Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?


Joefizz

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Bump - @Joefizz Don't forget my questions to answer below.

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings (What you call sin)?

What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong ? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning?

And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

 

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

 

1.what do "I"classify as wrong doings?

Doing things with intent on doing some hurt to others or doing one's best to get a fight started,leeching off of others in order to be lazy and miserable,while having "no remorse" for one's actions,for example I could understand someone venting but when it goes on for about a whole hour or so without ceasing or making coherent sense,then I consider it a "wrong doing" and will speak up to the person doing this politely asking them to stop or if they persist authoratively I will firmly  tell them to stop or they can leave until they "calm down",or is a person persistently insultiinsulting me or others eventually I'll have them be aware of what they are doing and seek for them to stop and think,if they won't listen then they are welcome to leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Well Joe, when it comes to evidence, I reckon these three things are good places to start.

 

1.  Equal.

Acceptable evidence should be acceptable to everyone and not just to one person or select few.  It's a bit like the concept of democracy.  If it doesn't apply fairly and equally to everyone, then it's wrong and unacceptable.  Ok, everyone is different, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to give everyone a fair (and equal) shake, right?  So, when it comes to evidence, it should be acceptable to all.  Equality rules!

 

2.  Rational.

Acceptable evidence should be rational and able to be shown to be rational.  Following on from # 1 (equality) acceptable evidence must be agreed to be rational to everyone, by everyone.  So, I can't just say that my evidence is rational, just to me.  That wouldn't be fair and equal to anyone else.  Nor could I say that my evidence can be shown to be rational, just to me.  Same problem as before.  

 

3.  Consistent.

Acceptable evidence shouldn't contradict itself or disagree with itself.  This is actually more difficult than it sounds, Joe.  Being consistent and avoiding contradictions is a bit of a minefield.  There are many ways we can contradict ourselves without us knowing about it.   Catch is, when it comes to evidence, if we do contradict ourselves, then our evidence is invalid.  

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
49 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

1.what do "I"classify as wrong doings?

Doing things with intent on doing some hurt to others or doing one's best to get a fight started,leeching off of others in order to be lazy and miserable,while having "no remorse" for one's actions,for example I could understand someone venting but when it goes on for about a whole hour or so without ceasing or making coherent sense,then I consider it a "wrong doing" and will speak up to the person doing this politely asking them to stop or if they persist authoratively I will firmly  tell them to stop or they can leave until they "calm down",or is a person persistently insultiinsulting me or others eventually I'll have them be aware of what they are doing and seek for them to stop and think,if they won't listen then they are welcome to leave.

 

 

Isn't this all subjective? Remember this is what you are calling sin, this is what the human race is apparently being judged for. I feel that we aren't getting anywhere regarding your definition of sin so I will concentrate on how sin (what ever that may be) came about.

 

Again I ask you the three questions below. Please answer ALL of them. It's very hard when you are answering one question and ignoring the others.

 

1) Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

2) If you do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

3) Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin (If we assume sin came into being in Eden)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Well Joe, when it comes to evidence, I reckon these three things are good places to start.

 

1.  Equal.

Acceptable evidence should be acceptable to everyone and not just to one person or select few.  It's a bit like the concept of democracy.  If it doesn't apply fairly and equally to everyone, then it's wrong and unacceptable.  Ok, everyone is different, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to give everyone a fair (and equal) shake, right?  So, when it comes to evidence, it should be acceptable to all.  Equality rules!

 

2.  Rational.

Acceptable evidence should be rational and able to be shown to be rational.  Following on from # 1 (equality) acceptable evidence must be agreed to be rational to everyone, by everyone.  So, I can't just say that my evidence is rational, just to me.  That wouldn't be fair and equal to anyone else.  Nor could I say that my evidence can be shown to be rational, just to me.  Same problem as before.  

 

3.  Consistent.

Acceptable evidence shouldn't contradict itself or disagree with itself.  This is actually more difficult than it sounds, Joe.  Being consistent and avoiding contradictions is a bit of a minefield.  There are many ways we can contradict ourselves without us knowing about it.   Catch is, when it comes to evidence, if we do contradict ourselves, then our evidence is invalid.  

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

Regarding this well written explanation of evidentiary terms directed to poster Joefizz, may I suggest that you add one more "term" or concept?  That term is reliability.  Folks can agree to all your other terms regarding an evidentiary item but it still may be quite lacking in reliability.  For example, "Sam said that Sarah said that John said, 'I saw a dog walking down the street'".  The evidence may be more reliable if I interviewed John himself.  Perhaps his recollection is, "I said I thought I saw a dog walking down the street, but I wasn't sure" or "I saw a cat walking down the street, not a dog" or "I was just pulling Sarah's leg".

