Viruses are manufactured

[7djengo7]

God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:

I dont accept God as a person

By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
• If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.

Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?

By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.

 

[Avajs]

God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:

By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
• If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.

By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.

God is a word. I don't hate words.
I wrote God because Clete used that word. I wrote your God because Clete used that word and to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.
Why do you always seem so angry?

 

[Right Divider]

Why do you always seem so angry?

He does not "seem angry" to me.
Perhaps you have perception problems.

 

[Avajs]

He does not "seem angry" to me.
Perhaps you have perception problems.

Perhaps I do.

 

[7djengo7]

I asked @Avajs:

By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?

God is a word.

God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.

I don't hate words.

What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.

I wrote God

False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.

to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.

Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.

I wrote your God because Clete used that word

Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".

 

[Avajs]

I asked @Avajs:

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?


God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.


What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.


False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.


Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.


Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".

Wow!!

 

[7djengo7]

Why do you always seem so angry?

What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.

 

[Clete]

To paraphrase Sgt Friday "Just trying to get the facts, Maam, just the facts" Because some people make a big deal of "no death before the Fall" and read that as NO DEATH, which seems a little different than your reading. When I say death, I mean actual death, physically, since I dont accept "spiritual" death meaning human spirit separated from God since I dont accept God as a person/thing/actual concept or being. So just trying to sort out your reading of the story--because per you there was animal death pre Fall--insects, rodents, etc. Which effectively deals with the issue of why do felines have big canine teeth etc--it avoids the idea that every animal was a vegetarian preFall.

Don't end up making the same idiot mistake the Ayn Rand made and think that everything that passes for Christianity even remotely resembles what the bible actually teaches.

First and foremost my worldview is rational and it is Christian only in the sense that it is consistent with what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, not what some moron happens to say from behind a pulpit.

Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?

God is not "all knowing" in the sense you are using the term here and, even if He were, it would not answer the question you ask. The majority of Christians have no idea how to answer such a question nor would they the slightest inkling that the premise of the question is flawed.

Also, in relation to this exchange with 7djengo7, He is THE God, there is only one, which makes Him your God whether you choose to acknowledge His existence or not.

Incidentally, the fact that you can read and understand this sentence is proof that God exists. Every intelligible syllable that ever registers in your mind, stacks up one more piece of evidence that you're wrong and you can't say a word about it, whether for or against, without borrowing from MY worldview and tacitly accepting it's validity.

If you don't believe God exists, what do you believe and why?

 

[Avajs]

Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.

What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.

atheistspeak language game? Interesting.

 

[Clete]

Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books.

The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.

Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable

He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.

The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.

On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.

I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.

What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.

I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago.

Why?

Earth 3-4 billion years ago.

Why?

Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved.

Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)

And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.

Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?

 

[7djengo7]

atheistspeak language game?

Are you trying to ask a question?

I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago.

What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)

 

[Avajs]

Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.

atheistspeak language game? Interesting.

Are you trying to ask a question?


What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)

Hard to beat your logic

 

[Avajs]

The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.


He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.


On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.


What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.


Why?


Why?


Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)


Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?

A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition

 

[Clete]

A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition

As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".

 

[Avajs]

As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".

Are you suggesting you personally clarify the independent basis by which facts are established? Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics? If so, how did you determine the underlying facts that support that theory?

 

[7djengo7]

A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

The funny thing about saying that evidence is fact is that by doing so you advertise that whenever you claim something is evidence, you are claiming it is fact. So, when you say "X is fact!" and someone says to you, "What 'evidence' do you have to support your claim that X is fact?" then, when you respond to them by saying, "W is evidence that X is fact," you are thereby adding to your first claim (viz., that X is fact) another claim (viz., that W is fact). So now, in addition to having saddled yourself under the problem of trying to support your claim that X is fact, you have also saddled yourself and that first problem under which you saddled yourself, under another problem: the problem of trying to support your claim that W is fact. What do you do, then? Do you then say, "V is evidence that W is fact," and then say "U is evidence that V is fact," and so on?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics?

No, plate subduction is nonsense.