Without God, there are no inalienable rights

[Verthaine]

Show the post where I said "Verthaine is wrong for believing what he believes"
Ya can't cause it's not there.
I may have questioned your belief, I may have questioned and ridivculed your belief , but you have done the same to my faith.{note:underlining dome by me,Verthaine}

Oh,so you admit to ridiculing my beliefs.
That's very brave and honest of you.
I on the other hand, emphatically deny ridiculing your beliefs.
The burden of proof is on you.
And if I inadvertently did,I apologize.

I personally have no problems with anyone questioning my beliefs,because we Erisians are supposed to do that ourselves on a constant basis,because that is the way we Erisians get closer to the Goddess.
But I myself understand the difference between questioning ones beliefs,and ridiculing ones beliefs.

Now here is the post I took offense to:
Post 814-

Pardon me there, Verti, but I don't think so.

The Discordian society, really?
A whacked out group that actualy believe man, a spieces on earth the 3rd planet from the sun is in charge of future events of mankind and the universe?
Please?
And that bit about I am CHAOS?
Not the old chaos theory again?
The old beatniks of the early 50's was into that a passing fad.
What you posting reruns now.eace

For your information Kerry Thornley and Greg Hill founded the Discordian Society in 1958-59.
They wrote THE PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA IN 1965
Discordianism is a big influence in the Modern Neo-Paganism.
Kerry Thornley was one of the founders of The Church of the Sub-Genius in the early 1980's
It is a huge influence in many "internet religions".

It seems to me that your post was not meant to enlighten,or even question,but to deliberately disparage and dismiss.
You offered no facts about my Belief Structure (like I did above,told to me by Kerry Thornley himself,who was a dear friend of mine for 6 years prior to his death in 1998 ) only misinformation.
You didn't have to say "My beliefs are wrong",because it seems to me your intent was to imply it.

At no time in any post have I suggested you change what you believe in
I have on more that one post said each individual has the right to believe or have faith or to not believe and non faith has they choose.

You mean this post?
How many times have you said this or even agreed with this?

Post# 801 your post
Belief is the distruction of intelligence when you apply Scroders law.
Who past that law, by who's standard?

Then you said
Belief is not equal to reality.
Reality starts with belief, for without belief in a discovery there would be no discovery.
Ideas crate belief which creates invention, not too much of that going on today.
Perhaps because no one believes anymoreeace{ note: underlining added by me,Verthaine}

I said that,really?
Really?
Lets take a look at what I REALLY said,shall we?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/78570-without-god-there-no-inalienable-rights-81.html

Belief is only the death of intelligence when you apply Shroepers Law,which states that if the evidence does not support your "theory"/"beliefs",disregard the evidence.

Beliefs do not automatically equal reality

Just because you believe in alternative fuels does not necessarily mean you are going to go out and find them.

Alternative fuels exist because the evidence backs up the fact that they exist,thus rendering the "belief" in it a moot point.
It no longer matters if you believe in alternative fuels or not.
The evidence seem to suggest that it exists.
Thus it is a fact.

Belief being the death of intelligence,is something we
discordians have been saying for years.

It means once you believe in something,you no longer question it.You no longer ponder it.You no longer think about it.
A brain that does not think is a non-functioning brain.
A non-functioning brain is braindead.

Both the religious and atheist crack me up.
Both seem to think they actually have a clue as to what is TRULY going on in the Multiverse.

Me,I fully admit I haven't got a clue.
I fully admit I know nothing.
Hail Eris!

Gee that doesn't look the same as what you said I said.

What we have here is a clear case of deliberate misquoting on your part.

Let me make this perfectly clear.
People have the right to believe whatever they wish to believe,but beliefs do not necessarily equal REALITY or The TRUTH.

Since you have not proven that I have ridiculed your beliefs,proven that you deliberately misquoted me,and that you by your own admission may have ridiculed my beliefs,I would very much like an apology.
Thank you.

 

[presluc]

Oh,so you admit to ridiculing my beliefs.
That's very brave and honest of you.
I on the other hand, emphatically deny ridiculing your beliefs.
The burden of proof is on you.
And if I inadvertently did,I apologize.

I personally have no problems with anyone questioning my beliefs,because we Erisians are supposed to do that ourselves on a constant basis,because that is the way we Erisians get closer to the Goddess.
But I myself understand the difference between questioning ones beliefs,and ridiculing ones beliefs.

Now here is the post I took offense to:
Post 814-


For your information Kerry Thornley and Greg Hill founded the Discordian Society in 1958-59.
They wrote THE PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA IN 1965
Discordianism is a big influence in the Modern Neo-Paganism.
Kerry Thornley was one of the founders of The Church of the Sub-Genius in the early 1980's
It is a huge influence in many "internet religions".

It seems to me that your post was not meant to enlighten,or even question,but to deliberately disparage and dismiss.
You offered no facts about my Belief Structure (like I did above,told to me by Kerry Thornley himself,who was a dear friend of mine for 6 years prior to his death in 1998 ) only misinformation.
You didn't have to say "My beliefs are wrong",because it seems to me your intent was to imply it.



I said that,really?
Really?
Lets take a look at what I REALLY said,shall we?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/78570-without-god-there-no-inalienable-rights-81.html



Gee that doesn't look the same as what you said I said.

What we have here is a clear case of deliberate misquoting on your part.

Let me make this perfectly clear.
People have the right to believe whatever they wish to believe,but beliefs do not necessarily equal REALITY or The TRUTH.

Since you have not proven that I have ridiculed your beliefs,proven that you deliberately misquoted me,and that you by your own admission may have ridiculed my beliefs,I would very much like an apology.
Thank you.

Perhaps you should look at your own post
Begining with
Belief is the death of intelligence

And ending with a nonfunctioning brain is braindead.

You must know if you have read any of my post that I believe and have faith in God.
Yet you have posted belief if the death or descruction of intelligence or something similar on more than one post.
At least I use the direct approach I never cared for spin doctors .

