CreateDebate


ThePlague's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ThePlague's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Yes. I know how to accept these requests. I don't know how to send them.

1 point

Hello Srom, you should follow me on twitter as well. I am "entertheplague".

2 points

As I sat in my chair thinking about that username, "entertheplayground" I couldn't help but laugh since it surely does bring pedophiles to mind.

1 point

I followed you. My friends couldn't find me either. I may have to change it to something more interesting.

1 point

I made a twitter as well, but I got bored since I had no followers. You can follow me @EnterThePlague.

2 points

Will the problem be fixed for all users? Will the layout revert back to normal?

2 points

I understand. I haven't been here to for too long so I am not aware of the systematics of this site. I should leave the decision making to you all.

2 points

The owner should give you or someone with a multitude of points moderater abilities. It only seems fair.

2 points

I will never know unless I ask them so I shall see if they are interested.

2 points

Is that why the layout has been disrupted? I shall assume there is nothing I can do to fix that. This probably has something to do with the coding of this site.

1 point

Oh. So deleting another person's comments on your own debate is impossible? This needs to be implemented into the powers of the debate creator.

So what do you mean by special? This person has special privileges over others?

0 points

You see I want to bring them here, but I am not sure they will enjoy online debating as much as they enjoy debating realistically.

1 point

Excuse me, how so you delete comments? I wish to delete the person who posted "SPAM" repetitively.

0 points

How do you add someone as a friend on here? You would have to show me how this is done.

2 points

My thing is that if it is on the internet view whatever you wish in the domain of your own home. Don't do it in public. Now passing out pictures of little children should be illegal and taking random pictures of children should be as well. Posting them on the internet should have penalties. However viewing pre-loaded picture should not be taken into offense. As long as the pictures are not being redistributed I don't see a big problem.

1 point

Grab a bible, tear out some pages, make paper shuriken out of the pages and throw the shuriken at them. I would say this is a good method.

Otherwise contact a psychologist or psychiatrist. I don't know the specifics for them so try both.

1 point

Probably just my mother. She raised me well and I feel as if it would be a noble sacrifice.

1 point

I might check it out then. Maybe I might learn more. I will look into it.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Common logical skills showed us the world wasn't flat. Same for humans. We share DNA relations with all species. This shows us that we originated from a single organism. An ancient ancestor.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Thank you. Is that a more serious site or is it just as social as this site? I ask this because if it is a serious site she may get kicked and if it is social she will under go through the same exact thing.

1 point

DDO? Can someone give me a few clues or hints as to what DDO is? Never heard of that before.

1 point

Well it is your debate. You have authority to ban whomever you wish.

1 point

Not really. If you walk into a public area you follow public rules. If I take an image I only have to blur out things that can endanger you like license plate. In public if I record a video I can record you walking down the steet because you are in public view. Police watch you with camera in public but a civilian can't? Both parties can. Why? Its the public.

2 points

It isn't an invasion of privacy if the children are in public view. You have a right to privacy where privacy is required or permitted. For example a restroom or a changing room. However if you are just walking the streets, most likely, pictures can be taken.

2 points

But compared to real scientific theory, its a VERY low possibility.

You still dont understand. If a deity made a singularity what science will prove he exists? Nothing. You are with the singularity.

Science explains our surroundings. It does not go past that. You are acting as if it does.

Yes they are possible but they are based on an unproved and unsupported premise making them pathetically insignificant compared to current scientific theory

Unproven? You mean it hasn't been proven or disproven. Just making that clear. Again, a scientific theory only explains what we can understand about our surroundings. You act as if science goes beyond that.

No i dont think YOU understand. When you take a natural explaination and tack god onto it it is no longer natural. it becomes supernatural.

This proves that you missed my notion. I won't even repeat myself.

I dont give a shit what your professor said

Funny. I would imagine that he understand more than you do. I would imagine that he has studied this longer than you have. Science is just explanation for occurences. Something cannot be explained because humans are limited. Science cannot even touch the surface of infinity.

We have no reason to even think there IS any grand master behind anything.

YOU don't have a reason. Someone might. If it is a bad reason so what? It is still a reason. So if there is nothing to prove or disprove it stop giving them shit and shut the fuck up and mind your damn business. Otherwise give me a good theory that shows me how we have reduced the possibility of a God.

. Just because one COULD be there doesnt make it true or even likely*5

It doesn't make it impossible or improbable either. Don't leave out those words.

