Well I have explained twice (maybe thrice) what I meant now so I am unsure of why you posted this. I apologize for being unclear - I knew what I meant which is probably why I just dumbly assumed you all would too - I blame exhaustion and the most recent party that I got plastered at.
I do understand where you are coming from now. Your original statement is different to what you state now. When one changes the way one looks, i.e. nose/lips, it is one small feature whereas to actually change bodies and be another person is different. I see where you are at now though.
I am getting a few posts saying they are confused. I am not sure what is so confusing about it when I have a post below stating the situation in reply to Merlin. However, for the less observant I will repeat here:
The girl has just been raped, the cowards have escaped, and the girl sees you and asks for your help. Answer instinctively and honestly.
You're right; that was a rubbish scenario. Alteration: child and father are shouting at each other after child disobeys him and the child hurls a line of insults at him, offending him.
As for your second point, I used to think that way when I was little but I just suddenly started to see it from His point of view: He knows what will happen if He sends His Son, but still He does it because He loves us so much, and although He knows Jesus will be rejected, it still hurts like crap watching Jesus, His only Son, suffer. It makes perfect sense when you look at it from that point of view.
I agree with this in many ways. It does seem kind of like a pay back judging by some of the points but none the less I agree with parts of it. It could lead to problems such as Jews being viewed as better than Germans which today does not seem appropriate as Germany is not what it once was.
Nope, I really don't believe it. Firstly, it is a rough estimate; not everyone can swallow exactly seven spiders each night. Secondly, the estimate was taken from a sample of people, not every human in the world. Thirdly, prove I swallowed seven spiders last night.
Most people think I look 20 which is really ideal in certain situations but I would hate to look any older than that. I like being 18 and will cry forever when my birthday comes; don't ask why, most people love getting out of teen years. Maybe it won't be as bad as I predict.
Ahh right. I will have a look through his arguments and by the sounds of it will have great fun in process. I love to rip people to shreds if they rub me up the wrong way, its very satisfying somehow. I don't do it often, and have only done it once or twice if that here.
I thought you at least were feisty.
You have no idea ;)
What exactly would you like from a non-dull debater, is it someone that agrees with you, or just drops their opinion when you start flinging profanity around?
LOL, no. I respect members who respect me.
I respect those that go tet-a-tet and don't whine like a spoiled child when they don't get their way, or not go about sticking my name up in an attempt to get others to look at me negatively.
I am most certainly not a spoiled child and my intention was not to make others look at you negatively; I believe that you qualify for that award. Its all just a bunch of fun, you can nominate me for something really awful if you like, I won't take offence. How about... most irritating?
Ha ha, how about most belligerent hypocrite Billie
Although I'd have loved a shot at the most arrogant, besides this awards thing is a little bit sad.
See what I mean? LOL. Sorry I didn't slot you in for most arrogant, I have two others I want to win that one. You fit 'dullest' just perfectly ;) The awards aren't sad, and if they are then why would you "love a shot at the most arrogant"? Why would you even want to win that?
Hey quit editing your post, man!!
I just dont want to go to the hassle of finding one, my time is limited.
If you have the time to print out these posts then you must have the time to back up your original statement(s) and the fact that you believe the quote to be wrong.
All im hearing is that you don't understand modern science im afraid, i not intentially being arrogant here so please don't take it that way.
I don't take it that way. I understand modern science, but there is a very big difference between modern science and inventions, but some people just don't seem to see that.
Your simply repeating the words of men, God is everything, God is existence.
You are simply repeating the words of Pantheist's. God is not everything, God is not existance. You are yet to comment on the points I posted in response to your "We are God".
Beleive me i have dabbled, i recognis the wisdom of religious texts, many athiest will not, what im saying is there metaphors should be interpreted literally.
I find it difficult to understand what you mean at times, do you mean that the bible is metaphors and metaphors only?
No thats what your saying, ive made myself fairly clear already.
Actually you haven't. So far all you have done is state that Aquinas' quote is false and done nothing to back that up except state several of your odd opinions that often don't even make sense. In my last post I stated the points you are yet to prove which I see you have hastily avoided. I'm waiting for you to back up your statements and stop wasting time.