As for my post being misquoteing I was wrong you are right, I will admit it when I am proven wrong can you?

You ,organized religion, atheist, atheist scientist all sing the same song .
People have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe BUT, beliefs do not necessarily equal reality or the truth.

People can beleive whatever they wish BUT,.
Seems like with organized religion, athiest, athiest scientist there's always a "BUT" explaining why you shouldn't believe the way you want.
Are you any differant same song ,same believe the way you want" BUT"?

You once quoted that athiest and organized religon crack you up.

I wander why? you just another pot calling the kettleeace

 

[Verthaine]

Perhaps you should look at your own post
Begining with
Belief is the death of intelligence

And ending with a nonfunctioning brain is braindead.

Now are you are taking what I said out of context?
Is this deliberate?
I have looked at my own post.
And i know what I wrote,and it's intent.

The quote in question was an explaination as to what the term "beliefs are the death of intelligence" actually means:
Here is the post in it's entirety:

Belief is only the death of intelligence when you apply Shroepers Law,which states that if the evidence does not support your "theory"/"beliefs",disregard the evidence.

Beliefs do not automatically equal reality

Just because you believe in alternative fuels does not necessarily mean you are going to go out and find them.

Alternative fuels exist because the evidence backs up the fact that they exist,thus rendering the "belief" in it a moot point.
It no longer matters if you believe in alternative fuels or not.
The evidence seem to suggest that it exists.
Thus it is a fact.

Belief being the death of intelligence,is something we
discordians have been saying for years.

It means once you believe in something,you no longer question it.You no longer ponder it.You no longer think about it.
A brain that does not think is a non-functioning brain.
A non-functioning brain is braindead.

Both the religious and atheist crack me up.
Both seem to think they actually have a clue as to what is TRULY going on in the Multiverse.

Me,I fully admit I haven't got a clue.
I fully admit I know nothing.
Hail Eris!

If you decided to take that post as a direct attack on your beliefs,that's on you,not me.
The evidence provided by me seems to suggest otherwise.
Or are you applying Shroeper's Law.

You must know if you have read any of my post that I believe and have faith in God.

What's your point?
I have faith in God(dess) also.
But Faith and Beliefs are not necessarily the same thing.
I never question my own Faith,but I sure as hell question my Beliefs to make sure that it is consistent with my own Faith.

Yet you have posted belief if the death or descruction of intelligence or something similar on more than one post.
At least I use the direct approach I never cared for spin doctors .

If by "direct approach" you mean deliberately misquoting (by your own admission below) and taking things out of context (as I provided the evidence above) then I rather take the scenic route and provide the evidence and let others decide the validity of it.

And it's not "spinning" if you are telling the truth.
You on the other hand,have been spinning like a top.

As for my post being misquoteing I was wrong you are right, I will admit it when I am proven wrong can you?

I'm married,of course I can admit when I'm wrong.
Just ask my wife.
She's always right.(hahaha)

You,on the other hand,have yet to prove me wrong.

You ,organized religion, atheist, atheist scientist all sing the same song .

I'm singing "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zep as of the moment I'm writing this.
In my opinion the greatest rock song of all time.

Why do you insist on lumping me with the atheists (which I am not) and organized religion (which I do not belong to).
The only thing I have in common with them is saying "where is the evidence" and"here is the evidence".
How a person chooses(or chooses not) to interpret the evidence is on that person,not me.

People have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe BUT, beliefs do not necessarily equal reality or the truth.

Gee,that is what I've been saying all along,glad you agree.
But let me make this general statement:

"People have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe but if they present their Beliefs as Facts,then others have the right to ask for evidence to support that".

Now if you take THAT as a personal attack on YOUR beliefs,that's on YOU, not ME.

People can believe whatever they wish BUT,.
Seems like with organized religion, athiest, athiest scientist there's always a "BUT" explaining why you shouldn't believe the way you want.

Since you used the word "seems" in your above statement that,of course, makes it your opinion,a " point of view" not a fact.

I may have a different opinion.
But it doesn't necessarily make that opinion a fact either.

Are you any differant same song ,same believe the way you want" BUT"?

Of course I am different,I am me and they are not,unless of course they are me (throwing a little taoism in there).
In this Universe,there is always a "but".
Everything depends on the context and situation.
Unless it is proven otherwise.
If you don't like it,prove otherwise.
And present your evidence.

You once quoted that athiest and organized religon crack you up.

I wander why? you just another pot calling the kettleeace

Didn't you read the last paragraph of the post you are referencing?
I already explain why.
And I crack myself up constantly.


And as for you calling referring to me as "the pot" that of course is your opinion,not mine,but you have yet to prove that I am.

Now,back to the o.p. question.

On post 813 I stated:

So in reality,the response to the opinion of the O.P. is dependent on ones religion/irreligion or lack of.

In the very next post (814)

You stated:

Pardon me there, Verti, but I don't think so.

Care to elaborate as to why you don't think so?

 

[presluc]

Taking it out of contex?
Uhh, no
I mearly quoted what you posted.
"people have a right to believe whatever they wish BUT"
YOUR WORDS YES?

The differance between you and I are in the post.
PRESLUC ; NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON HOW OR WHAT THEY CHOOSE
Perhaps I should have added what they beleive or not believe in period.
No person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD

VERTHAINE; PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WISH, "BUT" BELIEFS DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL REALITY OR TRUTHS.

Now, my question is simple reality and truth according to who YOU or another athiest or perhaps someone from organized religion.

First you say believe in whatever you wish then there is always a "BUT" to either question you or your beliefs .
Wether you are a faith believer who believes in God, or an athiest/scientist who believes in the big bang or an athiest who believes in nothing.
Somebody has to be right all the time and they have to be wrong for what they believe is differant from what these egocentricts who uses beleive how you wish and but in the same sentence.
The "beleive how you wish" is the "carrot" the "BUT" is the "stick" usually followed after the "carrot"
Just like in your statement.

