does god send you...

[falcon9]

I stand by what I believe, with the Bible, the history, and the things that friends have seen ... and you will not sway me with your constant negativity, big words, and bashing.

That's nice; stick to your blind faith if wished, (or unable to break free of it).  It still does not constitute validly substantive evidence supporting your specious claims.

This is just an example of your consistent intolerance of someone else's views and personal opinions. 

No, this is another example of your implicit denial that your faith is blind and your religious belief has no evidentiary basis.  That's alright though, you aren't required to acknowledge the accuracy of that determination, nor am I required to "tolerate" blind faith in supersititious beliefs.

God does not need to provide proof to anyone, yet it is all around you, if you choose to acknowledge that. 

Unverifiable attributions to supernatural causes do not constitute "proof".  One could claim that 'invisible pink unicorns' created the universe but, without substantiating evidence to support such a claim, it is as specious as claiming a xtian 'g-d' did it.

[falcon9]

The attribution of effect to a supernatural cause is specious since it has no evidence to substantiate the religious claim other than religious faith/belief, (and neither "faith" nor "belief" constituute substantive evidence).

I have a friend who has three daughters, then had a stillborn baby boy.  Of course, she was totally devastated by the loss, but the voice of the Lord told her that she would have the joy of her heart.  She took it to mean that she should engross herself in her daughters and realize the blessing.  But, nope, we now have our little Nicholas to enjoy as well, and with the four she is so content and knows that her little cherub came from Heaven. 

[monnee]

Only in my sleep, is when I dream.

[skrogman]

Falcon9, I will give you partial credit for correcting me on that.  You are correct in saying that "belief" may not constitute substantive evidence.  But true Christians have more than belief.  It does become more than a "belief" when it becomes true knowledge of the heart and that cannot be denied.  Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry.   

[vickysue]

Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.

[falcon9]

Falcon9, I will give you partial credit for correcting me on that.  You are correct in saying that "belief" may not constitute substantive evidence.  But true Christians have more than belief.  It does become more than a "belief" when it becomes true knowledge of the heart and that cannot be denied. 

The vague contention of "true knowledge of the heart" is not more substantive because it still contains no evidentiary information and remains a subjective belief sans evidence.

Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry.   

Those are your religious beliefs, they remain devoid of evidence so, I'm unconcerned about them, (they don't apply to me and suggesting that they do is insultingly presumptive, prejudiced and is rejected outright).

[falcon9]

Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.

Either way, your specious superstitious religious beliefs remain unsubstantiated nonsense which you are free to have faith in, just as others are free to refute them when 'publically' posted.

[skrogman]

The evidence is in my life and actions.  And those who interact with me on a day-to-day, I pray, have all the evidence of that they need, thank you.      - - And, maybe they don't apply to you YET, be be warned, the day is coming.

[falcon9]

The evidence is in my life and actions.  And those who interact with me on a day-to-day, I pray, have all the evidence of that they need, thank you.      - - And, maybe they don't apply to you YET, be be warned, the day is coming.

Such constitutes hearsay and inaccurate attributions to supernatural sources.  As such, they still don't apply to me and your presumptive self-righteous insinuations that they do will continue to be rejected as proselytizing sewage, (insult for insult).

[skrogman]

Yep, you should definitely recognize sewage.   And on that note, I'm going to go do 20 web searches.  You have a nice day.

[falcon9]

Yep, you should definitely recognize sewage. 

It isn't that difficult; you xtians are constantly posting unsupported religious proselytiations.  

And on that note, I'm going to go do 20 web searches.  You have a nice day.

Doing searches just to get the search bonus is as disingenuous as specious religious faith, albeit to a lesser degree of fraud.

[skrogman]

Ok, but why don't you go ahead and search on "the revelation of John"  and think on it.  It may be of good benefit.

[falcon9]

Ok, but why don't you go ahead and search on "the revelation of John"  and think on it.  It may be of good benefit.

Was that a general proselytizing or, one aimed at me in particular?  Either way, such 'biblical references' are disregarded as specious.

"Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived."
-- Isaac Asimov

[skrogman]

Did you feel it was aimed at you?  Oh no, I would hate to think Falcon9 could be developing what is known as a "conscience"...

[falcon9]

Did you feel it was aimed at you?  Oh no, I would hate to think Falcon9 could be developing what is known as a "conscience"...

So, that's a "no" and it was a generalized religious propaganda screel?  If not, I'm loath to consider the possibility that 'scroggy' is struggling to develop 'consciousness'.