So first its the bible then its the dictionary,
Often people (non-Christians) recoil from anything in the bible so I suggested the dictionary instead.
im sorry but you are God, you just forgot. Here watch this:
Stop evading everything its a complete waste of time. I don't give a rats ass what religion you are, I just want you to prove your original statement which you have said many times you cannot so I believe this discussion is over if you fail to prove the statement in your next post.
Of course you don't, thats because your happy playing it.
So, your theory here is that if I was to be playing monopoly and enjoying it, it wouldn't be a game to me? Your assumptions and opinions really are rather odd.
This is an interesting interpretation, how did you come to it.
When one is on a roundabout they cannot possibly forget.
IM not asking you to im asking you to take my word for it, and if you dont want to go and prove me wrong.
Seriously, what was the point in your original post? You admit to having no sources whatsoever that back it up therefore you have no means of proving the quote wrong and you don't even provide reasoning or logic.
Whatever you want to label the discoveris of modern science they have provided a coherent explantion of everything we see around us.
I don't see people evolving from apes around me and since no one can provide accurate "raw data" then I label it as an invention.
NO i am not kidding you, i need to know what your conception of God in order to know whether my words will fall on deaf ears. God is many things to different people.
Fair enough. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God created the universe and all that is in it. If you want to know who He is, read something from the NT.
I beleive the quote is irrelevant as it was made when faith in a supernatural GOd as described by Christianity
That doesn't make sense. Are you basically saying that you don't believe it just because someone who believed in God wrote it?
We are God
Ur, no we're not. The dictionary defines God as a supernatural being that created the universe. Do you have that kind of power? Do I? Nope. We are not God.
There ive elaborated
You have not elaborated, you have gone off on a tangent which does not even make sense. Without faith, no explanation is possible; there is no faith present and neither is the possibility of an explanation.
i think an explanation is required to have a strong belief in something, but i dont think no explanation is possible without it.
With faith, no explanation is necessary. You state that one is required to explain having a strong belief in something. Why? Why is he required to explain his faith? Without faith, no explanation is possible. You state that there is a possible explanation to him without faith. Why is there an explanation about something he doesn't have? Its pointless as he doesn't have the faith and also he is out of his depth talking about faith which he has none of.
Yes it does and i just explained why, lool im not playing any games hear, i have no reason to.
I didn't say you were playing games, I said you were evading the questions/points. I will state them again:
You believe that time is one reason why the quote is false. If this is so, then that makes all past quotes false which is just an absurd assumption that is false.
You believe that stating it is false will suddenly make it false even though you cannot prove it to be false or provide reasoning that proves it false. This is wrong.
"If you mean by faith complete trust in something yes the quote is valid, if however you mean it in the sense of a strong beleif in God i will have to disagree" to which I replied:
"I have faith that my health will stay consistently high for the rest of this week give or take a cold/cough. I also have faith that God will look after me, my family and my friends for the rest of the week. Now, why would a be correct yet b be incorrect?"
Of course it doesnt, like most your happy playing t game of life.
I don't consider life a game; I consider it a roundabout that just keeps going round and round and eventually we will all at some point have to get off. Its a dizzy ride for me, but not a game.
He cut off the rest of my joke; scroll up. "Ohh, he'll really hate that... ;)". ;p If I was being arrogant, I would most likely have been serious thus wouldn't have added the part that displayes the joke "Ohh, he'll really hate that... ;)" Lol.
Get off this fucking site and never come back you whore. Your fucking birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory and you know what? You were most likely born on a highway because lets face it, thats where most accidents happen. Do us all a favor (except the atheists with no backbone who rely on your horseshit) and leave. Dumbass.
I understand your religion perfectly, and in fact better than you and most Christians
You're such a pompous prick, you know that? That statement is laughable and extremely, extremely false.
I explained to you why that is.
You said something about your qualifications, but that in no way proves you know my faith better than me.
I am more able to argue for or against any point of your religion than you are. Which I keep demonstrating like every time your try to argue with me on any of these debates.
LMFAO - what?!? You demonstrate shit in each post, you have not proved me wrong once and all you do is spew horseshit over each post you create. Its amusing though, keep doing this.