So you being taking out of context. uhh NO.eace

 

[Removable Mind]

Taking it out of contex?
Uhh, no
I mearly quoted what you posted.
"people have a right to believe whatever they wish BUT"
YOUR WORDS YES?

The differance between you and I are in the post.
PRESLUC ; NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON HOW OR WHAT THEY CHOOSE
Perhaps I should have added what they beleive or not believe in period.
No person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD

VERTHAINE; PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WISH, "BUT" BELIEFS DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL REALITY OR TRUTHS.

Now, my question is simple reality and truth according to who YOU or another athiest or perhaps someone from organized religion.

First you say believe in whatever you wish then there is always a "BUT" to either question you or your beliefs .
Wether you are a faith believer who believes in God, or an athiest/scientist who believes in the big bang or an athiest who believes in nothing.
Somebody has to be right all the time and they have to be wrong for what they believe is differant from what these egocentricts who uses beleive how you wish and but in the same sentence.
The "beleive how you wish" is the "carrot" the "BUT" is the "stick" usually followed after the "carrot"
Just like in your statement.

So you being taking out of context. uhh NO.eace

Do you believe in Preponderance of Evidence?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Taking it out of contex?
Uhh, no
I mearly quoted what you posted.
"people have a right to believe whatever they wish BUT"
YOUR WORDS YES?

The differance between you and I are in the post.
PRESLUC ; NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON HOW OR WHAT THEY CHOOSE
Perhaps I should have added what they beleive or not believe in period.
No person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD

VERTHAINE; PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WISH, "BUT" BELIEFS DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL REALITY OR TRUTHS.

Now, my question is simple reality and truth according to who YOU or another athiest or perhaps someone from organized religion.

First you say believe in whatever you wish then there is always a "BUT" to either question you or your beliefs .
Wether you are a faith believer who believes in God, or an athiest/scientist who believes in the big bang or an athiest who believes in nothing.
Somebody has to be right all the time and they have to be wrong for what they believe is differant from what these egocentricts who uses beleive how you wish and but in the same sentence.
The "beleive how you wish" is the "carrot" the "BUT" is the "stick" usually followed after the "carrot"
Just like in your statement.

So you being taking out of context. uhh NO.eace

Just how does one believe in nothing? Why do you faith heads always say that? At the very least, in order for them to be posting here, they have to believe in the existence of themselves, debate politics, and the factors that allows them to post (computers, electricity etc...)

I also find it curious that you equate atheist to scientist in your false dichotomy that ignores the various other gods that said "atheist/scientists" and you Christians do not believe in. (You're an atheist in respect to all of those other gods)

 

[Verthaine]

Taking it out of contex?
Uhh, no
I mearly quoted what you posted.
"people have a right to believe whatever they wish BUT"
YOUR WORDS YES?

You say you are not taking things out of context,but in your very first paragraph you deliberately left out the second half of that quote:


"People have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe but if they present their Beliefs as Facts,then others have the right to ask for evidence to support that".

Once again I have provided evidence of you taking things out of context.
The first time I asked if that was deliberate.
Now I'm convinced.

The differance between you and I are in the post.
PRESLUC ; NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON HOW OR WHAT THEY CHOOSE

I never told you what you can or cannot believe in.
Simple as that.

Perhaps I should have added what they beleive or not believe in period.
No person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD

Please show me anywhere on this thread where I told you what you can or cannot believe in.
Because I haven't,and you should have realized by now that I am going to ask you TO PROVE IT.
But I know you can't (apparently not without misquoting and taking out of context).

Now what you really should have added was: "according to my beliefs no person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD."
That would have been a bit more accurate.
If you think I am telling you what to believe (which I am not) then maybe you should not read my posts.


The 1st Amendment allows for Freedom of Speech,even unpopular Speech.
Whether YOU like it,or not.
What it does not allow is for anyone to physically FORCE a person to believe in something against their wishes.
Are you saying I am physically trying to force you to believe in something against your wishes?

VERTHAINE; PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WISH, "BUT" BELIEFS DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL REALITY OR TRUTHS.

Now, my question is simple reality and truth according to who YOU or another athiest or perhaps someone from organized religion.

According to the interpretation and understanding of the evidence of the observer(s).
And that is only contingent to any new evidence that may present itself in the future.
That's really the best anyone can do,unless they have access to infinite knowledge.

First you say believe in whatever you wish then there is always a "BUT" to either question you or your beliefs .
Wether you are a faith believer who believes in God, or an athiest/scientist who believes in the big bang or an athiest who believes in nothing.
Somebody has to be right all the time and they have to be wrong for what they believe is differant from what these egocentricts who uses beleive how you wish and but in the same sentence.
The "beleive how you wish" is the "carrot" the "BUT" is the "stick" usually followed after the "carrot"
Just like in your statement.

Sorry,but can you tighten and clarify this last paragraph a bit (a lot)?
Because it is rather difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

But I will try to respond to the parts I do understand.

Unless you have ironclad evidence to the contrary,the Universe Always Contains a "But".

Don't blame me, I didn't create the Laws of Physics.
That's pretty much it as to what actually made sense in your last paragraph.

So you being taking out of context. uhh NO.eace

Please see the beginning of this post.
I have already provided evidence that you have done so not once,but twice.
Care to make it a trifecta?

 

[presluc]

Just how does one believe in nothing? Why do you faith heads always say that? At the very least, in order for them to be posting here, they have to believe in the existence of themselves, debate politics, and the factors that allows them to post (computers, electricity etc...)

I also find it curious that you equate atheist to scientist in your false dichotomy that ignores the various other gods that said "atheist/scientists" and you Christians do not believe in. (You're an atheist in respect to all of those other gods)

Strange it is you who posted belief is the destruction of intelligence or something like that.
If not you agreed with who did.either way that is a contradiction on your part.

Perhaps my post that I have posted manytimes looses certain meaning in transmition to you.