 

The issue here is the veracity of the truth of the matter asserted, not simply whether it is evidence.  Certain evidence is more likely less reliable than other evidence, e.g., hearsay is generally less reliable than direct testimony.  Even direct testimony is often unreliable, due primarily to the way human memory works.  Repeatable evidence is usually reliable, with some noted exceptions (e.g., optical illusions).  

 

Just a thought.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Isn't this all subjective? Remember this is what you are calling sin, this is what the human race is apparently being judged for. I feel that we aren't getting anywhere regarding your definition of sin so I will concentrate on how sin (what ever that may be) came about.

 

Again I ask you the three questions below. Please answer ALL of them. It's very hard when you are answering one question and ignoring the others.

 

1) Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

2) If you do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

3) Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin (If we assume sin came into being in Eden)?

I was on my way out the door for bible study at church when typing my previous post hence my putting a 1. so as to imply that I wasn't finished talking on your questions,which I will get around to have some patience please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Well Joe, when it comes to evidence, I reckon these three things are good places to start.

 

1.  Equal.

Acceptable evidence should be acceptable to everyone and not just to one person or select few.  It's a bit like the concept of democracy.  If it doesn't apply fairly and equally to everyone, then it's wrong and unacceptable.  Ok, everyone is different, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to give everyone a fair (and equal) shake, right?  So, when it comes to evidence, it should be acceptable to all.  Equality rules!

 

2.  Rational.

Acceptable evidence should be rational and able to be shown to be rational.  Following on from # 1 (equality) acceptable evidence must be agreed to be rational to everyone, by everyone.  So, I can't just say that my evidence is rational, just to me.  That wouldn't be fair and equal to anyone else.  Nor could I say that my evidence can be shown to be rational, just to me.  Same problem as before.  

 

3.  Consistent.

Acceptable evidence shouldn't contradict itself or disagree with itself.  This is actually more difficult than it sounds, Joe.  Being consistent and avoiding contradictions is a bit of a minefield.  There are many ways we can contradict ourselves without us knowing about it.   Catch is, when it comes to evidence, if we do contradict ourselves, then our evidence is invalid.  

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Very well this should be interesting and a bit time consuming but yeah since I'm off until Saturday I have time so let's get searching for then establishing evidence for what we believe is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

 

BAA,

 

Regarding this well written explanation of evidentiary terms directed to poster Joefizz, may I suggest that you add one more "term" or concept?  That term is reliability aka probative value.  Folks can agree to all your other terms regarding an evidentiary item but it still may be quite lacking in reliability.  For example, "Sam said that Sarah said that John said, 'I saw a dog walking down the street'".  The evidence may be more reliable if I interviewed John himself.  Perhaps his recollection is, "I said I thought I saw a dog walking down the street, but I wasn't sure" or "I saw a cat walking down the street, not a dog" or "I was just pulling Sarah's leg".

 

The issue here is the veracity of the truth of the matter asserted, not simply whether it is evidence.  Certain evidence is more likely less reliable than other evidence, e.g., hearsay is generally less reliable than direct testimony.  Even direct testimony is often unreliable, due primarily to the way human memory works.  Repeatable evidence is usually reliable, with some noted exceptions (e.g., optical illusions).  

 

Just a thought.

Yes the whole he said she said stuff is less likely to be true compared to established evidence of a subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2017 at 0:49 AM, midniterider said:

 

God could appear at Joe's church and incinerate all his friends and family with a flame thrower and Joe would say, "Oh thank you Lord for killing everyone!"

 

Like they say in Shark Tank, 'For that reason, I'm out.'

In the words of Kojiro Sasaki"A childish provacation you sound desperate"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Yes the whole he said she said stuff is less likely to be true compared to established evidence of a subject.

Please remember this statement when, later, others challenge your faithful reliance upon written statements and claims you claim are scripture.  I certainly will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sdelsolray said:

Please remember this statement when, later, others challenge your reliance upon Biblical statements and passages.

Yep I know,because if I can in someway establish evidence concerning God from without the bible that can more assertively prove some accounts in the Bible to be true,then more could be prone to at the very least consider the bible to be accurate and not fabrication or opinions as many believe it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Yep I know,because if I can in someway establish evidence concerning God from without the bible that can more assertively prove some accounts in the Bible to be true,then more could be prone to at the very least consider the bible to be accurate and not fabrication or opinions as many believe it to be.

Yes, perhaps you can do things no religionist has ever done, climbing uphill against rational and logically coherent thinking based on actual evidence and subject to falsifiability, all based on claims of religious faith, authority, scripture and revelation.  You're an amazing guy, notwithstanding your Dunning-Kruger infection.

 

Apparently, maintaining the status quo of your childhood religious indoctrination is important to you.  Are you under peer pressure to do so?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Very well this should be interesting and a bit time consuming but yeah since I'm off until Saturday I have time so let's get searching for then establishing evidence for what we believe is true.

