Daily Bible Verse

[falcon9]

I am not making a bad move. I am just standing up to you.

It's a "bad move" to lie to me or, to FC moderators, (which you've done).

You ignore the rules on Fusian Cash to be respectful.

No, my posts are under the auspices of the "golden rule" in that those who post INITIALLY rude/disrespectful/offensive posts are giving tacit permission for such to be returned in kind.  Initially posted religious proselytization is considered to be rude, offensive and disrespectful, (though permitted by FC).  Responses opposing previously posted religious superstition are also permitted by FC.

If someone has a different opinion that is fine with me. Still, people need to stop attacking others and say it in a positive way. You live to try to hurt others, You kind should not be allowed. Theirs been enough hateful actions.

I'm permitted, (and obligated by honor), to oppose repressive religious beliefs.  You have no authority to repress dissenting viewpoints by characterizing them as "rude", etc. in order to censor dissent.  Guess what, 'cherokee princess', there aren't many effective ways to express dissent in some namby-pamby "positive' way".  Your own racism is coming through with your "you kind should not be allowed". 

Also, I am Native American so I think I know something about racism they didn't teach your sarcasm.

Don't try playing the victim card on someone who just posted opposition to the xtian "indian schools" which assimulated so many tribal cultures, (that wan't sarcastic, that was historical fact).  In fact, I know tribal members who lived through those days you sanctimonious 'cherokee princess'.

Your trying to take the weight off of your own actions. I am trying to make you see what you are doing.

No, I've been straight-forward in my opposition to specious religious superstitions and irrational blind faith. Ask anyone.

[Falconer02]

Don't try playing the victim card on someone who just posted opposition to the xtian "indian schools" which assimulated so many tribal cultures, (that wan't sarcastic, that was historical fact).  In fact, I know tribal members who lived through those days you sanctimonious 'cherokee princess'.

Tusca-- as much as I know you'd hate to hear this, Falcon9 is making an extremely good point here and I highly recommend you look into this. I only wish Walksalone (another Native American FC member) was here right now.

[jcribb16]

You have proven nothing to me as far as your views supporting creating the heavens and earth as being more provable than God creating them.  There is an Intelligent Design, of which I've spoken with you about, before, that is way more acceptable, provable, and we have agreed to disagree on this subject.  I will not accept the Evolution way of creation and you will not accept Intelligent Design.  We will go completely in circles again, and they are in the archives, anyway.  

All of your 'proofs' were thwarted numerous times with earth science 101. Here you admit to favoring magical tales from ancient times and pseudoscience (ID-- like you said, check the archives as it is has been easily debunked and is a clever lie) without acknowledging how the world actually works. You have every right to believe what you believe, but this behavior is 'raw' ignorance of reality.

Since the last exchange concerning this context, I did have an opportunity to puruse the FC archived posts regarding the specious "I.D." concept.

As "Falconer02" mentions above, no valid/substantive evidence/proofs were offered to support the "I.D." contentions.  Instead, specious non-reasoning and unsupported attributions were presented and debunked on logical basis.  "Belief" is not evidence/proof; it's expressly a lack of evidence or, blind faith.  Blind faith is an invalid basis for the "I.D." non-theory, (it's not even a theory because no valid evidence supports suggesting it is one).

While I thank you for actually looking it up, I figured this would be your reaction, as is typical.  You cannot prove your way of creation either, with a total 100% cause.  It's a theory, with certain evidences to a point, but not the "crowning proof" that is needed for your view. 

I will stick with God as the Intelligent Designer since there is a cause needed for the creating in the first place; there is more evidence in the way of scrolls, history, Bible, etc., that lend more credibility to God, than the other way.

[jcribb16]

Why would anyone accept the "teachings" of any religion which not only actively promoted the crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, flying planes into buildings, drinking poisoned koolaid, dishonoring military personnel and their families at funerals, brain-washing small children with religious propaganda and promulgating blind faith in superstitions?  What's not to reject?

