Originally posted by josephwIf one wants to discuss such things as "Spirtiual realms" you say they're are being an "authority" . Is there no middle ground?
[b]"He called you out on your ignorance about Hinduism."
Or so you and Ghost think.
As to the rest of your post, I don't need a lecture from you.
If you think I'm here to "win points", then you have a shallow concept of what this debate is really all about, and your opinion about my motive for being here is without merit.
"If you want to know about the spiritual realms,.."
Like, you're an authority? Gag me with a pitchfork.[/b]
You may not be here to win points but you certainly come across as such.
And defensive.
Originally posted by FMFWill you ever cease to project your illusions of what you imagine has transpired on these pages?
Your thread appears to amount to you claiming that simply calling people who have different beliefs from you "mentally disturbed" makes for "an honest and open debate" and that your name-calling assertions amount to an "argument".
And yet, you accuse people who have tried to engage you and salvage something from this train wreck of a 'thought exercise' (if ...[text shortened]... think you have brought something "deep" to the table here. But surely you don't think you have?
It's a simple matter. That a creator exists is determined by the evidence of all that exists. No such evidence exists to the contrary.
This is a simple straightforward assertion, which causes enormous upheaval in the minds of those under the influence of the delusion that creation exists without a creator.
You've been stumped, and there's no way out of the dilemma except to make unfounded accusations.
Face it. Jesus lives. Or be ground to powder.
Originally posted by karoly aczelOn the contrary. I never assume a defensive posture.
If one wants to discuss such things as "Spirtiual realms" you say they're are being an "authority" . Is there no middle ground?
You may not be here to win points but you certainly come across as such.
And defensive.
What is it you think you know about "spiritual realms"? And on what authority do you base your claims?
Middle ground? Truth is truth.
Originally posted by josephwCan you explain how I am supposed to go from "a creator exists" to "Jesus lives"? Surely "the evidence of all that exists" supports any religion that contends that "a creator exists"? How do you justify your assertion that the evidence you see [that a creator exists] validates the claims you make about Jesus? This might be a more interesting line of conversation than what you've offered so far.
That a creator exists is determined by the evidence of all that exists.[...]
Face it. Jesus lives. Or be ground to powder.
Originally posted by josephwTry this then: That the universe - in some form or other - has always existed is determined by the evidence of all that exists. No such evidence exists to the contrary.
That a creator exists is determined by the evidence of all that exists. No such evidence exists to the contrary.
Where is your evidence that the above assertions are not true?
Originally posted by FMFOkay, he called people mentally disturbed, showed his complete ignorance of Hinduism and lost friends, but hey, personally he "enjoyed the debate," Totally worth it. 🙄
Your thread appears to amount to you claiming that simply calling people who have different beliefs from you "mentally disturbed" makes for "an honest and open debate" and that your name-calling assertions amount to an "argument".
And yet, you accuse people who have tried to engage you and salvage something from this train wreck of a 'thought exercise' (if ...[text shortened]... think you have brought something "deep" to the table here. But surely you don't think you have?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou took it too personally. But if you want to follow fmf's lead and mischaracterize, twist and obfuscate my words, then so be it.
Okay, he called people mentally disturbed, showed his complete ignorance of Hinduism and lost friends, but hey, personally he "enjoyed the debate," Totally worth it. 🙄
It's a shame really, that one can't say what's on their mind in a debate without being vilified after certain posters trump up accusations of personal insult, which was not my intention.
If you all want to think I'm making a personal insult to you by saying that atheist are, and atheism is, a delusion, after all these years of being assulted by every kind of insult imaginable against Christians and our God, then I think the assertion has merit.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIs it mischaracterizing you to state that it was your "intention" to suggest that atheists are mentally disturbed?
It's a shame really, that one can't say what's on their mind in a debate without being vilified after certain posters trump up accusations of personal insult, which was not my intention.
Originally posted by josephwYou said I was mentally disturbed Joe. Which part of that did I mischaracterize, twist and obfuscate?
You took it too personally. But if you want to follow fmf's lead and mischaracterize, twist and obfuscate my words, then so be it.
It's a shame really, that one can't say what's on their mind in a debate without being vilified after certain posters trump up accusations of personal insult, which was not my intention.
If you all want to think I'm making ...[text shortened]... kind of insult imaginable against Christians and our God, then I think the assertion has merit.
Yeah I know, only the part of me that doesn't believe in God is mentally disturbed. - So I assume it is okay for me to call you mentally disturbed, if just referring to the part of you that believes in a being I find totally fictitious?
Originally posted by josephwOh, you mean the god that killed 99.999999% of all land life to kill off a few hundred humans? THAT loving and gracious god?
That's why they call it a delusion.
Those who deny the existence of God are lying to themselves. Deep inside they know there's a creator, but to avoid accountability to their maker they convince themselves there is no God and avoid the obvious.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou could at least show the quote where I said you personally are mentally disturbed.
You said I was mentally disturbed Joe. Which part of that did I mischaracterize, twist and obfuscate?
Yeah I know, only the part of me that doesn't believe in God is mentally disturbed. - So I assume it is okay for me to call you mentally disturbed, if just referring to the part of you that believes in a being I find totally fictitious?
If you wanted to say you thought I was in some way mentally, psychologically or otherwise disturbed for believing in a mythological being that created the universe I would understand your perspective. I wouldn't necessarily think you meant it personally unless you were another poster.
I've had worse said to me around here and it didn't hurt my feelings.