Until you demonstrate that there is good reason to believe there is something behind the universes creation then i dont have to cater to this bullshit.

Sir, I am done. You simply don't understand what I am telling you. You are just the typical Atheist who thinks science can go to infinity and beyond. Science cannot do that. Humans cannot do that. Maybe you will realize that one day.

2 points

You are still being a typical Atheist. God has not be proven or disproven. Therefore possibility remains in tact.

therfore any hypothesis of any kind making assumptions including him are null until he is demonstrated

They remain a possibility. They are not null. Do you even understand this?

This leaves only the natural explainations

Okay, you clearly can't understand the notion I am giving.

. I wont cater to bullshit about unproven deities and giant assumptions that mock our reality and that mock good science.

There you go, again, the typical Atheist. A deity does not mock anything. Science finds explainations. Science cannot explain all things. Science can go far. Science cannot touch infinity. A deity can make a singularity and let it go. Therefore anything Science explains is what is naturally occuring within their realm. The deity still mocks nothing. If this is your last resort I am disappointed. I am an Atheist. I understand a mass majority of Atheist arguments. My college professor showed me how ignorant I was. I used your argument. Many times it has worked. Until my professor explained it to me. We must decode the master image behind our realm. Can we do that? Who knows?

1 point

That is what I answered. Biologically it has to happen. Otherwise we either do photosyntheses or chemosynthesis.

1 point

By atheist bullshit you mean not accepting an unproven, unsupported and generally absurd claim as a equal possibility to real science? Ok

Unproven? Of course. It has never been proven or disproven. 50:50. Next?

Unsupported......now that is just ignorance. Unsupported by what? Science? Lol. That is a no brainer. If a Theist theory holds true then what is Science doing? Explaining God's creation. We are still at 50:50. Next?

Generally absurd? Opinion. Can't dispute that.

What is fake science?

Science: systematic knowledge, esp. of the physical world, gained through observation and experimentation

If you can only obtain information based on what you can observe and God is an infinitly maximal being how will you logically comprehend or understand him? You can't. What observation would you make? Study what God put before you and watch it. That's it. A concept you seem to fail at grasping. Typical Atheist.

Until they've proven this god exists and that he created everything that claim can't be used. It's empty and bullshit and should be dismissed.

How will you prove or disprove it? God is a maximally infinite being. How wilk a human comprehend or understand his works? Mind explaining that logically? Dismissal? Sure. Just shows ignorance.

A god hasn't been proven to exist at all so that claim shouldn't even be taken seriously.

That isn't my point. Here we go again. I told you it's 50:50. A God hasn't been disproven. The claim can be taken seriously. Don't start bullshitting me again.

And no we haven't tested everything in the universe that is impossible but we HAVE tested a fuckton and that is including every single physical law that governs our universe.

Oh so testing everything is impossible? So how can you claim everything is natural if all hasn't been tested and how does that logically disprove that God just didn't make that? I understand our laws. They govern fine.

So we know a ton and yet have ZERO indication of anything supernatural existing or needing to exist.

Where did those laws come from? Hmmm? Again, you are being a typical Atheist. If God can start from a singularity and not touch anything, everything would go naturally on it's own. That is the possibility I am trying to get through to you. Therefore anything you study is just a creation.

It's all natural.

Where did it start?

So when we make theories and hypothesis on what happened at the birth of the universe using Occam's razor we should consider the explainations requiring the least assumptions and speculations and strays from reality.

The fewest assumptions should be selected.

1) God did it.....

2) Thats it.

That is just one assumption. Do you fully underatand the Razor?

So it's either a natural explaination that is supported by evidence and the fact that everything we know is natural and there's no indication of supernatural anywhere, or we completely forgo all the laws of physics and everything we know to make a giant assumption about what is completely outside of space and time dipped into our reality and caused something natural to occur.

Why drop the laws of physics? Why drop any of it? You are being ignorant now. You just assume that if a God started it all that all laws a just broken? That is illogical. The laws would still govern. They would be a creation froma higher order. They would created new things natural from themselves with a natural root to God. Normal logic.

One makes giant unsupported assumptions based on myth. One is based in reality and evidence. It is not 50/50. We don't know for 100% certain yet but for fucks sake it isn't an even toss up not even close.