God did not call us to live in immorality, but in holiness. So then, whoever rejects this teaching is not rejecting a human being, but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. — 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8 (GNT)

Oh good grief - there you go again, lumping Christians of today, of different sects, all into one ugly box because of foolish and murderous things done by people in the past.  You are judging genuine Christians/believers who love the Lord, who, with the exception of the "rotten apples" as there always will be, do not approve of those things in the past.

[falcon9]

While I thank you for actually looking it up, I figured this would be your reaction, as is typical.  You cannot prove your way of creation either, with a total 100% cause.  It's a theory, with certain evidences to a point, but not the "crowning proof" that is needed for your view. 

No "crowning 'disproof'" is required since the burden of proof remains with those who make the I.D. claim in the first place.  Challenging such claimants to support their contentious claim that I.D. is valid with substantive evidence does not necessarily require contraverting evidence to disprove that initial claim.  I. Kant's tautological arguements invalidate the I.D. notion on logical grounds, for instance.

I will stick with God as the Intelligent Designer since there is a cause needed for the creating in the first place ...

No, your a priori premise is not a given and 'what is and came to be' is more probable under emergent theories than it is presuming a supernatural "creator g-d".

... there is more evidence in the way of scrolls, history, Bible, etc., that lend more credibility to God, than the other way.

No, those items are NOT evidence; they consist of hearsay, religious faith, dubious 'historical' accounts stemming from specious religious superstitions and more hearsay.  None of which are evidence, let alone any that gives the least "credibility" to a hypothetical 'g-d'.  Logical reasoning escapes you - stick with the irrational, nonreasoned, illogical  twaddle you've been hucking-up in lieu of reason.

[jcribb16]

I am not making a bad move. I am just standing up to you.

It's a "bad move" to lie to me or, to FC moderators, (which you've done).

You ignore the rules on Fusian Cash to be respectful.

No, my posts are under the auspices of the "golden rule" in that those who post INITIALLY rude/disrespectful/offensive posts are giving tacit permission for such to be returned in kind.  Initially posted religious proselytization is considered to be rude, offensive and disrespectful, (though permitted by FC).  Responses opposing previously posted religious superstition are also permitted by FC.

If someone has a different opinion that is fine with me. Still, people need to stop attacking others and say it in a positive way. You live to try to hurt others, You kind should not be allowed. Theirs been enough hateful actions.

I'm permitted, (and obligated by honor), to oppose repressive religious beliefs.  You have no authority to repress dissenting viewpoints by characterizing them as "rude", etc. in order to censor dissent.  Guess what, 'cherokee princess', there aren't many effective ways to express dissent in some namby-pamby "positive' way".  Your own racism is coming through with your "you kind should not be allowed". 

Also, I am Native American so I think I know something about racism they didn't teach your sarcasm.

Don't try playing the victim card on someone who just posted opposition to the xtian "indian schools" which assimulated so many tribal cultures, (that wan't sarcastic, that was historical fact).  In fact, I know tribal members who lived through those days you sanctimonious 'cherokee princess'.

Your trying to take the weight off of your own actions. I am trying to make you see what you are doing.

No, I've been straight-forward in my opposition to specious religious superstitions and irrational blind faith. Ask anyone.

You are " permitted, (and obligated by honor), to oppose repressive religious beliefs?"  Whose honor?  That is a big laugh.  I'm sorry, but that is the lamest excuse for how you bother and pest believers.  

You are indeed disrespectful to even the nicest, sweetest, and quietest believers, who try and share something, and you spew your intolerance to them.  They aren't spewing atheist intolerance towards you.  Opposing with respect is one thing, but constant jumping on Christians, just because YOU have an opinion of their beliefs and freedom of speech is INITIALLY spewing hatred, is outlandishly stupid and lying.

