CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
For those of you who lack faith, this is how God operates
If you don't know GOD, don't make stupid remarks!!!!!! A United States Marine was taking some college courses Between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq And Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who Was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "GOD, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform... I'll give you exactly 15 min."
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes Went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting."
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got Out of his chair, went up to the professor, and hit him; Knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there Looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, Noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine calmly replied, "GOD was too busy today protecting Soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid Stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me."
There was a flood and one guy was on the roof smiling. There was thunder and lighting in the air. A couple of passengers passed by him and told him to hop on board. The guy said "no" because God will save him. A second time a boat passed him and offered a ride. And a third time as well. The guy on the roof was shocked by lighting and died. When he was in front of God, he asked him "why didn't you saved him." God replied: "I did by offering you three boat rides."
God works in weird ways. Maybe he is busy. Maybe he is not perfect. On the seventh day he rested and that could indicate that he becomes tired.
just think , a student( marine) would never has potential to hit his teacher.... however, that marine did. hence, it clearly proves that something(god) had told him to take that hard step. ..... just think it deeper....
The irony of this statement is that it is true, the marine who struck the professor in the clearly fictional story is GOD, and so am i and whoever is reading this.
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
"With faith, no explanation is necessary. Without faith, no explanation is possible.”
Its pretty obvious why its dumb, it states A is A(a obvious and pretty useless statement if your trying to make a point), since it seems "explanation" is roughly equivalent to "evidence" here, and somewhere down the line we take something as true without evidence in order to construct arguments, the part he is wrong at is that he doesn't seem to be including all the possibilities for example: hypothetically taking something as true, assuming something is true, etc are different than believing it is true. Also, to use "explanation" like its intended in modern language, would lead one to realize that faith is an explanation. Leading his first part to be," with an explanation, no explanation is necessary"
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.
Using it in modern language? What is that supposed to mean? You are reading far too much into a single word of the entire quote and making assumptions about his original quote, which is pretty clear and straightforward. It doesn't take much to understand what his point truly is, it takes a lot more to disprove his quote by over thinking it.
"St Thomas Aquinas was an extremely intelligent individual - far more so than the likes of you"
You truly have no evidence to support that statement jackass.
"so if that quote of his is very dumb then I can barely even begin to imagine what kind of horseshit you could construct"
It would involve you crying over a lack of an afterlife.
"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"
Did you offer any reason that the quote was correct? Then why am i required to justify myself?
"which overall proves that the quote is perfectly accurate - you disputed with no explanation. throws back head and laughs"
You and your flying hippy can laugh it up all you want, it doesn't cahnge the fact the quote makes no logical sense and fits your mentally challenged beliefs well.
You truly have no evidence to support that statement jackass.
Uh, yes I do, and so will you if you actually read about who he is... "jackass".
It would involve you crying over a lack of an afterlife.
Really? That is the best you can come up with? I pity losers like you.
Did you offer any reason that the quote was correct? Then why am i required to justify myself?
If you dispute something with a dumbass statement such as " Absolutely the dumbest quote on the face of the planet......................." then you should further go on to justify that and back it up so that you don't look such a fool.
You and your flying hippy can laugh it up all you want
I'm a hippy? What are you on, crack? Oh wait no, that would be me, right? Fucking loser, LOL.
it doesn't cahnge the fact the quote makes no logical sense
You haven't even managed to show that so all you are doing is proving that YOU make no logical sense and the quote does in fact make perfect sense.
mentally challenged beliefs well.
Your level of retardation is higher than I have ever seen in a person, congratulations.
"Uh, yes I do, and so will you if you actually read about who he is... "jackass"."
The St. in front of his name removes his credability.
"Really? That is the best you can come up with? I pity losers like you"
Really? Resorting to merely talking down at me? thewayitis would be ashamed of you, talking down is the athiest's job.
"If you dispute something with a dumbass statement such as " Absolutely the dumbest quote on the face of the planet......................." then you should further go on to justify that and back it up so that you don't look such a fool."