Now I know you missed the point. If God made a singularity and just let it go what will you be able to describe? The natural qualities of the universe right? That stemmed from what? Ignorance is not a bliss for you as of now. Myth? Sure. Possibility? Yep.

You can't claim that anything is part of a gods creation until that god is proven to exist

Illogical. If I say a God did it it is a logical assumption. You will never understand a maximally infinite being nor its creation. It is ignorant to believe you can especially since we are limited. For example. Can God make a four sided triangle? First if that exists in the realm of physics show me. Otherwise its nonsense. However, a triangle is a shape ordained by man. A polygon is a shape ordained by man. The mindset of a limited individual. Can God make a married bachelor? Can God make a Eukaryotic Prokaryote? No, no, and no. Why? First show me they exist. Then if you cannot show me I declare that nonsese and cannot be equated to a maximal being. If he is omnipotent he cannot do something that makes him non-omnipotent for he is omnipotent. Same argument. Same logic.

I can say something that cannot be proven or disproven. It can be dismissed but it cannot be false or true. Therefore you cannot say I can't say it. Logically I can.

Well tough shit because it is t anywhere close to proven and has NOTHING to support it at all.

You truly missed the notion of my argument. References are above for you. It "ain't" anywher close to being disproven so that tough shit for you. My shit is smooth since I am making the claim. It is tough on you because I can logically continue to say it. It cannot be proven true or false. You can dismiss it and I can continue it. That is how it works.

You can't say, "oh I don't know and you don't know so ahaha were both stupid" no. Sorry.

What? I don't know what? What is the point of posting this if you lack specifications as to what we don't know?

1 point

Which brings us back to the whole God never cures anybody with Down Syndrome thing.

The implication that I gave through simple diction analysis should show you that God is completely capable of doing so. Can you honestly say he has not cured one person? Have you talked to everybody?

1 point

Think about it. It is a dumb question. The best form of communication from a biological stand point would be speech by noises from a mouth of something. If you wish to talk a tongue will be required to formulate those sounds. If people stick random fruits and veggies in their mouth and swallow them then they may continue to devour it. It just makes sense to allow humans to eat.

1 point

So you're implying that asking God to cure a baby with Down Syndrome is something ridiculous

I gave an example. You seem to not be able to understand it. Something that is against the intrinsic tendency of God will not be completed since it does not compell with the teachings of Christ. Asking to be ruler of hell will not be granted. Asking to take over heaven will not be granted. Asking to relieve a child of down syndrome? That is something intrinsic to God's nature.

or that only people with aches, pains and paper cuts actually follow the teachings of Christ?

I see. Paper cuts are most likely healed by platelettes. Aches can be conquered mentally. Pain to what degree? I ran into a wall pain? Or I was just plowed by a semi-trunck pain?

2 points

See? You pulled the typical Atheist argument out. Thats bullshit right? It's actually not. Someone can say science just finds information on God's creation. It will always be 50:50 if the possibilities are available. If those slots can be filled with God made a singularity what can you say? That is improbable? How so? Have you tested to prove that everything comes naturally? Can you show me a singularity? Show me a singularity now. Show me how everything always was. A natural explaination only explains God's creation and cannot logically turn the table and thus leaves the ratio at 50:50. 99:1 is dispicable, ignorant, bullshit. Just break all the fundamentals of logical reasoning? Logically if you can find a Higgs Boson that is great. You are simply finding more about God's creation. You can create a wormhole. You are finding new things in God's creation. Don't give me that Atheist bullshit. I have my reasons and I realized that many Atheists do not.

1 point

Well if God gave you a mouth somebody would eventually try to swallow something and may even like the taste of it.

4 points

I am an Atheist, but one can easily say that God has set this all up and we are simply exploring the many universes he may have created. Universes where laws are different amd we cannot imagine them since we have no measurememt to equate it with. People can create any theory they wish. If one say the Higgs Field gives mass to all things one can say God made that field to keep everything in tact. God can make a singularity and have it travel on its own and can edit what he wishes while following or breaking the laws of that universe. Probability is irrelevant. It is still 50/50. You say all this is natural, what is the starting point? A singularity? Could Gid have made that? Possibly. Then we bring in the Cyclic Model and say why can't God make a universe that goes through these cycles? Is that impossible for a being capable of practically all things? Of course not. Therefore the ratio will always be 1:1. 50:50. No matter what theory one proposes a person can play the role of God could have done this and as a typical non-believer would say "Thats bullshit". They can't really say thay since nobody can prove or disprove it.