 YOU are making a big deal by YOURSELF, just because YOU cannot NOT open a thread about something YOU DON"T even believe in.  Who cares what people believe or dis-believe?  It's their choice, my choice, and your choice, and it's a shame that you are getting away with the hatefulness towards believers, including stirring up dissension, in particular threads.  If they bother you so much, please DO NOT open them; IGNORE them, START your own ATHEIST thread where you and other ATHEISTS can have your discussions.  

Sheesh, you sound so bitter that it's really pitiful and sad that you make it your goal and mission to deliberately antagonize believers.  

[jcribb16]

While I thank you for actually looking it up, I figured this would be your reaction, as is typical.  You cannot prove your way of creation either, with a total 100% cause.  It's a theory, with certain evidences to a point, but not the "crowning proof" that is needed for your view. 

No "crowning 'disproof'" is required since the burden of proof remains with those who make the I.D. claim in the first place.  Challenging such claimants to support their contentious claim that I.D. is valid with substantive evidence does not necessarily require contraverting evidence to disprove that initial claim.  I. Kant's tautological arguements invalidate the I.D. notion on logical grounds, for instance.

I will stick with God as the Intelligent Designer since there is a cause needed for the creating in the first place ...

No, your a priori premise is not a given and 'what is and came to be' is more probable under emergent theories than it is presuming a supernatural "creator g-d".

... there is more evidence in the way of scrolls, history, Bible, etc., that lend more credibility to God, than the other way.

No, those items are NOT evidence; they consist of hearsay, religious faith, dubious 'historical' accounts stemming from specious religious superstitions and more hearsay.  None of which are evidence, let alone any that gives the least "credibility" to a hypothetical 'g-d'.  Logical reasoning escapes you - stick with the irrational, nonreasoned, illogical  twaddle you've been hucking-up in lieu of reason.

It is entirely your "CHOICE" to try and discredit the above.  I'm waiting on burden of proof that your view is the correct view.  You have not provided it, and until anyone does, I will keep my views.  If you know so much, provide the proof for your views, please.

[falcon9]

- there you go again, lumping Christians of today, of different sects, all into one ...  

Either those who self-declare as xtians are every bit as xtian as others claim or, none of you are.  If you are, they are; the same
essential superstitious religious 'beliefs' underlie the 'faith' of xtians, no matter what particular sect/demonation/cult/flavor.  It's understandable that some xtians desire to distance themselves from other xtians who commited attrocities under the same religious blind faith but, that's just a lack of courage in your convictions and basically a cowardly dodge of responsibility.  Oh that's right, you're assuming that you get to cherry-pick who's a "real, truly true xtian and who's not".  Sheesh.

[falcon9]

No "crowning 'disproof'" is required since the burden of proof remains with those who make the I.D. claim in the first place.  Challenging such claimants to support their contentious claim that I.D. is valid with substantive evidence does not necessarily require contravening evidence to disprove that initial claim.  I. Kant's tautological arguements invalidate the I.D. notion on logical grounds, for instance.

I will stick with God as the Intelligent Designer since there is a cause needed for the creating in the first place ...

No, your a priori premise is not a given and 'what is and came to be' is more probable under emergent theories than it is presuming a supernatural "creator g-d".

... there is more evidence in the way of scrolls, history, Bible, etc., that lend more credibility to God, than the other way.

No, those items are NOT evidence; they consist of hearsay, religious faith, dubious 'historical' accounts stemming from specious religious superstitions and more hearsay.  None of which are evidence, let alone any that gives the least "credibility" to a hypothetical 'g-d'.  Logical reasoning escapes you - stick with the irrational, nonreasoned, illogical  twaddle you've been hucking-up in lieu of reason.

It is entirely your "CHOICE" to try and discredit the above.  I'm waiting on burden of proof that your view is the correct view.