Not only did you not specify in the original post who the quote is from, you also seem to think someone who insists that faith is more important then explanation has any credability.
"I'm a hippy? What are you on, crack? Oh wait no, that would be me, right? Fucking loser, LOL"
I was referring to your flying hippy named jesus. And nice to add LOL right after a fuck insult to make yourself look like a little kid getting off on argueing with adults.
"You haven't even managed to show that so all you are doing is proving that YOU make no logical sense and the quote does in fact make perfect sense."
The quote says that faith eliminates the need for explanation. What more justification does one need to be able to say he's an idiot? And that you're a retard for quoting and agreeing with him.
"Your level of retardation is higher than I have ever seen in a person, congratulations."
Cause im totally the one who believes in a flying hippy who sacrificed himself in order to save me from the original sin he gave me in the first place. Oh yea, he also had to get mary pregnant in order to be born. Yea, im the retard.
The St. in front of his name removes his credability.
You're pathetic. Through and through.
talking down is the athiest's job
LOL, what absolute horseshit.
Resorting to merely talking down at me
I was being honest, if you can't tell the difference then that's not my problem.
Not only did you not specify in the original post who the quote is from
So it's dumb because I didn't specify the author? You said the quote was dumb, "the dumbest on the face of the planet" and couldn't even explain why. I wonder who is the dumb one now.
you also seem to think someone who insists that faith is more important then explanation has any credability
That doesn't even make sense. Learn how to create a sentence in English then get back to me.
I was referring to your flying hippy named jesus
He flies? State how you know this and where you get the idea of Him being a hippy from.
And nice to add LOL right after a fuck insult to make yourself look like a little kid getting off on argueing with adults.
You should take a good look at your argument and spelling before calling yourself that.
And that you're a retard for quoting and agreeing with him.
I'm the retard? This really is amusing, you can't even construct a sentence, you fail to produce arguments so leave behind little pathetic sentences in your slimy trail then toss out insults at those who find you to be the coward that you are - yet you call me the retard? Go back to nursery you nitwit.
"So it's dumb because I didn't specify the author? You said the quote was dumb, "the dumbest on the face of the planet" and couldn't even explain why. I wonder who is the dumb one now."
If you don't specify the author you fail to give credit to your quote. Since your quote had no credit anything I said was just as reliable as your quote.
"That doesn't even make sense. Learn how to create a sentence in English then get back to me."
you also seem to think someone who insists that faith is more important then explanation has any credability. I see no flaw in the sentence.
"He flies? State how you know this and where you get the idea of Him being a hippy from"
He's god, if he can't fly then he's not god. And the hippy comment originates from that homely beard the media is fond of giving him.
"You should take a good look at your argument and spelling before calling yourself that"
Let's see, your defending an illogical quote and an illogical belief system. Im attacking an illogical quote and an illogical belief system. You're making fuck insults then adding LOL after it like a immature teenager. I think it's safe to continue with my train of thought.
"I'm the retard? This really is amusing, you can't even construct a sentence, you fail to produce arguments so leave behind little pathetic sentences in your slimy trail then toss out insults at those who find you to be the coward that you are - yet you call me the retard? Go back to nursery you nitwit."
Yes your the retard. And im sorry for not being the best typer or speller, I always did better in math class. And you appear to be following the exact same format to rebuttle I am. So this slimy trail you refer to must go both ways. Coward? If you're refering to my low point count, i was quite the downvoter when i joined this site but have ceased to do so for the most part. If you mean in life, im not the one who fears death so chooses to believe in god an and afterlife in order to ease my fears. That's what i call a coward, one who avoids the reality of situations. Which unfortunately is what religion does.
Then get off this website. If you aren't going to explain your reasoning, then nobody wants to hear what you have to say. All debates need explaining to validate your point.