I have faith in God we are called faith believers we only ask for individual freedom to beleive AS WE WISH, FOR WE WANT OTHERS TO BELEIBE OR NOT BELIEVE AS THEY WISH.
NO BUTS NO ORS NO ANDS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM TO BELIEVE HAVE FAITH OR NOT BELIEVE AND BELIEVE WHAT ANY PERSON CHOOSES.

As far as respect I give what I recieve if I get respect I give respect if not WELL? OR SHOULD I SAY BUT?

I put atheist /scientist together for a simple reason if a person does not believe in God the majority are either Aheist or Scientist.

Do not label me according to your standards {you're an atheist in respect to all other gods}

I am well past the age of knowing my own mind without any help from some want to be intellectual.

What or how you believe is your own affair what and how I believe is my own affair.
Again no "BUTS" NO "ORS" NO" ANDS".

Simple individuality you should try it instead of trying to control how and what other people "like myself" believe in.
For this is not the first time people have tried to take over my individual thought and belief.
Organized religion has tried and failed , other atheist has tried and failed other scientist has tried and failed .
YOU HAVE TRIED , YOU HAVE FAILED.eace

 

[presluc]

You say you are not taking things out of context,but in your very first paragraph you deliberately left out the second half of that quote:


"People have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe but if they present their Beliefs as Facts,then others have the right to ask for evidence to support that".

Once again I have provided evidence of you taking things out of context.
The first time I asked if that was deliberate.
Now I'm convinced.


I never told you what you can or cannot believe in.
Simple as that.



Please show me anywhere on this thread where I told you what you can or cannot believe in.
Because I haven't,and you should have realized by now that I am going to ask you TO PROVE IT.
But I know you can't (apparently not without misquoting and taking out of context).

Now what you really should have added was: "according to my beliefs no person has the right to tell another person they are wrong in their belief without proof proving they are wrong, PERIOD."
That would have been a bit more accurate.
If you think I am telling you what to believe (which I am not) then maybe you should not read my posts.


The 1st Amendment allows for Freedom of Speech,even unpopular Speech.
Whether YOU like it,or not.
What it does not allow is for anyone to physically FORCE a person to believe in something against their wishes.
Are you saying I am physically trying to force you to believe in something against your wishes?



According to the interpretation and understanding of the evidence of the observer(s).
And that is only contingent to any new evidence that may present itself in the future.
That's really the best anyone can do,unless they have access to infinite knowledge.



Sorry,but can you tighten and clarify this last paragraph a bit (a lot)?
Because it is rather difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

But I will try to respond to the parts I do understand.

Unless you have ironclad evidence to the contrary,the Universe Always Contains a "But".

Don't blame me, I didn't create the Laws of Physics.
That's pretty much it as to what actually made sense in your last paragraph.



Please see the beginning of this post.
I have already provided evidence that you have done so not once,but twice.
Care to make it a trifecta?

ONE SENTANCE

We are not speaking of observers or the universe .

We are speaking of only one concept not many, ONLY ONE CONCEPT

INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT AND THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WISH OR NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU WISH .
This concept is not the universe or acording to observers it IS THE INDIVIDUAL NOT THE PAST BUT HERE AND NOW
Now you can say this or that about the universe or I could say this or that about observing the nature of things.
However neither is important to the individual it is what they THINK ,it is what they BELIEVE, or NOT BELIEVE that is the concept
What an individual THINKS that is the key everything else is scondary at best.
Especially circumstancial evidence.eace

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Strange it is you who posted belief is the destruction of intelligence or something like that.
If not you agreed with who did.either way that is a contradiction on your part.

I have no idea what you're talking about, do cite the statement you claim I agreed with. Else spare me your straw men, I'll answer for my words alone.

Perhaps my post that I have posted manytimes looses certain meaning in transmition to you.

I have faith in God we are called faith believers we only ask for individual freedom to beleive AS WE WISH, FOR WE WANT OTHERS TO BELEIBE OR NOT BELIEVE AS THEY WISH.
NO BUTS NO ORS NO ANDS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM TO BELIEVE HAVE FAITH OR NOT BELIEVE AND BELIEVE WHAT ANY PERSON CHOOSES.

As far as respect I give what I recieve if I get respect I give respect if not WELL? OR SHOULD I SAY BUT?

You reserve respect until it is granted to you, whether or not your position warrants respect? You certainly do not understand respect.

I put atheist /scientist together for a simple reason if a person does not believe in God the majority are either Aheist or Scientist.

There are many scientists that are theists. You sure are loose with the meanings of words.

Do not label me according to your standards {you're an atheist in respect to all other gods}

I am not labeling you, I am accurately describing your theology. Do you believe that Zues exists? Then to the followers of Zeus you're an atheist just as to you, I am an atheist because I am without belief in your god. You label me based on something I do not believe. Well there are many alleged gods you do not believe in.

Words have meanings.

I am well past the age of knowing my own mind without any help from some want to be intellectual.

Oh, more insults. And you claim to warrant respect...

What or how you believe is your own affair what and how I believe is my own affair.
Again no "BUTS" NO "ORS" NO" ANDS".

Simple individuality you should try it instead of trying to control how and what other people "like myself" believe in.
For this is not the first time people have tried to take over my individual thought and belief.

Just how am I trying to "control what you believe in"? Do you understand the purpose of debate? If you're irrational (unwilling to change your mind when faced with contradicting evidence, and the errors in your logic and use of language) then why are you here?

Organized religion has tried and failed , other atheist has tried and failed other scientist has tried and failed .
YOU HAVE TRIED , YOU HAVE FAILED.eace

What have these other atheists tried and failed at, or other scientists tried and failed at? Explaining to you what A-Theist means? Just what do you think I'm trying to do that I have failed at?

I'm here for debate, and in that your failures are many.

 

[Verthaine]

ONE SENTANCE

We are not speaking of observers or the universe .