1 point

WTF does, "Ask and ye shall receive" mean?

Well that implies that you actually follow the teachings of Christ. Which means you do as he told. That would mean that you can surely be healed. However you cannot ask something ridiculous like "Can I take over heaven?".

excorsice autism

Will you explain how you will "excorsice" a mental deficiency? There is nothing to excorsice.

1 point

I don't see why we shouldn't. It helps us increase our understanding of how organisms have adapted over the years.

1 point

Okay. You dispute me just to tell me that? The user wasn't misbehaving or anything.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

The bible says God made them. Biogenesis says they typically originated from a single celled common organism. That's it. The bible says God made them. Science says otherwise. Humans, by evolutionary studies, shows us the relation we have with all species which implies a common ancestor. We are even related to bacteria.

1 point

That is because they choose to serve us. In all practicallity if they wanted to stoo they can because they have the power to and thus are potentially a threat. To our eyes they are obligated to serve us the way we deem fit. The constitution is something that we believe binds us. What would happen if the Government burns it? Burns all laws? The Government is never obligated to a 100% degree of certainty. You see what I am saying?

1 point

A few friends of mine understand that. That is why they have the Bible App. It has many versions. Multiple Christians will read different versions of the bible.

1 point

Bacteria. They will always dominate. Bacteria help all of us survive. Without them we die.

1 point

Would you mind telling me who Andy is? I have seen his name a few times before. I haven't seen a uaer named Andy.

1 point

I do not understand why you were banned. I agree with you though. I never saw Twitter as useful.

1 point

Personally I never cared, but since I am in favor of tons of liberty I think you should not restrict them from marrying. I don't care if it is legalized. Just change the Federal definition and we are done.

1 point

Well in all technicallity bacteria are all the smallest kinds of organisms ranging in different shapes and sizes. However if the bacteria is of the genus Mycoplasma the bacteria usually measure to be only 0.3 micrometres. Which is really small.

The largest as of now are the Thiomargarita namibiensis. It is a gram-negative coccoid Proteobacteriu found in Nambia's contenential shelf. They can be up to 0.75 mm. This means that they can be seen by the naked eye. This is the most "massive" bacteria.

Faster growth or faster traveling? I shall do both.

There is no faster traveling bacteria but they can reach speeds of 200 microns a second (primarily polar bacteria).

Faster growing population varies too, but in my studies one of the fastest is the Clostridium perfringens. The can have a new generation in approximately ten minutes.

There is no offical "most dangerous bacteria" but E. Coli, Tetanus, or Clostridium Botulinum since one microgram of them can be lethal. So I would typically give the title to Clostridium Botulinum. It is the most deadly in my opinion.

I have never studied the drinking rate of bacteria when the constant was beer. Lol.

1 point

What is wrong with you? Learning these things cam save your life one day.

1 point

Anything! What do you want to talk about? Bacterial resistance to drugs over climate resistance? Is medicine the cause of stronger bacteria over simple evolution?

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Did I claim that this happened? No. It's am incredibly slow process. It leads to the rise of humanity. Not divine intervention.

1 point

Not if they are just an Atheist on some level.

There is only one level of Atheism. Atheist deny tje existence of deities. A Theist cannot logically be an Atheist unless they deny the existence of all gods including their own.

It is the same thing though. Atheists deny Gods, Theists deny Gods, it would seem to fit on some level.

I just told you. Atheism has one level. There is no "some level". Can an apple be an orange on some level? No. Its either ine or the other.

Wrong pal. Your argument about theists is irrelevant because we are talking about Atheists.

Its completely relevant.

Debate Question: Is everyone an atheist on some level?

Everybody logically implies a Theist. A rapist. A murderer. A wrestler. A golfer. A scientist. A female. A male. It includes all and since Theism is the logical contrast to Atheism it is relevent. You just don't understand that Atheism has one level.

Who is the stupid one? I clearly did not say all. Neither did the definition you gave.

Oh really? Let's decode some diction since you are poor at analytical reasoning with the English language.

Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity

If you believe that there is no deity you logically deny the existence of all deities since none can exist in your mind set. If I believe that a deity exists and no other deity exist I no longer fit this definition since I believe in a deity.

Theist: one who believes in a deity.

This is a levl that can change for polytheism and so on, also they cannot be an Atheist since they believe that a deity exists. This is normal english.