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 missed my piont, you see most scientists would openly admit that had they been born prior to the discovery of evolution, therefore saying the man was intelligent really doesn't mean anything.
The quote is wrong as with or without faith we still have an explanation, although it is quite limited.
"Most scientists? An exaggeration or perhaps even outright lie? The latter most likely"
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?
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.
"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."
I can tell your a very courteous person, the second someone disagrees with you they're labelled ignorant and unintelligent. 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.
BTW i never labelled him or his words as being dumb so please try to be careful who you throw your wild accusations at.
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.
"Ok, I don't really know what you are getting at here as this has absolutely nothing to do with the original debate. "
I was responding to your response, you know, this one: "Most scientists? An exaggeration or perhaps even outright lie? The latter most likely"
"Furthermore, telling me statistics without proof is like telling me you have a tail, three eyes and ten legs"
I didnt say i didnt hacve proof im just not sure of the what the latest statistical surveys on this have reporte so if i say its defineitely 90% you will go away and find out that in actuality its 88%, and then you will label me a liar. I stand by the assertion that the majority of the worlds scientists are athiests, and of the ones that aren't they still probably dont beleive in any religion. This relates to the origibnal debate as they have adopted a belief in science and given up on the beleif in a supernatural deity, in times gone by (i.e. like those the philosophe Thomas Aquinas lived through) people of there intelligence would have beleived in something supernatural as there was no real alternative.
"Well there we go then, the statistic is most likely false which proves your original statement also to be false"
No its not but you can go ahead and think it is if you want i really dont care.
"For someone to not even recognize another's intelligence just because of a contrasting belief is dumb"
Please show me one statement where i stated that Thomas Aquinas was dumb, or even that the statement was dumb, i never said either, you decided to put those words in my mouth(which i really don't appreciate BTW, i find it very disrespectful), and then proceeded to label me an idiot based on them. Get your act together.
"If one cannot recognize another's intelligence just because he is a Christian is pathetic"
Where in the hell are you getting this shit, is there another person with my name and picture posting on this site to you???? I can recognise anyones intelligence regardless of their race, class or religion.
"Yet you expect me to respect an ignorant prattNah, not like that, sorry. "
Where's all this hate coming from???? What have said to upset you i didnt say anything remotely insulting(go back and re-read my responses), please try giving me the respect ive given you. If you think i said something that showed i was an ignorant prat please tell me exactly what it was, PLEASE!!!!!!!!
"The quote isn't valid because of time differences"
No the quote isnt valid because human knowledge has advanced, we now know how we got here i.e. evolution
"So, all of the work of scientists through the ages are no longer valid just because they were from a different decade/century etc?"
No it's perfectely valid, infact its what led to us discovering our true beginings.
"That is ludicrous and absolute horseshit."
I think you'll find it isnt but keep insulting me you're making yourself look like a very classy and respectful person.
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.
"Sure, but you stated something therefore should have some sort of evidence to back that up "
Your absolutely correct, but to be honest i just dont have the time to find a suitable source.
"I was not referring to you when I said these things, I was referring to the dimwit who called Aquinas dumb "
I read thorugh the other posts and understand the confusion.
"So, basically, through the years men have invented ideas and stories and you call this "human knowledge advanced"."
No, man has become more adept at interpreting his environment and his role in it.
"The quote is valid"
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. Which is why i posted this in the first place. Im actually not athiest im a pantheist. I beleive in all religions but i don't take any of there metaphors literally, i also consider myself an anthiest, although im sure many anthiests would argue with me on that.
Anyway the point is if Aquinas was alive today i dont think he would have made the quote (as im fairly sure he mean it in the supernatural sense).
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
"Then really there was no point whatsoever in your original post, was there?"
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.
"and has learned how easy it is to fool others with nonsense inventions."
I dont understand the relevance of this.
"Ok, I will need you to elaborate some on this point. Here is what you state: a) faith in something b) faith in God."
