|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 5:36:19 GMT
Fortunately for Quran School, they don't care about lack of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 7:22:14 GMT
Fortunately for Quran School, they don't care about lack of interest.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 8:38:42 GMT
Fortunately for Quran School, they don't care about lack of interest. Here's mikef6's song after the Christians have been wiped off the face of the earth:
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 10:00:13 GMT
Here's mikef6's song after the Christians have been wiped off the face of the earth: How is this Mike's fault if the parents don't want their kids to be taught Sunday school...I wouldn't trust my kids to some church worker...not that I have any kids. Maybe more folks will become a free-range Christian like yourself. I dearly hope so. It's a limited-time introductory offer. And if the atheists are right and you go nowhere when you die, you're not out anything.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 10:04:09 GMT
"It won't be Christianity, but it will retain elements of Christianity" could describe any number of loopy New Ager belief systems current and past. Surely Erjen isn't supporting those ? Frankly, I think a lot folks are tired of the bullshit coming from pulpits and realize they don't need these preachers or magicians to believe in God or love Jesus. Churches don't even teach their doctrine properly anymore. They preach whatever new novel idea like prosperity gospel or keep pushing right wing politics rather than Jesus' lovingkindness. You know that stuff is mostly coming from Freemason preachers, don't you? That's why beloved King James and his lodge brothers took the Book of Maccabees out. They don't want people reading it and realizing that all this Third Temple crap happened about 2300 years ago. They want Christians to think it's happening now.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 10:12:25 GMT
I dearly hope so. It's a limited-time introductory offer. And if the atheists are right and you go nowhere when you die, you're not out anything. I have no idea what will happen to my soul/spirt/whatever after I die, and neither do you, but Paul Slaff and the brain that thunk up every single one of his thoughts is going six feet into the earth. If you're right, I'm out absolutely nothing. If I'm right, you've got a little explaining to do for all that you have done in this life.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 10:40:22 GMT
If you're right, I'm out absolutely nothing. If I'm right, you've got a little explaining to do for all that you have done in this life. Good thing I've read the Bible so I know all the loopholes. You're going to claim you didn't know any better when God knows full well that you did? I wouldn't try that one if I were you....but then....I'm not you. It's bad enough being me without being you. At least I'm trying to be better, and you're not. biblehub.com/luke/12-47.htm
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 10:53:11 GMT
You're going to claim you didn't know any better when God knows full well that you did? I wouldn't try that one if I were you....but then....I'm not you. It's bad enough being me without being you. At least I'm trying to be better, and you're not. biblehub.com/luke/12-47.htmFor one thing, God didn't dictate the Bible word for word to anybody and nowhere does it say inside the pages that he did. If there's a god, I daresay he's nothing like he's depicted in the Old Testament. That guy is an asshole. You can tell Him when you see Him.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 1, 2020 11:48:17 GMT
If you're right, I'm out absolutely nothing. If I'm right, you've got a little explaining to do for all that you have done in this life. Good thing I've read the Bible so I know all the loopholes. I'm always amused by the Xtian believer's double-bind on their god: a totally loving and forgiving being of complete kindness and mercy, but yet a ruthless 'spank-daddy' to whom one is going to have to explain one's minutest actions after death (of course said believing Xtian never really believes he's going to have to explain anything; he'll be ushered through the pearly gates pronto. It's the people whom the believer disapproves of who'll get the post-mortem third degree). If said god already knows and has predetermined all of this, then why the need? If he's all-loving and all-forgiving, there's no point to it, and if he's not and is going to be vindictive to the sinful, it seems more likely he'd simply send them on to perdition without benefit of the accused getting a hearing since said god already knows all of the wrongs the sinner has committed. It's just another example of the really childish manner inculcated into the majority of Xtians towards viewing their deity. One of the things that turned me off to the religion early on was the utterly undignified depiction of a supreme being. If I'm going to worship something I at least want it to be something I can respect, and the petty and silly 'god' of popular Xtianity is something I can't even begin to feel respectful towards.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 12:11:40 GMT
Good thing I've read the Bible so I know all the loopholes. I'm always amused by the Xtian believer's double-bind on their god: a totally loving and forgiving being of complete kindness and mercy, but yet a ruthless 'spank-daddy' to whom one is going to have to explain one's minutest actions after death (of course said believing Xtian never really believes he's going to have to explain anything; he'll be ushered through the pearly gates pronto. It's the people whom the believer disapproves of who'll get the post-mortem third degree). If said god already knows and has predetermined all of this, then why the need? If he's all-loving and all-forgiving, there's no point to it, and if he's not and is going to be vindictive to the sinful, it seems more likely he'd simply send them on to perdition without benefit of the accused getting a hearing since said god already knows all of the wrongs the sinner has committed. It's just another example of the really childish manner inculcated into the majority of Xtians towards viewing their deity. One of the things that turned me off to the religion early on was the utterly undignified depiction of a supreme being. If I'm going to worship something I at least want it to be something I can respect, and the petty and silly 'god' of popular Xtianity is something I can't even begin to feel respectful towards. Why do you continue to put a "t" in the word Xian?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 18:36:14 GMT
This is not true generally, it applies only insofar as asserting whether a deliberate supernatural exists, and so is a strawman. I believe that climate change is currently a global emergency for instance. Thank you for your opinions. But I was merely replying to the your specific claim that 'there is no scientific "consensus" to consider.', and then 'how would [one] know what actual scientists think about anything'. I think I have proved you wrong in both these cases, which will do for now. (It might also be observed that the consensus about climate change reported by me dates back a few years. If anything it has hardened now.) As for the evidence for global warming just do the Google and use that open mind of yours to form an opinion, although it is getting a bit late. If there are any others seeking evidence, they can start here: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdfYes; a repeated lack of direct substantiation for your claims and direct answers to direct questions. I hope that helps. I believe you know which "lack" of belief I mean as would many people only aged twelve. The only one I have outlined specifically on this board in regards to myself is as stated, so I have no idea about what you are on about otherwise. Sorry about that. Since with you it is all claims and no positive evidence, you are welcome. If you mean to refer to the evidence for climate change then use your open mind it appears that you didn't look at my link; so do the Google. What else, for instance, is evidenced by retreating glaciers and ice sheets? Incidentally, in regards to the widespread scientific consensus on climate change you may wish to remember your helpful advice of a while ago that "the majority is always right until and if proved otherwise".