Well, an old testament god would probably strike me with lightning or whatever
I think He is rather amused at your dumbness, if I was Him I'd quite enjoy watching you make an utter ass of yourself.
the one from the new testament would be far more interested in what I have to say than yourself though.
He doesn't give a shit what you say if its offensive to Him.
I spend about as much time thinking about religion as it takes to type this.
Which is another reason why you don't know half as much as I do about my faith.
You're boring.
Not half as dull as you.
Either way he doesn't exist.
Then stop talking about Him like He is right next to you, you moron.
I'm a lot smarter than you and know more about it than you do.
Someone who feels they need to brag about themselves this much is someone that is not very smart at all. If you had even half a brain cell you wouldn't have posted all this horseshit.
Personal attacks, innacurate one at that, have no bearing on this debate
So why are you creating them then? Stop contradicting yourself you asinine pig.
have no bearing on this debate other than to highlight how easily Christians are influenced.
You think you influence me? The only influence you have on me is how much you make me want to squeeze the miserable life out of you. Other than that, you may as well be dead.
Well i only said cause i thought you may want to prove me wrong and in doing so you'd come across a suitable source proving me right.
Hm, so I have to prove someone wrong who can't even provide his own sources or logical reasoning. I offered the quote, and not one dispute has proved it false or even came close. Why should I do the work when you are the one who disputed saying it was false yet giving no reason why?
I dont understand the relevance of this.
You mention the recent "discoveries" which I renamed as inventions.
I afraid im going to have to answer your question with another question, what do you mean by God
Are you kidding me? You don't know who God is? Or is this your way of evading my question. Elaborate on the point you made or I will assume you cannot.
No explanation is necessary with or without faith, Aquinas made the statement as he was a devout beeiver in God, im not going to split hairs and say he was completely wrong but the faith he subscribes to is.
I hear what you are saying but you are yet to prove why it is wrong. Don't just keep stating that it is wrong, prove why. No explanation is required with faith, no explanation is possible without it.
If you want to me convert you to panthiesm i will do so. Its not a really a faith though
That has got absolutely nothing to do with your previous statement, stop evading. Prove and explain your previous statement or fail to respond. Either way, panthism does not interest me in the slightest.
I hope you don't get the comments that everybody is giving me. It hurts me bad. real bad. And the worse part about it is that maybe it is all true.
I know you are not addressing me here, but I feel really bad for you. It isn't right that you have received so much hate for your questions, and you state regularly that you just want someone to explain it all to you. I really hope you can let me do this. I understand that the comments people give you hurt tremendously, but you must be able to understand why they get so angry. Perhaps what they say is true, and if it is then it is up to you to change that. If you still want to understand the evil in pedophilia then respond and we can commence debating.
Well, I just thought that this debate was rather vague for you so I thought I must have missed something while I was at work.... I might have read too much into it.
Vague... for me? I never put me down for the over-analyzing extra precise type girl. Anyhow, I was just rather interested to see what the debaters here had to say about the matter.
Life imprisonment? I'd rather not, as a tax payer (I'm not a Democrat, I pay taxes) pay for some piece of shit who raped or murdered someone for the rest of their miserable lives.
What alternative would you prefer? A reason why I am against life imprisonment is that it is very rarely for life; it is often only a few years which, in my opinion, is not life.
I get that all the time!?! I just finish responding to the posts that show up in the recent activity then I go on new/active/popular debates and I find someone who responded to an old post of mine. Its so frustrating because they have posted something along the lines of 'I won' and I'm like 'NOOOOO' lol.
Mmmmm??? Well, I don't have much to go on here so I'm not sure?
You're not sure but you picked the 'yes' argument... ;)
Did this debate come into being because of something else?
Like what? Lol, no I am just interested to see people's views. If I am not so sure about something, I like to see the reasons people give for their opinions and occasionally someone will present a logically put together argument that makes perfect sense.
Everyone is somebody whether its good or bad you are somebody.
I disagree, somewhat. If someone is bad, good or in between then they are somebody. If someone is masking their true identity and conforming to society acting like the person next door then no, they are not somebody, they are a blender with a fake personality if they even have one at all.
how many times don't you walk in the street and people act one way but when you truly get to know them they are something completely different and it could be for many reasons most of the time it's because they fear that rejection.