Before we "Officially" get started some food for thought on my side of things....http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/,take your time look it over and when you want to begin our "Official" discussion on our evidence on our beliefs being more than just beliefs but factual through evidence,by way of  "Real" accounts,then simply start a post with your possible evidence of your beliefs,then there after we will "Officially" begin having set some degree of ground work before hand,agreed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
49 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

I was on my way out the door for bible study at church when typing my previous post hence my putting a 1. so as to imply that I wasn't finished talking on your questions,which I will get around to have some patience please.

 

Apologies there. My mistake.

 

I await your reply.

Thanks

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Yes, perhaps you can do things no religionist has ever done, climbing uphill against rational and logically coherent thinking based on actual evidence and subject to falsifiability, all based on claims of religious faith, authority, scripture and revelation.  You're an amazing guy, notwithstanding your Dunning-Kruger infection.

 

Apparently, maintaining the status quo of your childhood religious indoctrination is important to you.  Are you under peer pressure to do so?  

Nope no peer pressure in fact some in my family are getting somewhat torn with me for being so devout to God despite them being "For God" as well go figure,so as far as peer pressure goes it doesn't bring me down,them being torn with me actually motivates me,to do my best for God,so I suppose I'm a bit of a loner,which is probably why I would even consider using discussing with "Real" Evidence instead of "Only" using the bible as evidence,will I stand by it because I believe it to be true,yes,but I actually would like to see what "Evidence" I can find outside the bible,because I've been noticing "Real Evidence" that the bible was and is true,on the news,and documentaries so my thought is...

Why not use such "Real Evidence",when it is just sitting there and can be used to "Verify" the bible!?

It's kind of like saying ok we believe this but we don't wanna use "Real Evidence" to prove this, that exists,I understand many people push the buttons of Christians with phrases like "where is your God"?

"You can't prove he exists"!

Well if I can establish that the bible is true,known as God's word then I can establish God being "Real" through this overtime,or at least get people thinking more of that God's existence as well as the bible is more plausible and accurate instead of just saying both are true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Apologies there. My mistake.

 

I await your reply.

Thanks

LF

Yep It may be a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Bump - @Joefizz Don't forget my questions to answer below.

 

So what are you classifying as wrong doings (What you call sin)?

What about people with mental disorders that prevent them from being able to distinguish right from wrong ? They are not aware of doing wrong so are they sinning?

And how do you classify what is wrong?

 

 

 

Do you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and all good?

 

If you do do agree with the above, is  it possible for Lucifer to act against an all powerful god without the all knowing god knowing what would happen, and without the all powerful gods permission for Lucifer to act?

 

Furthermore how did Lucifer come into being and how did Lucifer become aware of sin before there was sin?

 

1.continued:mental disorders is tough to determine because some are aware of what they do and continue to do wrong,and some aren't aware of what they do,with such cases,if an intent to hurt can be established then what they do is wrong if not,then I leave the matter between the individual and God.

I classify what is wrong depending upon one's intent or mind set,for example at my birthday party in August,my Aunt I requested to come and cook ham as I usually do because it cheers her up and it's great to eat,but she was already upset about something that had nothing to do with me or anyone in the house,and so she attacked my other aunt with rantings and ravings as well as me,for no coherent reason but to use particularly my aunt as a person to gripe at for her problems,that I believe is wrong because it's starting a fight for no logical reason with the intent for hurt upon others.

2.Yes

3.lucifer has and had his own will,and God could foresee any of his angels turning against him,as to permission just like in a king's service with lucifer turning against God,he gave up being under God's command so he was no longer bound to ask permission of God for anything as he was when in his service.

4.I don't know how he came into being but his actions speak for themselves,whether he classified his actions as sin or not he was certainly aware of the consequences of his actions,knowing he would be known as doing wrong if he didn't overtake God successfully after all just like a king whomever is in service to a figure of power will no doubt be told of what is right and wrong by the same figure of power or by those in his service,I said sin on earth in my previous post because lucifer had sinned before man came into being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Before we "Officially" get started some food for thought on my side of things....http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/,take your time look it over and when you want to begin our "Official" discussion on our evidence on our beliefs being more than just beliefs but factual through evidence,by way of  "Real" accounts,then simply start a post with your possible evidence of your beliefs,then there after we will "Officially" begin having set some degree of ground work before hand,agreed?

Seriously ... if you will fall for that link you will fall for anything!!! 

 

Tell me, have you ever seen anything that has been under water for ANY length of time?? Obviously not! :49:

 

Maybe you would like to read a bit more on this con artist from a christian website???? :lol:

 

http://www.practicalbible.com/top-stories/beware-of-ron-wyatts-alleged-chariot-wheels

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Realist said:

Seriously ... if you will fall for that link you will fall for anything!!! 