You made the initial claim and provided invalid evidence.  Now you want me to prove that your evidence is invalid, correct?  I've done so before and you failed to pay attention then, if I type more s l o w l y it may still escape you however, that I'm not responding for your benefit also continues to escape you.  Nonetheless, being wwritten on a "scroll" or retranslated and printed on a book confers NO validity to the words written because no evidence is provided to give them veracity, (you're attempting to base one unsubstantiated premise on unsubstantiated non-evidence).  Lastly, religious faith is not evidence and is not a valid substitute for evidence.  Since the foregoing is all that you've tried to present a faux evidence, it is dismissed upon the logical basis outlined herein.

You have not provided it, and until anyone does, I will keep my views.  If you know so much, provide the proof for your views, please.

Your faux "evidence" is not actual evidence and is based upon blind religious faith, (which is belief without evidence), therefore, your non-evidence has been logically invalidated and the premise it failed to support is deduced to be unsubstantiated speculation.  Further, you'll stick with your religious blind faith no matter what logical evidence contradicts it because that's what blind faith does.

[jcribb16]

- there you go again, lumping Christians of today, of different sects, all into one ...  

Either those who self-declare as xtians are every bit as xtian as others claim or, none of you are.  If you are, they are; the same
essential superstitious religious 'beliefs' underlie the 'faith' of xtians, no matter what particular sect/demonation/cult/flavor.  It's understandable that some xtians desire to distance themselves from other xtians who commited attrocities under the same religious blind faith but, that's just a lack of courage in your convictions and basically a cowardly dodge of responsibility.  Oh that's right, you're assuming that you get to cherry-pick who's a "real, truly true xtian and who's not".  Sheesh.

That is a totally messed up view you have.  Your hate of believers believing in God is so strong that you cannot separate the good from the bad, and think everyone who believes is in the same box as the people who say they believe, yet do murderous things.  

They are "using" the name of God wrongfully - you cannot seem to understand the concept.  One reason is because you do not understand the "inner workings" of genuine faith, love, obedience, of having Christ as Savior.  So you cannot adequately speak of something that you have not, and by your choice, will not, experience.  And to clarify, I am not trying to make it seem believers are better than anyone else.  Everyone makes their own choices in life, including what they believe or don't believe in, whether God, Buddha, etc.  Believers are sinners just as everyone else, and will have to answer and be accountable for their actions, words, and behavior, just as everyone else.  

You cannot go into a college and teach astronomy, for example, unless you have taken the correct classes, and attain the needed degree, for learning the knowledge of astronomy, researched and gotten involved in taking part in activities offered, been tested on your knowledge and how you present what you know - because you will not understand the "inner workings" of astronomy from just the outside of things.  There are so many examples for trying to help you understand the concept of this.  

The thing is, I really believe you KNOW all of this - you just DENY what you know you should need to know, and instead, pursue this outside working of God, to your twisted advantage, because sadly, it just comes across of how bitter you are towards the idea of God, and so you fight it, and take it out on believers.  That is so sad, when it comes right down it...

[falcon9]

You are " permitted, (and obligated by honor), to oppose repressive religious beliefs?"  Whose honor?

My honor, pay attention.  Just because you lack honor, it doesn't mean that others do. 

That is a big laugh.

So is your faux 'religion' which has a long and sordid history of dishonorable acts, (no matter how much some xtians try to distance themselves from other xtians, you're all xtians or none of you are).
 

You are indeed disrespectful ...

The initial xtian proselytizing which was present on FC before and after my arrival was and is presumptively disrespectful and rude to non-xtians.  Now, after the fact, some of those xtians want to characterize dissenting views in opposition as "disrespectful".  Well, you can't have it both ways, fundie.
 

YOU have an opinion of their beliefs and freedom of speech is INITIALLY spewing hatred, is outlandishly stupid and lying.

Your incoherent statement notwithstanding, responses to previous xtian spewing of blind faith-based superstitious beliefs is offensive and yet, permitted generally under free speech and specifically, as long as FC permits it in their forums.  There's nothing "outlandishly stupid and lying" in that except on your part.

