Can you explain why we now have technology at our fingertips that wasn't even in theory 150 years ago?
Why are non believers so vile and vulgar...
- Thread starter Jakeleg Jake
- Start date
Yes, science, not magic. Did you imagine that would stump us?
You did say that. Maybe unwittingly, but that's why I'm here to point out when you say you want Gods 10 laws to rule, you are calling for a theocracy.
Ummmm...advancements? The better question - if technology is some gift from God - is why He waited so long to bestow His blessings upon us. Why didn't Noah have AccuWeather?
So not many are law...despite your earlier assertion. And 9 is law in some circumstances.
Is this a theory with some support? What are the details? What are you pointing to as the divine catalyst?
It's not that way with all religious people, it's people like you. Sanctimonious blow-hards tend to reap a shit-storm on the internet when they tell non-religious people that they're going to hell.
You can walk it back, but you can't deny typing it. You called for the 10 commandments to be law. That's calling for a theocracy. You're lucky they aren't law as you would be in violation of one right now.
My faith says you will...I'm sorry for you but it is cut and dried...there is hope for you however.
Buddy, you can't just pick one of the four definitions and tell me that "it's clear."
Sure I can, I know the topic and was clueing you into which definition fit best to describe a religious belief. If you understood the topic you wouldn't need the help.
In my whole life, I have never seen someone so ignorant, be so smug. It really brings a smile to my face, to see you struggle so much.
You can cherry pick whatever you want, and be smug about it...and maybe Ciggy will even give you a like for it, but you know, I know, and everyone else with half a brain knows how ignorant/retarded you are. That's why I love "debating" with you. Your ridiculous obfuscation is always an easy win.
Oh honey we never debate. I just school you and point out your ignorance. But we agree, you are easy.
It did, thank you. You gave me a set of definitions where the 4th was a noun. You compared atheists (a noun) with gnostics. Therefore taking the noun definition is the correct choice. You should be embarrassed both for not understanding your own point about what a gnostic is and for not understanding how to use a dictionary. But I suspect that explanation will simply confuse you more and you will call it vague.
Natural, the silly man-like God that so many worship is, IMO, allegorical. Proving the nonexitence of this God is the beginning of a journey of faith, not the end of it. That's my personal bitch with atheists.
Also simply saying that our world conforms to the laws of science does not demystify life. Where did the laws of science originate? Why are we here? How does a srewed up species like man survive? I'm in awe of everything I see.
I like this. Atheism isn't an end point either. Atheism is a search for understanding. That's why I talk about it so much. Sometimes people will say something interesting like you have here. Theists are forever misrepresenting atheism. Atheists do not claim to know or believe there is no god in any definitive way. We only claim there is no reason to believe that there is a god of the sort commonly presented. This atheist would welcome a good theist proof, but thus far theists haven't provided me one. This atheist would welcome some other explanation fully acknowledging that I may not understand what it might be. But Atheism is not an answer, its a rejection of a certain set of answers commonly given.
Great post - I like the last part. Just in - "Take Carolina and give the points" - God.
I think Bill Clinton removed # 6 and # 10 by executive order, if I remember right.