But, only an omni-theist is really not an Atheist on some level.

You do realize that an Omnitheist is just a person that acknowledges all religions right? Not all the deities? They neither support of oppose the existence of a deity. They simply acknowledge all religion. I am starting to doubt your intellectual capabilities.

Except according to the definition.

Oh yes because you can believe in a god and not believe in it at the same time. That is completely logical. The same way an Xbox 360 can be a PS3 at the same time. Or a better analogy would be:

A Prokaryote cannot be a Eukaryote under any circumstances or on any level or else the Prokaryote is a Eukaryote.

This is basic biology. Perfectly fits this situation since you can't understand that "on some level" is illogical.

A Christian theist disbelieves all of the Hindu Gods, the ancient Greek Gods, the old Egyptian Gods, etc. So, that would follow the definition of someone who disbelieves and denies the existence of Gods.

Yep, once they deny the Christian God as well they can logically ne an Atheist. Otherwise they are simply non-believers. I have told you this many times now pay attention.

Same

You not good with logic. I will avoid future debates with you until you gain some logic. Play some chess.

This excludes agnostics who should be considered, this one would seem too strict.

You really are stupid.

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

They neither deny or accept the existence of deities.

On some level, people who only believe in one God are still rejecting tons of Gods.

Absolutely. So they are called Theists. Not Atheists since they still believe that deities can exist if theirs can. Its called logic or reasoning or simple Googling. Use it.

Actually >= 1. :)

>1 = more than 1 and 1. Now I know you lack skills in mathematics.

Finally we are getting to the heart of your argument.

Yep. You still didn't grasp the concept so what is the pupose of me debating with you?

Wrong. When we add "on some level" it adds a degree of freedom. So, the strict rules that you have set up for yourself can be reevaluated. Logic still exists. Do you lack the intelligence to discuss the possibility of "on some level"?

The words believer and non believer has a levy of freedom amd can logically be deemed as qualities of a person at the same timw. However Theists and Atheists inherently cannot be together since the definitions are implies to restrict. Same with Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. They cannot be one another on any level.

Uh, seeing as you haven't addressed the debate topic until now, it is incredibly clear to everyone that it is you who doesn't understand.

It's you. You don't understand that the natural definitions of Atheist and Theists have intrinsic restriction. Simply saying on some level does not loosen them. That is just logic and knowlede of English. I am done.

1 point

I would start taking bacteria samples from different public places and looking at them under a microscope.

1 point

It doesn't. It evolves and adapts, eventually leading to the rise of humanity. Its not divine intervention.

1 point

Dude. Plants start as single celled organisms. They would lead to the rise if humans. That is why you are wrong.

1 point

Alright. Well what would you like to know? I love this topic by the way.

1 point

You wanna learn about bacteria? Wanna learn about viruses or anything? I can tell you all I know.

1 point

I argued with her once. I simply hit the dispute button and then automatic enemy declaration. I accepted it. I don't even know what it means. Are there teams on this site?

1 point

Lol my nickname is Plague. Long story about it. Anyways I just study bacteria, viruses, fungi, plagues of course, etc. Sadly nobody really debates about these. Wanna challenge me to a debate involving these?

1 point

How stupid are you? An Atheist rejects the existence of ALL deities. What is so hard to understand. Does a Christian reject the existence of ALL deities? No. They cannot logically be termed as an Atheist on any level for Atheism one has one level, which is to deny the existence of ANY and ALL deities.

The question is not if you are a theist or not.

Irrelevant statement considering you continue to disregard the notion of mu argument. Can you argue? You are not understand a simple definition.

So, theists are also Atheists because they are rejecting a bunch of gods.

So Theists reject the existence of ALL deities? Illogicsl premise. That is incorrect. If you are a Theist that implies that you believe in at least one god. You cannot be an Atheist until you reject the existence of ALL and ANY deities.

Yes, that definition does not say all. It just says some disbelief.

Wow, you are an idiot. Why am I wasting time with you?

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity

Atheism: The rejection of belief in the existence of deities

What is so hard to understand about this? An Atheist believe that no deities exist. That is a singular level since this is the quanitu of none. A Theist has an inherent quantity of >1. A Theist can have many levels. An Atheist cannot since its quanity of deities available for belief are 0 since an Atheist believe no deities exist.

"on some level" is never once addressed by you.