We are speaking of only one concept not many, ONLY ONE CONCEPT

INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT AND THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WISH OR NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU WISH .
This concept is not the universe or acording to observers it IS THE INDIVIDUAL NOT THE PAST BUT HERE AND NOW
Now you can say this or that about the universe or I could say this or that about observing the nature of things.
However neither is important to the individual it is what they THINK ,it is what they BELIEVE, or NOT BELIEVE that is the concept
What an individual THINKS that is the key everything else is scondary at best.
Especially circumstancial evidence.eace

I'll reply to your sentence with just two sentences containing five words and two punctuation marks:


So what? What's your point?
I already agreed with you that a person has aright to believe in whatever they wish to.

But I will expand on my belief in stating that "A person has the right to believe in whatever they wish to believe in,and another person has the right to question them".

Don't like the line of questioning,then you are free not to answer them.

Like I have stated before a number of time on this thread,I have in no way tried to force you to believe in anything you do not wish to believe in.

It is of my OPINION that from what I've gathered from your posts on this thread,you SEEM TO ME as not wanting anyone to even QUESTION your beliefs.
But like I said,that's just my opinion.

Just like the statement you made above (and notice that I have posted your post in it's entirety so as not to be accused of taking things out of context):

"What an individual THINKS that is the key everything else is scondary at best."

that is, of course,your opinion,one that I may,or may not share.

Like I have stated before,to me my Faith and my Beliefs are not the same thing.
I never question my Faith,but I constantly question my Beliefs to see if it corresponds to my Faith.
I personally have no problem with amending or even outright changing my Beliefs if the evidence I encounter seems solid enough to contradict them or my Faith.

Whether you do so or not is of no consequence to me.
I myself am not,or have be,forcing you to.

 

[presluc]

Do you believe in Preponderance of Evidence?

Yes provided there is evidence without question a majority only applies in veiws not the human mind, you talk of the majority of evidence
If majority played a role who is the majority organized religion, faith believers or athiest?

Do you believe in proof without a shadow of a doubt?eace

 

[presluc]

I have no idea what you're talking about, do cite the statement you claim I agreed with. Else spare me your straw men, I'll answer for my words alone.



You reserve respect until it is granted to you, whether or not your position warrants respect? You certainly do not understand respect.



There are many scientists that are theists. You sure are loose with the meanings of words.



I am not labeling you, I am accurately describing your theology. Do you believe that Zues exists? Then to the followers of Zeus you're an atheist just as to you, I am an atheist because I am without belief in your god. You label me based on something I do not believe. Well there are many alleged gods you do not believe in.

Words have meanings.



Oh, more insults. And you claim to warrant respect...



Just how am I trying to "control what you believe in"? Do you understand the purpose of debate? If you're irrational (unwilling to change your mind when faced with contradicting evidence, and the errors in your logic and use of language) then why are you here?



What have these other atheists tried and failed at, or other scientists tried and failed at? Explaining to you what A-Theist means? Just what do you think I'm trying to do that I have failed at?

More insults your post isn't exactly filled with kindness, pal you get what you give it's called Karma lookit up some time.

I'm here for debate, and in that your failures are many.

As far as respect goes it is earned not given, and so far ,pal all you've done is put down my beliefs and my individual right to believe.
You have'nt earned nothing because the fact of someone that believes differant than you must be wrong for in all the world you must be right all the time WHY?

All athiest are basicly the same they want to explain or describe my theology aka my beliefs to me.
I find this strange to explain something that you don't believe exist.
As far as me uhh explaining or describing your beliefs, well you don't believe in God that's your choice I have no problem with that
And that's about it

Try these words INDIVIDUAL BELIEF AND THOUGHT.

Insults, your post hasdn't been exactly filled with kindness, you get what you give , pal a little thing called Karma look it up some time.

How are you trying to control what I believe in?

"I am accuately describing your theology" your words yes?
In other words you are describing what I believe in.
Tell me, how is it you know what my theology is or what I believe in???
Do you think I would actually believe in any theology according to your accurate describtion?????



I understand the purpose of debate do you?
Where does it say you must change what you think on questionable evidence I must have missed that part.
You best check the post a little closer pal no contradicting evidence has been proven.

Not only have these other athiest tried and failed at presenting proof but have tried and failed at describing my belief?

Then let us debate, I have stated I have faith in God but no proof that God exist.
I have stated I ask no one to believe or no one to have faith as I do they believe as they choose , I'll believe as I choose.

You have stated you have contradicting evidence to my faith or belief if you will.
If you have ironclad evidence , if you have beyond a shadow of a doubt contradicting evidence PRESENT IT.
No excuses no lectures no theories just without a shadow of doubt, ironclad contradicting evidence that is fact not theory, not working theory, fact, present that or STEP OFF.eace

 

[presluc]

I'll reply to your sentence with just two sentences containing five words and two punctuation marks:


So what? What's your point?
I already agreed with you that a person has aright to believe in whatever they wish to.

But I will expand on my belief in stating that "A person has the right to believe in whatever they wish to believe in,and another person has the right to question them".

Don't like the line of questioning,then you are free not to answer them.

Like I have stated before a number of time on this thread,I have in no way tried to force you to believe in anything you do not wish to believe in.

It is of my OPINION that from what I've gathered from your posts on this thread,you SEEM TO ME as not wanting anyone to even QUESTION your beliefs.
But like I said,that's just my opinion.

Just like the statement you made above (and notice that I have posted your post in it's entirety so as not to be accused of taking things out of context):

"What an individual THINKS that is the key everything else is scondary at best."

that is, of course,your opinion,one that I may,or may not share.

Like I have stated before,to me my Faith and my Beliefs are not the same thing.
I never question my Faith,but I constantly question my Beliefs to see if it corresponds to my Faith.
I personally have no problem with amending or even outright changing my Beliefs if the evidence I encounter seems solid enough to contradict them or my Faith.

Whether you do so or not is of no consequence to me.
I myself am not,or have be,forcing you to.