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 18:37:57 GMT
For one thing, God didn't dictate the Bible word for word to anybody and nowhere does it say inside the pages that he did. If there's a god, I daresay he's nothing like he's depicted in the Old Testament. That guy is an asshole. You can tell Him when you see Him. Since the Almighty is supposedly 'outside of space and time' (or is it 'nebulous and abstract' as I have lately been assured?) that will be hard to do.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 20:06:10 GMT
I believe you know which "lack" of belief I mean as would many people only aged twelve. The only one I have outlined specifically on this board in regards to myself is as stated, so I have no idea about what you are on about otherwise. Sorry about that. Since with you it is all claims and no positive evidence, you are welcome. If you mean to refer to the evidence for climate change then use your open mind and do the Google. What else, for instance, is evidenced by retreating glaciers and ice sheets? Incidentally, in regards to the widespread scientific consensus on climate change you may wish to remember your helpful advice of a while ago that "the majority is always right until and if proved otherwise". I thought you were down for the count there. Your own terminology "deliberate supernatural" is also your own definition of a god and not engaging any particular set of believers. There are various sets of believers with various concepts of a god and that can be confusing, I know, but it seems all the worse for your struggles to understand anything, as you are not able to sort it out and address one or another. Part of that is your concept of "the" definition of anything that is supposed to exist outside anyone's usage according to you and a failure to address usage properly. In many matters of law the majority is right until proven otherwise. If a majority engages in some social function such as "worship" then it is a valid social function, even if you do not understand how it works. Science is a bit different. A "majority" (The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.) in science that presents no evidence whatsoever should not be taken seriously. I'm sorry the "rules" are so complicated. I know a person of your simplicity can only be guided by rules and requires very simple ones that apply to a variety of conditions. Perhaps you should consider another hobby as I earlier suggested? You know very well that I have offered an explanation for retreating ice that does not require global warming. Since most water is added to the atmosphere of the planet near the tropics, a cooler planet means less water added to the atmosphere of the planet as a whole and thus the polar regions cannot maintain their supply of ice -- losing it in direct sunlight with little or nothing to replace it. It could be just "drier" up there, not necessarily warmer. The internet is replete with "scientific" claims that are not supported by data. I believe the purpose is to deliberately trap people like you so that you do not interfere in important business too much.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 1, 2020 20:17:17 GMT
You can tell Him when you see Him. Since the Almighty is supposedly 'outside of space and time' (or is it 'nebulous and abstract' as I have lately been assured?) that will be hard to do. I was speaking figuratively!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 20:27:44 GMT
The only one I have outlined specifically on this board in regards to myself is as stated, so I have no idea about what you are on about otherwise. Sorry about that. Since with you it is all claims and no positive evidence, you are welcome. If you mean to refer to the evidence for climate change then use your open mind and do the Google. What else, for instance, is evidenced by retreating glaciers and ice sheets? Incidentally, in regards to the widespread scientific consensus on climate change you may wish to remember your helpful advice of a while ago that "the majority is always right until and if proved otherwise". I thought you were down for the count there. Sorry to disapppoint. On the contrary it is arguable that many people are a particular set who believe that reality is something which is deliberate (ie designed) and that the Creator is something of a different order of reality. Indeed you have yourself argued that life on earth could not have happened naturally and randomly, and have taken the Creationist, er, intelligent design side in wanting to appeal the Dover verdict. You also recently mentioned recently what God supposedly wants ('I'm sure God did not want his people tinkering with any worldly power' ) - which implies a magical will. So it is conveniently only in matters if law now that your rule applies? It was not so specific last time you argued this. But I guess it means that your argument back then that God must most likely exist because so many believe it to be true no longer stands. And how would one 'prove' a law to be otherwise than it is? Patronising noted. OK so let's take this peculiar science theory seriously. If there has been no climate change, and your idea applies then the ice would have been retreating consistently down the centuries, not rapidly over the last few decades. According to NASA, the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate of 9% per decade. The thickness of the Arctic Ice has decreased by 40% since the 1960s. But feel free to link to where this theory of yours is substantiated, either as a stand alone theory in any peer reviewed article - or more specifically as an alternative to most obvious solution - that increasing temperatures (the majority of recording-busting years have occurred in the last twenty or so for instance) are responsible. Evasion will be noted, as usual. Indeed as seen above. QED.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 20:28:50 GMT
Since the Almighty is supposedly 'outside of space and time' (or is it 'nebulous and abstract' as I have lately been assured?) that will be hard to do. I was speaking figuratively! A natural error; some believers here are literalists and some are not..