There is one level of Atheism. They believe that 0 gods exist. That is one level. When you say "on some level" you cannot equate a Theist with an Atheist unless logic has no place here. Logically they contrast. That is why I shall leave you, because you cannot understand that the premise of this debate is to be reworded. An Atheist cannot be a Theist. A Theist cannot be an Atheist. An apple cannot be an orange. An orange cannot be an apple.

1 point

No. I wish. I just eat Doritos when ever I am studying or watching bacteria proliferate.

1 point

Doritos. I have always been a big Doritos fan. I study with Doritos all the time.

1 point

If you deny Thor and ALL other deities then yes, you are an Atheist. If you believe one deity exist you are a Theist n matter how many you reject. An Atheist rejects the existence of deities, that means they dont believe they exist. There is no median when it comes to that definition. You cannot be "kind of" an Atheist or otherwise you are a Theist or Agnostic. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

1 point

Ah Point Farmer........sounds like a good thing....what is a point farmer exactly?

1 point

Haha. Nice. I see I have met one of the laid back debaters here. It's about time. Veteran user? Just guessing because you have a massive point total.

2 points

Are you drunk? Drink some water and lay on your side. Lay in a bed if you wanna be comfy.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Then you are disproving yourself. This would start the rise of humans.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

That is not the implication I was giving. I simply stated the science will take us to the stars.

1 point

If you believe in any deity you are a Theist. Atheist dont believe any deities exist. That is the definition.

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

There is no median. Thats the point. Do you even understand what I am saying?

1 point

An Atheist rejects the existence of any deities. If you believe in one you are no longer an Atheist. You can rejects the existence of 2000 different gods. If you believe in one you are not an Atheist.

1 point

Did I ever claim that they couldn't? No. There are quite a few scientists that are believers. That is obvious. The thing is that for the case of the biblical God it's useless to prove he exists.

1 point

I excersice them in my mind. The mind is complex. If I am dominated who cares? Obviously I wasn't strong enough. Rights truly dont even exist.

1 point

What they are supposed to do? They technically can do as they please simply by just doing so. They do not have to follow societies created morals. Government is not obligated to do anything.

2 points

Greek mythology is violent. War? Not so much. Social interactions are more relevant. Its like a story that only involves Gods. Much better than Christian Mythology.

1 point

I just answered to you. I just responded to you. Why the fuck do you keep downvoting?

Previous argument:

As I was saying, in all common sense, rights are a creation by humans. Rights vary between inherently thinking minds. If you think and can formulate an opinion you can create a right. Nobody truly has rights over you. We place value in these intangible things. If you wish to die for something that can change and even turn against you then so be it. I would rather die for something more useful. Like family or friends.

So, again, to conclude, dying for rights is illogical in my opinion. You are dying for an intangible feeling of entitlement. Almost everybody is capable of doing of doing what they wish. If you can over power another man then that is nature. It's like bacteria. Only the strongest will survive.

1 point

And the social lives of the gods was war and violence.

Yeah you are a lost case.

Not a lot; however, I take Ancient Greek as a foreign language and have many friends who are Classicists. I'm apart of eta sigma phi; I am also a history major, who has studied religion...

And I am a Computer Engineer/Scientist, Astronomical Physicist, Biologist, and a Chemist. History fails me often. However Greek mythology is something I love.

0 points

Stop downvoting me then. It's annoying. That is what you are doing wrong.

As I was saying, in all common sense, rights are a creation by humans. Rights vary between inherently thinking minds. If you think and can formulate an opinion you can create a right. Nobody truly has rights over you. We place value in these intangible things. If you wish to die for something that can change and even turn against you then so be it. I would rather die for something more useful. Like family or friends.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Beifre it was hot and gaseous and opaque, allowing plant life to form. Light was still going through.

God created lights in the heaven. The literal verse says when he let light shine on the earth.

Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"

Earth no light. The sun didnt exist. The earth couldnt even form. It wiuld just be scattered material.

OK I'm gonna ignore the part about "after their kind" with you because you don't under Hebrew. Literary devices.

I study more than you know. You don't understand your bible. You just have to answer for this apparent contradiction. You made a false claim.

Also you must realize that in a hazardous gas like environment plants will not grow. They will die. So no. Quit lying kid. God made the light for heaven.

1 point

Will you please stop downvoting? Its annoying. It is useless to do so.

1 point

Why? A life is what you make it. Make something of it. It you don't have the right to speak then speak up.

