not " Expect" anyone to accept my reasoning, another false accusation.

Come on with some reasonable rebuttal, if you can.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343904 wrote: I will no longer respond to you in this thread. All you are using is sarcasm, senseless induendo and outrageous suggestion, none of which I am interested in. To result to such tactics to defend yourself, shows a lack of mature debate. When your backed into a corner, always use strong reason, not immature suggestion.

Good fortune on your journey.

Peace.Rather than getting all sanctimonious on me, Mick, try dealing with the scriptures. Show me where Mary agreed beforehand to carry gods baby. If you can't do that... lets say your wife come home and says to you, "hi honey, I'm pregnant", and you, knowing you and her haven't had sex yet respond with, "how could this have happened, we haven't had sex yet." To which your wife says, "well, its gods baby and I was as surprised as you because he did it after knocking me out, I didn't have a choice, but I am happy it happened." If that's not rape, its a lying spouse, Mick.

Mickiel;1343906 wrote: The Rainbow is proof of God, everytime you see one in the sky, that is personal evidence of God. In Genesis 9:12-15 God makes a covenant with all of humanity never to destroy the earth with water again. A stunning proof of God that all can see with their own eyes.

Peace.A rainbow is proof of water vapors, Mick, nothing more.

The seal of King Jothams signet ring was found by archaeologist when the Red Sea port city of " Ezion-geber" was excavated. This is the only seal yet discovered of Israels kings. Also discovered was the seal of " Shema, servant of Jeroboam." 1Kings 21:1-16. Stunning finds they continue to prove that biblical characthers were real and not myths.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343900 wrote: I have NEVER written in this thread" Thats not what I meant to say", I never dodge or weave, these are false accusations comming from a man whos belief system has been pounded on, and your crying about it, trying to use deceptive ways to defend yourself. You have not presented reason in your rebuttal, you present only false accusations and trickery, because thats all you got.

Peace.


Again you make it so appearent in the way you try to circumvent what you are obviously are doing. Worse of all in your rebutal you try to acuse me and others on here for doing exactly whay your doing. I dont reason with you because it is obviously pointless to reason with you. I do back up my rebutal by using the facts "this thread" and despite what you say, how loud you say it, or how many times you post. Others who read this thread and use reason and make sensable descisions, instead of just accept whatever is said and dont think for themselves, they will see your obviously an ranting zealot not a reasonable holy man.

littleCJelkton;1343921 wrote: Again you make it so appearent in the way you try to circumvent what you are obviously are doing. Worse of all in your rebutal you try to acuse me and others on here for doing exactly whay your doing. I dont reason with you because it is obviously pointless to reason with you. I do back up my rebutal by using the facts "this thread" and despite what you say, how loud you say it, or how many times you post. Others who read this thread and use reason and make sensable descisions, instead of just accept whatever is said and dont think for themselves, they will see your obviously an ranting zealot not a reasonable holy man.




I am not a Holy man, and have NEVER claimed to be one. I am a sinner in need of his God, and I have not progressed beyond that. You don't reason with me because thats your style of debate, to be unreasonable and to falsely accuse and belittle those who oppose you. I do not rant, I provide the reasons as to why I believe, and I have provided many, and you have refuted none.

And you have provided no reasons as to why you believe what you do. Debate with you has been all too easy, you simply have nothing of worth to offer.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343910 wrote: Again, a superficious defense and rebuttal with deception added. I have " NOWHERE" in this post demanded that people accept my proof, that is a purely false accusation, but its what you and others here choose to resort to. But I understand, you cannot use reason, or you may begin to see what I am showing. And I do not " Expect" anyone to accept my reasoning, another false accusation.

Come on with some reasonable rebuttal, if you can.

Peace.


You are not giving any reasons that make any sense. A rainbow is proof of god's existence why? pretend for a moment there is no bible. How would it prove the existence of god?

gmc;1343926 wrote: You are not giving any reasons that make any sense. A rainbow is proof of god's existence why? pretend for a moment there is no bible. How would it prove the existence of god?


It doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense to me.

I don't want to pretend, this is not a childish matter, its for real. The bible is for real. Take your pretense to those who play your game. God created the Rainbow as a sign and a covenant with us on earth. Its absolute proof of him.

And theres nothing you or anyone can do about that. The Rainbow cannot be eliminated, it cannot be discontinued because of lack of belief in how it came to be and why.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343924 wrote: I am not a Holy man, and have NEVER claimed to be one. I am a sinner in need of his God, and I have not progressed beyond that. You don't reason with me because thats your style of debate, to be unreasonable and to falsely accuse and belittle those who oppose you. I do not rant, I provide the reasons as to why I believe, and I have provided many, and you have refuted none.

And you have provided no reasons as to why you believe what you do. Debate with you has been all too easy, you simply have nothing of worth to offer.

Peace.


I guess debating is easy for you or anyone who does not want to make much sense. As you dont do much debating at all just continue to post your constant spaming with out proof of your connections to how any of these things you have gotten in to prove existence of god, nor have you given irefutable proof there is good. Though your spaming does provide proof people will blndly be lead to be so involved with certian beliefs that they will begin to accept opinions and falsehoods as facts.

Mickiel;1343899 wrote: Come out of the closet, your an Atheist.

Peace.


I cannot be that, I have no proof that God does not exist - neither do I have any interest in finding one because I do not believe that the case can be proven either way. What I do have is a love of logical, well formulated reasoning. That, and answers to reasonable questions rather than deflections into irrelevance.

Bryn Mawr;1343933 wrote: I cannot be that, I have no proof that God does not exist - neither do I have any interest in finding one because I do not believe that the case can be proven either way. What I do have is a love of logical, well formulated reasoning. That, and answers to reasonable questions rather than deflections into irrelevance.




Your an Atheist in my view, in Agnostic clothing. Your questions are the same as Atheist, your answers are the same as Atheist, your temperment matches that of Atheist, your view of God is just like Atheist, your defense is that of an Atheist.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck. Your label is that of nuetrality, but your heart is that of an Atheist.

Peace.

littleCJelkton;1343931 wrote: I guess debating is easy for you or anyone who does not want to make much sense. As you dont do much debating at all just continue to post your constant spaming with out proof of your connections to how any of these things you have gotten in to prove existence of god, nor have you given irefutable proof there is good. Though your spaming does provide proof people will blndly be lead to be so involved with certian beliefs that they will begin to accept opinions and falsehoods as facts.




Stop all that blabbering and refute my proofs. There are 87 proofs I listed, start with any of them.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343938 wrote: Your an Atheist in my view, in Agnostic clothing. Your questions are the same as Atheist, your answers are the same as Atheist, your temperment matches that of Atheist, your view of God is just like Atheist, your defense is that of an Atheist.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck. Your label is that of nuetrality, but your heart is that of an Atheist.

Peace.


And your answer to the question is?

Are atheists bad people, Mickie?

Bryn Mawr;1343940 wrote: And your answer to the question is?




You answer my questions.

Peace.

Mickiel;1343943 wrote: You answer my questions.

Peace.


Ok, let's swap, one for one.

Start with the question you've been dodging :-

Who formulated the "Law of Biogenesis" and, more importantly, who proved it and how?

Now, what's your question?

The biblical city of " Tell Dothan" mentioned twice in the bible, Gen. 37:17, 2Kings 6: 13-17, has been found It is close to other biblical citys found, such as " Megiddo and Samaria." With the bible in hand, its comparatively easy for Archaeologist to locate these sites, because the bible is an exact historical roadmap.

Peace.

Bryn Mawr;1343945 wrote: Ok, let's swap, one for one.

Start with the question you've been dodging :-

Who formulated the "Law of Biogenesis" and, more importantly, who proved it and how?

Now, what's your question?




Post #237 has my unanswered question.

Peace.