[falcon9]

That is a totally messed up view you have.

That's your specious opinion; it has no valid basis in evidence so, it's empty.  On the other hand, your religious views are also based on a complet lack of valid evidence and are based upon blind faith.  Must be a cosmic coincidence.

[jcribb16]

No "crowning 'disproof'" is required since the burden of proof remains with those who make the I.D. claim in the first place.  Challenging such claimants to support their contentious claim that I.D. is valid with substantive evidence does not necessarily require contravening evidence to disprove that initial claim.  I. Kant's tautological arguements invalidate the I.D. notion on logical grounds, for instance.

I will stick with God as the Intelligent Designer since there is a cause needed for the creating in the first place ...

No, your a priori premise is not a given and 'what is and came to be' is more probable under emergent theories than it is presuming a supernatural "creator g-d".

... there is more evidence in the way of scrolls, history, Bible, etc., that lend more credibility to God, than the other way.

No, those items are NOT evidence; they consist of hearsay, religious faith, dubious 'historical' accounts stemming from specious religious superstitions and more hearsay.  None of which are evidence, let alone any that gives the least "credibility" to a hypothetical 'g-d'.  Logical reasoning escapes you - stick with the irrational, nonreasoned, illogical  twaddle you've been hucking-up in lieu of reason.

It is entirely your "CHOICE" to try and discredit the above.  I'm waiting on burden of proof that your view is the correct view.

You made the initial claim and provided invalid evidence.  Now you want me to prove that your evidence is invalid, correct?  I've done so before and you failed to pay attention then, if I type more s l o w l y it may still escape you however, that I'm not responding for your benefit also continues to escape you.  Nonetheless, being wwritten on a "scroll" or retranslated and printed on a book confers NO validity to the words written because no evidence is provided to give them veracity, (you're attempting to base one unsubstantiated premise on unsubstantiated non-evidence).  Lastly, religious faith is not evidence and is not a valid substitute for evidence.  Since the foregoing is all that you've tried to present a faux evidence, it is dismissed upon the logical basis outlined herein.

You have not provided it, and until anyone does, I will keep my views.  If you know so much, provide the proof for your views, please.

Your faux "evidence" is not actual evidence and is based upon blind religious faith, (which is belief without evidence), therefore, your non-evidence has been logically invalidated and the premise it failed to support is deduced to be unsubstantiated speculation.  Further, you'll stick with your religious blind faith no matter what logical evidence contradicts it because that's what blind faith does.

Your "blind" adherence to your view is entitled, since we have our freedom of choice.  Yet, you have not provided the MAIN thing that would explain the theory you go by.  Both sides of a debate, not only challenge each other, but both sides must also include burden of proof, as well as the opposite.  You want to just lay all of the burden on the believers' side, and give yourself a free pass.  It's not going to happen - you are just as responsible to provide your burden of proof, or proving my side is wrong.  

I know that scientists are working diligently on the "God Particle," or Higgs boson, which has yet to be grounded in truth and proof.  Even if it is found to be the answer, are you saying you would agree that it just appeared out of nowhere, then everything just burst forth, and evolved into what we are today?  I don't buy into that - if you do, fine.  Someone or something had to have come up with that amazing particle, which shows massive intelligence, thinking, organizing, and more, which would indicate an Intelligent Design.

[jcribb16]

That is a totally messed up view you have.

That's your specious opinion; it has no valid basis in evidence so, it's empty.  On the other hand, your religious views are also based on a complet lack of valid evidence and are based upon blind faith.  Must be a cosmic coincidence.

Empty, empty, empty.  Just as yours is, too.  You can't have it both ways, athei.

[falcon9]

Even a child's empty repetition of a reasoned rebuttal would be a void as yours.  That means you have no rebuttal and have conceded the argument, whether you deny it or not.

Empty, empty, empty.  Just as yours is, too.  You can't have it both ways, athei.