Ya had me going for awhile.
My point is with you and people like you there is always a "BUT" or an "AND" what's next "OR"
Organized religion does the same thing to faith believers as well as athiest
That's not the way I see individual freedom of thought or belief.
Athiest are always whineing about religion questioning their belief or having religion shoved down their throat yet an atheist as to quesstion my belief as the right to question my belief
First it was "A person as the right to believe in what they wish "BUT"
Then it was "A person has a right to believe in whatever they wish"
Then it was "A person has the right to believe in whatever they wish to belive in AND another person has the right to question them"
Why can't a person just believe in whatever they wish, period.

What questions have I not answered to the best of my ability.
Have I at anytime ask any athiest to change their beliefs?
Have I at anytime discussed the word of God or the pages of the bible to any athiest except in defence ??
I have mearly responded to protect my individual right to believe and my beliefs.

No preacher of organized religion will use the word force in his recuitment they discuss and persuade, just like your meathods.
No member of organized religion cares about any person's beliefs but what they believe what athiest believes is not discussed ecept to ridicule and critisize
Just like the words of God are never discussed by any athiest except to ridicule and critisize.
Just like your post.

It is my opinion that you have one belief you never question others belief because you think your belief is right and everybody including myself is wrong, read the past post again.
How often do you ask the works of intelligent design , or the alpha of evolution.
How often have you ask what my preception of God is.
To you the very word God is like kryptotite to superman
To late now if you ask these questions now it would be to prove a point to yourself not to me.
For I have discussed and debated long post of athiesm, scientistic theories from red shift to microwave background to contradictory evidence but only theory the scientific so called laws and the list goes on.
Question ; how many post have you debated and discussed the presence . the preception or workings of God?
NONE, SAVE TO SAY YOU SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST or fairy tale

Well if you are human, if you are an individual if you are thinking?
I say that makes a pretty good argument for a debate if you care to disbute that sentence.

Your missing post for I'm sure I have said this before.

For awhile I actually believed in the whole Adam and Eve thing.
However through reserch and keeping an open mind I know this could not be,
Evolution brought us to where we are.
The bible was written by man , man then and now makes mistakes
So,as you see I have already omitted and changed my beliefs.
Now most athiest would say ok so now you know God does not exist.
No I only know that man makes mistakes, my faith in God still remains.

So tell me what changes have you made since you became an athiest?

Wether you do so or not is no consequence to me.eace

 

[Canadian-bloke]

I don't depend on celestial big brother, dictator called God for my human rights.

 

[Verthaine]

Ya had me going for awhile.

And apparently, I still have you going.
You make it too easy

My point is with you and people like you there is always a "BUT" or an "AND" what's next "OR"

That 's because,as I've said before,the Universe always contains a "BUT" "AND" "OR" until YOU can prove otherwise.
Like it or not,that's just the way it is.
Don't like it,PROVE IT OTHERWISE.
Like I said before,I didn't make the Laws of Physics

Organized religion does the same thing to faith believers as well as athiest

Not my problem.
I know how to defend and stand up for myself whenever it tries.
But that's just me.

Just like I've been defending myself (successfully I may add) against your attacks on me.

That's not the way I see individual freedom of thought or belief.

Fine by me,you can see whatever you want to see.
I'm not trying to stop you.

Athiest are always whineing about religion questioning their belief or having religion shoved down their throat yet an atheist as to quesstion my belief as the right to question my belief

If this sentence actually made any sense,it still wouldn't apply to me since I'm not an atheist.

First it was "A person as the right to believe in what they wish "BUT"
Then it was "A person has a right to believe in whatever they wish"
Then it was "A person has the right to believe in whatever they wish to belive in AND another person has the right to question them"
Why can't a person just believe in whatever they wish, period.

I don't know about you,but I live in America,where we have a thing call the 1st Amendment.Maybe you've heard of it?
It allows for freedom of expression,and does not allow Congress the right to create a National religion.

The freedom of expression part means that you and I are allowed to believe in anything we want to believe.
It also give you and I the right to question,criticize,laugh at,comment, and make fun of,some one else's beliefs.
Whether we like it,or not.

What questions have I not answered to the best of my ability.
Have I at anytime ask any athiest to change their beliefs?
Have I at anytime discussed the word of God or the pages of the bible to any athiest except in defence ??
I have mearly responded to protect my individual right to believe and my beliefs.

And again,how many times do I have to write this:,
I never tried to force you to believe anything you didn't want to believe in.
Just because you seem to consider anyone just questioning your beliefs as an attack on your beliefs that has absolutely no bearing on me.That's your immaturity,not mine.
May I remind you that it was YOU who attacked me and my beliefs on this thread,not the other way around (post 814,remember, we've already been through this).

No preacher of organized religion will use the word force in his recuitment they discuss and persuade, just like your meathods.

EXCEPT I'VE NEVER TRIED TO FORCE YOU TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN.
Again I've had to say it.
Really what is wrong with you?

No member of organized religion cares about any person's beliefs but what they believe what athiest believes is not discussed ecept to ridicule and critisize
Just like the words of God are never discussed by any athiest except to ridicule and critisize.
Just like your post.

I'd ask you to show where I ridiculed and criticized the "words of God" but anyone who has read the last 4-5 pages of this thread already knows that you can't.

It is my opinion that you have one belief you never question others belief because you think your belief is right and everybody including myself is wrong, read the past post again.

Like you said,that's just your opinion.
You are welcome to it.
I personally do not agree it.
And I'm in a better position to know what I believe in.

How often do you ask the works of intelligent design , or the alpha of evolution.

Umm,isn't intelligent design or whatever the alpha of evolution on a different thread.
What the hell does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Focus please.

How often have you ask what my preception of God is.

I didn't know that was a requirement to be a part of this discussion?
But fine fine,if it would make you happy,what is your preception of God is?

To you the very word God is like kryptotite to superman

Now you have just entered the Kookoo Zone
That statement you made is so ridiculous on so many levels I'm not even going to attempt to dignify that statement.