Very, very often - its pathetic. That perhaps sounds harsh, but I have a very hard time trying to respect one who conforms in the worst fashion and has an identical personality to the person next door; its weak. I am somebody, I respect other somebody's, I don't respect conformists.
I say all the time you don't like the way I am I don't give a fuck but to some extent you do give a fuck.
If someone does not like me, there is no extent on fuck, I just don't give it, period.
I am the black sheep of my family and I like it that way.
That is good, but I have never heard of a black sheep respecting white sheep (not literally - I am sure the animals respect each other regardless of color, as we humans should do with ours, I am speaking exclusively in figurative speech).
"If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have made me otherwise."
Your absolutely correct, but to be honest i just dont have the time to find a suitable source.
Then really there was no point whatsoever in your original post, was there?
read thorugh the other posts and understand the confusion.
Phew, I didn't know what to suggest if you didn't get there!
No, man has become more adept at interpreting his environment and his role in it
... and has learned how easy it is to fool others with nonsense inventions.
If you mean by faith complete trust in something yes the quote is valid, if however you mean it in the sense of a strong beleif in God i will have to disagree.
Ok, I will need you to elaborate some on this point. Here is what you state: a) faith in something b) faith in God. You state that if a is the meaning of the quote then it is correct, but if b is what is meant by the quote then the quote is false. I have faith that my health will stay consistently high for the rest of this week give or take a cold/cough. I also have faith that God will look after me, my family and my friends for the rest of the week. Now, why would a be correct yet b be incorrect? Furthermore, I think we need to refresh our minds of Aquinas' quote:
With faith, no explanation is necessary, without faith, no explanation is possible.
im fairly sure he mean it in the supernatural sense
He did. But I really want to understand your previous statement. How is it that a can be correct but b can be false? When one has faith in God, he is not required to explain it to anyone, but one with no faith in God, he can't possibly begin to explain it for two reasons, the first being that he has no idea what faith in God is as he doesn't have it and the second reason being that he doesn't have it therefore to explain it would make him an ignorant man talking about something he knows nothing of except the definition of it. Elaborate on your point, I am intrigued.
Anyway the point is if Aquinas was alive today i dont think he would have made the quote
An irrelevant hypothesis thus not the point.
Since members are going with negative awards, I'll slot in a few nominations ;)
Biggest Attention Whore Saurbaby
Most Arrogant - EDIT - iamdavidh now gets this award. Second in line is Bohemian though ;)
Most Likely to Blame America for Everything Gary
Most Anti-Obama/Most Known Hellno
Most Hated TheTruth
Funniest/ The jokerJoeCavalry
Most Avatar Changed Sunset
The most Abusive Debater iamdavidh
The Dullest Debater Ricedaragh
Most likely to succeed Me ;) Ohh you'll hate that.
I didnt say i didnt hacve proof
Sure, but you stated something therefore should have some sort of evidence to back that up other than your words. Otherwise, like I said, you may as well be saying you have three eyes, four arms and ten legs or whatever it was.
You go on to act very confused about the whole "dumb" thing and also the bit where one refuses to recognize an intelligent individual due to their beliefs. I was not referring to you when I said these things, I was referring to the dimwit who called Aquinas dumb and failed to explain why he made such an ignorant statement, not yourself. I apologize for the confusion, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. If you are still confused, just read through our posts from beginning to end plus the very first response which was not to you and it will most likely all fit into place.
No the quote isnt valid because human knowledge has advanced, we now know how we got here i.e. evolution
So, basically, through the years men have invented ideas and stories and you call this "human knowledge advanced". Well, fair enough, but that is most certainly not what I would label it as. The quote is valid and I have not seen one person yet prove it to be false or point out a valid discrepancy. If the only issue you can point out is time then that just isn't enough to prove it to be false.
I think you'll find it isnt but keep insulting me you're making yourself look like a very classy and respectful person.
LOL, I am not insulting you, I am just amazed at the responses the quote has received, and obviously, some of the things you have said - although you are a lot less moronic than others here.
Not so, I've a great deal of respect for religion and the religious
Well, I really didn't get this when you debated evolution or whatever it was when I first joined.