1 point

Actually Greek mythology is practically about the social life of gods. Not war. War is irrelevant. No story compares to the Greek story. Even the Egyptian story is more radical. The Greek contained more violence and hatred. Don't bullshit me. Do you even know a lot about Greek mythology?

1 point

I would rather live than die. I can keep my rights in my mind. Death is too much.

1 point

Can you show us a picture of your desktop monitor's screen? I would like to see.

1 point

Who is it? A celebrity or something? Who is following this site? Are you going to tell me?

1 point

Did Jesus castrate God? Nope. Cronus did. In fact Cronus ate all of his children except for Zeus. Now pause. That right there is radical. Better than the story of Lucifer. The storyline for the Greeks is even more creative and is quite insane. Now, just look at the Hindu gods and apply the same concept.

1 point

I don't know. Would you mind telling me why it matters though?

1 point

Greek and Hindu were definetly more radical. You don't know the reason. I don't know the reason.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Verse 24 and 25 contradict immediately.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." This is Verse 24.

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." Verse 25.

WTF?

Clearly either all are of his kind or the cattle are excluded. Either way you still are incorrect.

And yes, the earth brought forth life. Not god forming. Life came from the ground and species appeared "after their kind".

The verses don't support you. Only the Cattle do.

No water is mentioned. Life was created out of the water the "day" before. Life appeared on earth then life appeared on land, exactly like evolution.

Oh I missed that. So God made them from water and spawned them. Still doesn't follow evolution since only the cattle came from themselves. It's illogical. You know how evolution also doesn't apply in the bible? How does grass grow or any plany before the sun existed? It would be freezing. Grass grew before any photons hit them. That makes no sense.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Verse 24 and 25 contradict immediately.

"*And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

[Treasury of Scripture Knowledge] [Concordance and Hebrew/Greek Lexicon] [List Audio, Study Tools, Commentaries]

[No Images or Hymns Available] [Versions/Translations] [Dictionary Aids]

2 points

If the cost is death I would rather have my rights walked over.

1 point

Christianity was not deniable in a complete sense. Many people were indoctrinated and wars were fought because of it. Christianity is not all the radical. You are exaggerating. The Greek Gods are radical. God is not. The Hindu Gods are radical. God is not.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Show me the verse that explains that life was made with water. It didn't rain. That is illogical for the creation of life. Also they were formed after Adam and thus your bible throws evolution right out the window. Otherwise you have just revealed a contradiction. The verse I gave cleary said "out of the ground". Water is never mentioned. Especially since it didn't rain. Also Cattle was the only one mentioned as their "kind". Dude read your bible properly. "God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Did you just find a contradiction? Just like how the Earth came before the sun?

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Show me the verse that explains that life was made with water. It didn't rain. That is illogical for the creation of life. Also they were formed after Adam and thus your bible throws evolution right out the window. Otherwise you have just revealed a contradiction. The verse I gave cleary said "out of the ground". Water is never mentioned. Especially since it didn't rain. Also Cattle was the only one mentioned as their "kind". Dude read your bible properly.

"*God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

[Treasury of Scripture Knowledge] [Concordance and Hebrew/Greek Lexicon] [List Audio, Study Tools, Commentaries]

[No Images or Hymns Available] [Versions/Translations] [Dictionary Aids]

1 point

Christianity's roots can only be divine

It was created in hopes of being undeniable. The religion gives itself such a powerful deity. During that era people had no idea where meteors came from are what the sun exactly was. I could have said the sun is a goddess. People can't disprove me until they found evidence that says otherwise.

If someone wanted to create a religion, then one would try to make it so that people wanted to join it and one that made sense to a lot of people. Christianity is the opposite of that in almost every respect.

Not quite true. A religion, typically, must be undeniable. Back then the Christian doctrine was, practically, undeniable. Nobody has the knowledge we have now.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Can you imagine looking at this from time to time?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotavirus_Reconstruction.jpg

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

Oh yeah. The things I do for fun just ruin my appetite. I like to look at bacteria under a couple of microscopes I have. Sometimes I just place random bacteria together to see how they react. Usually they dont do anything. If you do have questions don't be afraid to ask.

1 point

Well due to his location at the time he wasn't white. He mostly likely had a middle eastern skin tone.

ThePlague(218) Clarified
1 point

You see that is what I do. I feel as if the universal definition for "organism" is a little strict. A virus, in my opinion, is alive.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]