To late now if you ask these questions now it would be to prove a point to yourself not to me.

No offense,but are you going though some psychotic delusional breakdown?
Because you are making less and less sense as you've gone along.

For I have discussed and debated long post of athiesm, scientistic theories from red shift to microwave background to contradictory evidence but only theory the scientific so called laws and the list goes on.

Good for you,what do you want, a cookie
Again I ask,what does it have to do with this thread?

Question ; how many post have you debated and discussed the presence . the preception or workings of God?

Again,what does that have to do with anything on this thread?
I'm still new to this forum.
I didn't know that it was a REQUIREMENT.

NONE, SAVE TO SAY YOU SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST or fairy tale

Now you're just outright lying.
lets see,I've already caught and proven that you deliberately attacked me and my beliefs,deliberately misquote me,deliberately took things I've written out of context,and now you're lying through your teeth.

Now that's just sad.

Well if you are human, if you are an individual if you are thinking?
I say that makes a pretty good argument for a debate if you care to disbute that sentence.

Oh no problem,I'll debate that sentence you've made above.
I've never said God does not exist or is a fairy tale.
You're a big fat liar for saying I did.
Point,Match,and Game
Victory,Verthaine.
Thanks for playing.

Nice debate.

Your missing post for I'm sure I have said this before.

Maybe on some other thread,not on this one.

For awhile I actually believed in the whole Adam and Eve thing.
However through reserch and keeping an open mind I know this could not be,
Evolution brought us to where we are.
The bible was written by man , man then and now makes mistakes
So,as you see I have already omitted and changed my beliefs.
Now most athiest would say ok so now you know God does not exist.
No I only know that man makes mistakes, my faith in God still remains.

Well,that just totally came out of left field.

Good for you,again I'll ask,so what.
You've torn apart your own credibility by your deliberate misquoting,taking things out of context and outright lying that I'm not even impressed or even care if you did or didn't.

Now what anyone else thinks about your crediblity from reading this thread is on you,not me.

So tell me what changes have you made since you became an athiest?

Like I've said numerous times on this thread,I'm not an atheist.
Congrats,you've just managed to send your own credibility into the negative zone.

Wether you do so or not is no consequence to me.eace

Then why'd you ask,other then a feeble and ultimately failed attempt to paint me as an atheist.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

As far as respect goes it is earned not given, and so far ,pal all you've done is put down my beliefs and my individual right to believe.
You have'nt earned nothing because the fact of someone that believes differant than you must be wrong for in all the world you must be right all the time WHY?

All athiest are basicly the same they want to explain or describe my theology aka my beliefs to me.
I find this strange to explain something that you don't believe exist.
As far as me uhh explaining or describing your beliefs, well you don't believe in God that's your choice I have no problem with that
And that's about it

Try these words INDIVIDUAL BELIEF AND THOUGHT.

Insults, your post hasdn't been exactly filled with kindness, you get what you give , pal a little thing called Karma look it up some time.

How are you trying to control what I believe in?

"I am accuately describing your theology" your words yes?
In other words you are describing what I believe in.
Tell me, how is it you know what my theology is or what I believe in???
Do you think I would actually believe in any theology according to your accurate describtion?????

No matter what, there are god's that people have believed in that you do not, and your are an atheist in respect to said gods because you are without belief in their existence.

I understand the purpose of debate do you?
Where does it say you must change what you think on questionable evidence I must have missed that part.

A rational human being is one who changes his mind when faced with new evidence or the flaws in his logic. I never said you had to be rational. In fact you're blatantly closed minded and irrational. You seem to be under the impression that individuality in thought means allowing for demonstrably false logic and ignorance of definitions.

You best check the post a little closer pal no contradicting evidence has been proven.

Not only have these other athiest tried and failed at presenting proof but have tried and failed at describing my belief?

Then let us debate, I have stated I have faith in God but no proof that God exist.
I have stated I ask no one to believe or no one to have faith as I do they believe as they choose , I'll believe as I choose.

You have stated you have contradicting evidence to my faith or belief if you will.
If you have ironclad evidence , if you have beyond a shadow of a doubt contradicting evidence PRESENT IT.
No excuses no lectures no theories just without a shadow of doubt, ironclad contradicting evidence that is fact not theory, not working theory, fact, present that or STEP OFF.eace

What are you talking about, when did I say that I have evidence that contradicted your faith? Please quote me having said that, instead of explaining the definition of rationality which is what I was doing when I mentioned "contradicting evidence." You should really read posts before you reply.

 

[CarlF]

Rights don't come from god, that's absurd. Rights do come from government, which is just society's way of enforcing things the way the majority thinks it should be. So if the majority thinks something should be an unalienable right, that gets put in the constitution, and then the government isn't going to take it away from you and the government will work to prevent anyone else from taking it away from you.

Inalienable rights are protected by the structure of society, not god. Suggesting that "god" gives you your rights is ****ing meaningless.

 

[roguenuke]

Rights don't come from god, that's absurd. Rights do come from government, which is just society's way of enforcing things the way the majority thinks it should be. So if the majority thinks something should be an unalienable right, that gets put in the constitution, and then the government isn't going to take it away from you and the government will work to prevent anyone else from taking it away from you.

Inalienable rights are protected by the structure of society, not god. Suggesting that "god" gives you your rights is ****ing meaningless.

Actually, to ensure rights become "inalienable", aka put into the Constitution, it requires a super-majority, vice a simple majority.

Otherwise, agree with this post completely.

 

[CarlF]

Actually, to ensure rights become "inalienable", aka put into the Constitution, it requires a super-majority, vice a simple majority.

Otherwise, agree with this post completely.

Yeah, that's basically what I meant. The generally belief of the population is what's gonna end up making up the constitution.

 

[presluc]

I don't depend on celestial big brother, dictator called God for my human rights.