I judged with enough facts, such as reading your post
You read my post and didn't stop to think that perhaps I was just listing words that were my thoughts, and the debate specifically asked for my thoughts therefore I was doing the right thing in listing them. Problem? Deal with it.
I'm aware of that, your post was an attack, not an interpretation
Trust me, if you think that is an attack you will be downright horrified when and if you see one of my real attacks. No, it was not an attack, I was voicing my thoughts which may appear rather vicious but that was not the intention as I was merely obeying the order of the debate - giving my thoughts.
Nobody is stating that you have no rights to say what you like, from where did you gleam this?
From everything you have said to me; ordering me around, criticizing my posts, telling me how to respond, creating petty arguments about what I have said. KGFY because I really don't have time for your "petulance".
I merrily pick on the flaw in your rant
There was no flaw, nor was it a rant, it was my thoughts as requested. Furthermore, if you are such a dull creature so as to find happiness in criticizing others, creating petty arguments and generally being a prick, I really, really pity you.
Discussion over
Well of course it is interesting to you, as you are an atheist therefore would be in your element if religion was wiped out. Sure, moronic and asinine are the same thing, I was including all the negative words that popped up first in my head, so now I think it is yourself who is displaying ignorance at its fullest by judging with no facts. Discuss away, I was merely posting my interpretation of the debate which is perfectly acceptable as this is a debate site with a high level of free speech.
P.S. Yes, I am a rather impulsive person. Since when did that become a negative? I don't quite think I was belligerent either, nor was I ignorant. Furthermore, by stating I am all that to get back at me, wouldn't that make you petulant?
Thats not true, btw i dont appreciate your insinuation that i just outright lied to prove a piont, look into it, research what proportion of the scientists worldwide are athiests, the last time i did any snooping on this i found stats saying it was approximately 90%. What does that tell you?
Ok, I don't really know what you are getting at here as this has absolutely nothing to do with the original debate. Furthermore, telling me statistics without proof is like telling me you have a tail, three eyes and ten legs.
Ill openly admit right now i got this figure off the top of my head but im reasonably confident its not too far off the mark as i had to do a college project which required me to look into this about 5 years ago.
Well there we go then, the statistic is most likely false which proves your original statement also to be false.
can tell your a very courteous person, the second someone disagrees with you they're labelled ignorant and unintelligent
For someone to not even recognize another's intelligence just because of a contrasting belief is dumb, dimwitted and downright ignorant. If one cannot recognize another's intelligence just because he is a Christian is pathetic. Yet you expect me to respect an ignorant pratt? Nah, not like that, sorry.
I never said the man wasn't smart i said that in the context of the modern world that particular quote isn't valid anymore.
The quote isn't valid because of time differences? So, all of the work of scientists through the ages are no longer valid just because they were from a different decade/century etc? That is ludicrous and absolute horseshit.
you see most scientists would openly admit that had they been born prior to the discovery of evolution
Most scientists? An exaggeration or perhaps even outright lie? The latter most likely.
saying the man was intelligent really doesn't mean anything.
Not to one who is incessantly ignorant and proceeds to label his words as "dumb", no. To someone with a level of intelligence, yes, he was smart.
Of course he lived before our time of modern science, in his time it was modern science and a thousand years from now today will be old school science. The only explanation available was most certainly not God, if this was the case then there would have been far more Christians. Lastly, instead of focusing on the time period, try focusing on the actual quote as that is what I posted, not his biography.
You are missing the point, just because a woman sways her hips/a man sways his shoulders does not suddenly make them liars. Moving my body in a certain way does not suddenly make me a deceiver. What about swimmers, when they swim and move their bodies, they produce a gleam also - sweat. Are they lying by doing this? Are they lying to those watching them? No!?! What about runners, when they run they will get rosy cheeks and a healthy gleam also, does that make them liars for having this appearance? Er, no. If I was to walk down the street with both my hands raised in the air, does that make me a liar? No, it might make me appear odd though, but not a liar. I believe that many people sway their hips/shoulders, I see it often, but it does not make them untruthful. Besides, you said that "all human relationships are based on lies" and you are yet to prove this. Is my relationship with my husband a lie? You wouldn't know that as you don't know us therefore that just proved your statement to be false. Furthermore, just because a study or two find that people are more willing to lie to people they know does not suddenly make it correct in all cases, and it certainly does not prove your statement in any way.