I afraid im going to have to answer your question with another question, what do you mean by God. I dont beleive in any God as depicted by mainstream religion, especially the God depcited in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths.
When i say faith i mean a strong conviction in a feeling, of being, of existence, i need no doctrine to feel what i do i can realise my part in the universe without the need to subscribe to any religion, but by the same token i am a scientist and a rationalist.
"With faith, no explanation is necessary, without faith, no explanation is possible."
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.
"He did. But I really want to understand your previous statement"
If you want to me convert you to panthiesm i will do so. Its not a really a faith though.
"An irrelevant hypothesis thus not the point."
I dont beleive its irrelevant at all the context of certain quotes need to be given if we are to understand the author motivaiton in writing it.
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.
"Why should I do the work when you are the one who disputed saying it was false yet giving no reason why?"
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.
"You mention the recent "discoveries" which I renamed as inventions."
Whatever you want to label the discoveris of modern science they have provided a coherent explantion of everything we see around us.
"Are you kidding me? You don't know who God is"
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.
Faith is a word used to describe a strong beleif in something, i think an explanation is required to have a strong belief in something, but i dont think no explanation is possible without it. I beleive the quote is irrelevant as it was made when faith in a supernatural GOd as described by Christianity (i.e. some omnisicent entity who presides over the knownn universe) was completely unquestioned and furthermore it was unquestion because there were no other alternatives, at least for the majority in that mart of the world.
We are God, as is the universe and everything in existence, we have deludded ourselves into thinking otherwise in order to live these lives. If you realise this (and possible feel it which is another thing altogether) you will ralise that no explanation is necessary, the very notion of an explanation becomes ridiculous. There ive elaborated, i dont know how you will react, id say it will be strong disagreement or else ridicule.
"That has got absolutely nothing to do with your previous statement, stop evading"
Yes it does and i just explained why, lool im not playing any games hear, i have no reason to.
"Either way, panthism does not interest me in the slightest."
Of course it doesnt, like most your happy playing t game of life.
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.
"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."
I just dont want to go to the hassle of finding one, my time is limited.
"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."
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.
"Fair enough. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
Your simply repeating the words of men, God is everything, God is existence.
"God created the universe and all that is in it"
There is no need to separate the universe from God, we are evrything, we are God.
"If you want to know who He is, read something from the NT."
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.
"That doesn't make sense. Are you basically saying that you don't believe it just because someone who believed in God wrote it?"
No thats what your saying, ive made myself fairly clear already.
"Ur, no we're not. The dictionary defines God as a supernatural being that created the universe"
So first its the bible then its the dictionary, im sorry but you are God, you just forgot. Here watch this:
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.
it makes perfect sense just because you are an athiest doesnt mean you have to make fun of this quote. its pretty good for those who believe in god. if you are atheist you arent part of it.
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
What's so bad about violence? If there's a God, then he either created (or allowed) violence. Hell, he even wiped out a whole bunch of people with His flood. How violent is that?
Now, if there is no God, then violence is the natural order of things. I can't think of a single species that doesn't know violence.
So, if God condones violence, and nature condones violence, then..., it's all good ;)
How does your story even make sense? You can do it too? As in you can babble on for line after line about nothing and claim it is the same thing? Great argument right there
These e-mails have been circulating for many years. The exact details of the story change every-time. This is the first time I've seen them describe the evil atheist professor as belonging to the ACLU. That is a funny detail to include. He isn't just an atheist. He is a LIBERAL atheist. haha!
So what justifies the professor wasting over 15 minutes of students time that they paid for in order to prove a point and when he was proven wrong he acts insulted? The people who should really be insulted are the people who had to sit in that class and listen to a complete prick rant about how many of them are wrong in their faith? Maybe it proves that atheists like him are truly something that is wrong with the world.
Fucking foolish. As though god would subscribe to our american agenda as opposed to a more kind and humble nation, and that he would protect our marines but not feed starving Africans....... Stop me noooow!