I don't depend on nothing or theories that are presented as fact.
You say this is a theory but accept it as a fact.
I say this is faith do not accept it as fact.
Who's depending here?eace

 

[presluc]

And apparently, I still have you going.
You make it too easy



That 's because,as I've said before,the Universe always contains a "BUT" "AND" "OR" until YOU can prove otherwise.
Like it or not,that's just the way it is.
Don't like it,PROVE IT OTHERWISE.
Like I said before,I didn't make the Laws of Physics



Not my problem.
I know how to defend and stand up for myself whenever it tries.
But that's just me.

Just like I've been defending myself (successfully I may add) against your attacks on me.


Fine by me,you can see whatever you want to see.
I'm not trying to stop you.



If this sentence actually made any sense,it still wouldn't apply to me since I'm not an atheist.




I don't know about you,but I live in America,where we have a thing call the 1st Amendment.Maybe you've heard of it?
It allows for freedom of expression,and does not allow Congress the right to create a National religion.

The freedom of expression part means that you and I are allowed to believe in anything we want to believe.
It also give you and I the right to question,criticize,laugh at,comment, and make fun of,some one else's beliefs.
Whether we like it,or not.



And again,how many times do I have to write this:,
I never tried to force you to believe anything you didn't want to believe in.
Just because you seem to consider anyone just questioning your beliefs as an attack on your beliefs that has absolutely no bearing on me.That's your immaturity,not mine.
May I remind you that it was YOU who attacked me and my beliefs on this thread,not the other way around (post 814,remember, we've already been through this).


EXCEPT I'VE NEVER TRIED TO FORCE YOU TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN.
Again I've had to say it.
Really what is wrong with you?



I'd ask you to show where I ridiculed and criticized the "words of God" but anyone who has read the last 4-5 pages of this thread already knows that you can't.



Like you said,that's just your opinion.
You are welcome to it.
I personally do not agree it.
And I'm in a better position to know what I believe in.



Umm,isn't intelligent design or whatever the alpha of evolution on a different thread.
What the hell does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Focus please.


I didn't know that was a requirement to be a part of this discussion?
But fine fine,if it would make you happy,what is your preception of God is?



Now you have just entered the Kookoo Zone
That statement you made is so ridiculous on so many levels I'm not even going to attempt to dignify that statement.



No offense,but are you going though some psychotic delusional breakdown?
Because you are making less and less sense as you've gone along.



Good for you,what do you want, a cookie
Again I ask,what does it have to do with this thread?



Again,what does that have to do with anything on this thread?
I'm still new to this forum.
I didn't know that it was a REQUIREMENT.



Now you're just outright lying.
lets see,I've already caught and proven that you deliberately attacked me and my beliefs,deliberately misquote me,deliberately took things I've written out of context,and now you're lying through your teeth.

Now that's just sad.


Oh no problem,I'll debate that sentence you've made above.
I've never said God does not exist or is a fairy tale.
You're a big fat liar for saying I did.
Point,Match,and Game
Victory,Verthaine.
Thanks for playing.

Nice debate.


Maybe on some other thread,not on this one.


Well,that just totally came out of left field.

Good for you,again I'll ask,so what.
You've torn apart your own credibility by your deliberate misquoting,taking things out of context and outright lying that I'm not even impressed or even care if you did or didn't.

Now what anyone else thinks about your crediblity from reading this thread is on you,not me.



Like I've said numerous times on this thread,I'm not an atheist.
Congrats,you've just managed to send your own credibility into the negative zone.



Then why'd you ask,other then a feeble and ultimately failed attempt to paint me as an atheist.

I'm not going
It is you who make this too easy.

The universe is out there mankind including you can only guess.
Individual thought is here and now no guess you believe what you choose with the brain capibilities of thought.
Without individual thought there would be no laws of physics.


In one breath you defend against organized religion in the next you are just like organized religion.
This is my world to enter you must agree with everything I say.
I defend myself from athiest and organized religion.
Individual thought brings individual freedom

You're the one that posted belief is the death of intelligence so if you are not an athiest and you don't believe.
What the Hell are you?

Laugh at, coment crisize question anyones beliefs ?
That sword cuts both ways ya know .

Belief is the death of intelligence your words yes?

If my opinion is wrong proove it where have you ask about my belief?
Where have you ask about how I believe in God?

What does intelligent design have to do with this thread?
What does the preception of the workings of God has to do with this thread

Look stupid the name of this post is in reference to intelligent Design
Check the name of the thread.

I didn't know it was a requiement to listen to a whiner and cryer bitching about everybody elses life but when questioned about their own...WELL?

POINT MATCH GAME???
Look, Stupid can you read or do you only read what you choose?

What an individual THINKS is the key everything else is secondary.
Your response; an opinion I may or may NOT agree with.
SOUNDS LIKE THE OPENING FOR A DEBATE TO ME.

If you are human ,if you are an individual if you are thinking?
That is worth debating.

My crediability is not in question here the freedom of individual thought is.

As I said either you believe or not believe I paint you as nothing, cause evidently that is what you are.

You are nt a faith believer, you are not into organized religion you are not an athiest so what the Hell are you.

Perhaps a fence sitter who comes down on 1 side then the other.eace

 

[Luna Tick]

Strange that you think inalienable rights come from God when the Constitution is a 100 percent secular document. There's no mention of God or any quote from the Bible. There is a mention of freedom of religion, but it's as a right, and religion is not endorsed.

 

[other]

Strange that you think inalienable rights come from God when the Constitution is a 100 percent secular document. There's no mention of God or any quote from the Bible. There is a mention of freedom of religion, but it's as a right, and religion is not endorsed.

The Constitution grants certain specific rights or powers to the government; it grants no rights to the people, who have rights regardless of any document... being that they are rights granted by a higher power than man.

 

[American]

Strange that you think inalienable rights come from God when the Constitution is a 100 percent secular document. There's no mention of God or any quote from the Bible. There is a mention of freedom of religion, but it's as a right, and religion is not endorsed.

You're going to have to up your game by a 1000% if you want to make it around here.