Maybe the reason you felt sick was this type of porn isn't for you.
That is what came into my head as I was leaving but it had turned me on before they started messing up her face so my conclusion is that certain parts of it are good, others are bad. Its ok when it happens to me, but watching it makes me nauseous. There is no point in me commenting on your other points as I agree with them.
First off, it wasn't you that was jabbing at my faith therefore I was not exactly referring to you when I posted. Anyhow, so you are asking if I feel superior because Christ gets a capital 'C'? Not exactly, no, superior isn't the word I would use.
but being raised turbo super Christian and with 18 credits in religious studies from a very academic university
Seriously, why on earth do you go round inserting this in your posts as if it suddenly validates every bullshit point you make? Its an epic fail and you just appear like an arrogant prick. If you have something interesting to say, don't say it then run and hide behind shit, just stay out there and accept the responses.
I can say without any doubt that if that mythical character ever lived, he'd be sickened by present day US- Christians.
I don't know much about modern day US Christians but from what I get from your bullshit posts I think He'd be more sickened by your horsecrap than by theirs considering you don't even believe in Him.
They'd be the modern version of pharisees... not that any Christian today would even know what that reference is.
In near every post you make you include several jabs at Christians and their lack of knowledge in their faith. What do you even get from that, all it looks like is a poor little atheist who hasn't made shit from life so with his time he pokes at Christians that he doesn't even know and proceeds to judge them as though you are worthy of such a position. What makes you think you know all about each individual Christian and the amount of reading they do of the bible? You don't know so shut the fuck up and get a life.
P.S. I corrected your grammar in this post - you deemed the term 'Christian' as unworthy a few times of a capital 'C' but my spell checker corrected you - funny that, it doesn't do that for 'atheist' does it?
of course they do, because it's easier to pretend than to show people who you really are and get rejected
What about me, I don't have a fear of rejection so does that make me a deviant from the norm just because I don't conform? If people don't like me, fuck em', I am who I am and if they don't like that then thats their problem. Sure, its easier to conform and/or wear the mask for fear of rejection but do I really want to live my life the "easy" way as a blender with no personality and a style that is identical to twenty other people in my street? Hell no, fuck that, I'm a black sheep - I'm somebody.
And, of course, everyone wants to be someone they're not.
False, I have never wanted to be someone else; I accepted who God made me to be and I strapped on a pair. I understand that there are not many black sheep but there are some and I am definitely one of them. It is also my understanding that there are others out there who do not want to be someone that they are not; I can't be the only black sheep.
Its pretty obvious why its dumb, it states A is A
With faith, no explanation is necessary, without it, no explanation is possible. Where in that does Aquinas state that A is A? He states that faith does not require explaining, and when it is absent, there cannot be explaining done.
Also, to use "explanation" like its intended in modern language, would lead one to realize that faith is an explanation.
Wrong, faith is faith, faith is not explanation. The "explanation" is something that follows, so when faith is present, there is no explanation required.
"explanation" is roughly equivalent to "evidence" here,
Also, this is very wrong. Explanation and evidence are two very different things, and Aquinas used "explanation" because that is exactly what he meant, he did not mean evidence hence the reason he used a very different word.
St Thomas Aquinas was an extremely intelligent individual - far more so than the likes of you - so if that quote of his is very dumb then I can barely even begin to imagine what kind of horseshit you could construct. In addition to this, the fact that you did not go on to explain why it was so "dumb" implies that it was in fact not dumb but you just didn't like it very much as you fit in to the latter end of the quote - which overall proves that the quote is perfectly accurate - you disputed with no explanation. throws back head and laughs
Yes, we used to have a really narrow bath and it could be really frustrating lol, but we have a decent sized tub now which is just great for two.
You have done it in a hammock? I thought that was exclusive to out here... ;) Lol, I have done that and it is fun but just doesn't rest in my top favorites. I didn't hang it in the doorway of a room as we have ours in our back yard lol.
What about the parking lot? Crazy, I know, but seriously I just didn't want my husband to get on the plane and when we started kissing... things escalated.