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 20:28:55 GMT
The only one I have outlined specifically on this board in regards to myself is as stated, so I have no idea about what you are on about otherwise. Sorry about that. Since with you it is all claims and no positive evidence, you are welcome. If you mean to refer to the evidence for climate change then use your open mind and do the Google. What else, for instance, is evidenced by retreating glaciers and ice sheets? Incidentally, in regards to the widespread scientific consensus on climate change you may wish to remember your helpful advice of a while ago that "the majority is always right until and if proved otherwise". I thought you were down for the count there. Your own terminology "deliberate supernatural" is also your own definition of a god and not engaging any particular set of believers. There are various sets of believers with various concepts of a god and that can be confusing, I know, but it seems all the worse for your struggles to understand anything, as you are not able to sort it out and address one or another. Part of that is your concept of "the" definition of anything that is supposed to exist outside anyone's usage according to you and a failure to address usage properly. In many matters of law the majority is right until proven otherwise. If a majority engages in some social function such as "worship" then it is a valid social function, even if you do not understand how it works. Science is a bit different. A "majority" (The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.) in science that presents no evidence whatsoever should not be taken seriously. I'm sorry the "rules" are so complicated. I know a person of your simplicity can only be guided by rules and requires very simple ones that apply to a variety of conditions. Perhaps you should consider another hobby as I earlier suggested? You know very well that I have offered an explanation for retreating ice that does not require global warming. Since most water is added to the atmosphere of the planet near the tropics, a cooler planet means less water added to the atmosphere of the planet as a whole and thus the polar regions cannot maintain their supply of ice -- losing it in direct sunlight with little or nothing to replace it. It could be just "drier" up there, not necessarily warmer. The internet is replete with "scientific" claims that are not supported by data. I believe the purpose is to deliberately trap people like you so that you do not interfere in important business too much. "(The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.)" Do you any data or studies to demonstrate this?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 21:03:37 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- it is arguable that many people are a particular set who believe that reality is something which is deliberate (ie designed) and that the Creator is something of a different order of reality.
- which implies a magical will
- So it is conveniently only in matters if law now that your rule applies?
- If there has been no climate change, then the ice would have been retreating consistently down the centuries,
- feel free to link to where this theory of yours is substantiated,
- Yet you are the one and only person on Earth to use such terminology. Have fun debating your straw man.
- What it "implies" is beyond your understanding.
- No, that is not what I said and no, I am not taking the blame for your failure to read it.
- There are numerous factors that influence the levels of ice in the polar regions and might mean different levels at different times without regard to any overly simplified schedule you imagine.
- Thank you for proving your utter dependence on authority that results from your lack of any logical abilities of your own. I hope one day authorities apprise you of these situations. Until then consider bowling.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 21:08:15 GMT
I thought you were down for the count there. Your own terminology "deliberate supernatural" is also your own definition of a god and not engaging any particular set of believers. There are various sets of believers with various concepts of a god and that can be confusing, I know, but it seems all the worse for your struggles to understand anything, as you are not able to sort it out and address one or another. Part of that is your concept of "the" definition of anything that is supposed to exist outside anyone's usage according to you and a failure to address usage properly. In many matters of law the majority is right until proven otherwise. If a majority engages in some social function such as "worship" then it is a valid social function, even if you do not understand how it works. Science is a bit different. A "majority" (The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.) in science that presents no evidence whatsoever should not be taken seriously. I'm sorry the "rules" are so complicated. I know a person of your simplicity can only be guided by rules and requires very simple ones that apply to a variety of conditions. Perhaps you should consider another hobby as I earlier suggested? You know very well that I have offered an explanation for retreating ice that does not require global warming. Since most water is added to the atmosphere of the planet near the tropics, a cooler planet means less water added to the atmosphere of the planet as a whole and thus the polar regions cannot maintain their supply of ice -- losing it in direct sunlight with little or nothing to replace it. It could be just "drier" up there, not necessarily warmer. The internet is replete with "scientific" claims that are not supported by data. I believe the purpose is to deliberately trap people like you so that you do not interfere in important business too much. "(The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.)" Do you any data or studies to demonstrate this? Could you read them if I did?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 21:11:20 GMT
"(The surveys are dubious about who is counted a scientist.)" Do you any data or studies to demonstrate this? Could you read them if I did? I'll take that as a no. Why did you just lie?
|
|