 

Tell me, have you ever seen anything that has been under water for ANY length of time?? Obviously not! :49:

 

Maybe you would like to read a bit more on this con artist from a christian website???? :lol:

 

http://www.practicalbible.com/top-stories/beware-of-ron-wyatts-alleged-chariot-wheels

 

 

And yet you post a smiley hitting itself in the head,and a smiley smiling after that,how can I take you seriously????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Realist said:

Seriously ... if you will fall for that link you will fall for anything!!! 

 

Tell me, have you ever seen anything that has been under water for ANY length of time?? Obviously not! :49:

 

Maybe you would like to read a bit more on this con artist from a christian website???? :lol:

 

http://www.practicalbible.com/top-stories/beware-of-ron-wyatts-alleged-chariot-wheels

 

 

kidding aside I get what you mean apparently this Ron Wyatt guy was a fraud,thanks for the input,so now back to searching...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'll be honest here. I read through about 5 pages before my eyes glazed over with frustration. I have not read pages 6 or 7, so if anyone has said what I'm saying here, my apologies. I just couldn't anymore. Also, side note, I cannot comprehend how evil it to consider your views on hell for even 5 minutes. You are so smug like you're not going there, even making "burn, baby, burn" jokes, but if it exists, you don't have a clue if you are or not. Sure you believe you're not, like we believe we aren't, but get real. You could burn for eternity just as easily as us, if it actually exists. So fuck off with your smugness.

 

@Joefizz, you are being incredibly, mind-blowingly arrogant. I have included the definition here so that you cannot assert your own understanding of "arrogance" into this discussion. "Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." You claim that the god of the universe who created everything and everyone gives enough of a shit to use you and speak through you to people he has already supposedly reserved especially for hell. You, who still claims to be a baby Christian growing in your understanding of your faith, are up against people who have been christian for longer than you've been alive, some have been RAISED as christians from birth. I was a Christian for  24 years, homeschooled with a Christian curriculum through college. I was baptized, I attended youth group until I went to RUF on my college campus, I KNOW YOUR FAITH, I believed it as sincerely as possible. I know that my list of credentials means nothing to you, I know it's all about my heart and faith... I know that, because I believed that. I know it better than you. I have the urge to correct your doctrine before I refute it. I'll give you only one example of this urge, there is no biblical evidence of "age of accountability." The only thing that comes close is when David says that he will see the child that was born of his sin one day again, but even that is arguable because that could have been a fervent hope as opposed to a god-breathed truth. You come in here with your christianese lingo and your beliefs like we don't know what it is. Stop it. Stop talking to us like we don't know exactly what you believe, because we stopped believing it. 

 

I could show you the things I've written about dying to your flesh, dying to your self, dying to the secular world for Christ. Oh the tears I have shed in worship to "my almighty god," "my loving father," the tears from prayers to keep me from "losing my faith." You have no idea. What ultimately led me to question what I believed was the concept of hell. From there, it only took a basic understanding of history, human error, decent morality, and common sense. Trust me, we understand that you think you're on a different plane of understanding than us "atheists," that we don't have your knowledge. It is only having our eyes opened, (ironic considering you believe Jesus heals blindness) that we see how prideful you are, how full of shit you are, and how ultimately uneducated you are. Your posts make no sense, you don't answer our questions or face them for yourself, and we are left thinking that Christians are even dumber than we remember, back when we were one. 

 

If you won't research our secular sources, then at least read the goddamn bible before you come in here claiming to know what it says. So, let's stick to your original post's intent.

 

Rape is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

Slavery is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

People, in general, are not to be considered the property of any other person, agree or disagree?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Before we "Officially" get started some food for thought on my side of things....http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/,take your time look it over and when you want to begin our "Official" discussion on our evidence on our beliefs being more than just beliefs but factual through evidence,by way of  "Real" accounts,then simply start a post with your possible evidence of your beliefs,then there after we will "Officially" begin having set some degree of ground work before hand,agreed?

 

Ah yes, Ron Wyatt via World Net Daily aka Wing Nut Daily.

 

Your research skills are impressive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Look, I'll be honest here. I read through about 5 pages before my eyes glazed over with frustration. I have not read pages 6 or 7, so if anyone has said what I'm saying here, my apologies. I just couldn't anymore. Also, side note, I cannot comprehend how evil it to consider your views on hell for even 5 minutes. You are so smug like you're not going there, even making "burn, baby, burn" jokes, but if it exists, you don't have a clue if you are or not. Sure you believe you're not, like we believe we aren't, but get real. You could burn for eternity just as easily as us, if it actually exists. So fuck off with your smugness.

 

@Joefizz, you are being incredibly, mind-blowingly arrogant. I have included the definition here so that you cannot assert your own understanding of "arrogance" into this discussion. "Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." You claim that the god of the universe who created everything and everyone gives enough of a shit to use you and speak through you to people he has already supposedly reserved especially for hell. You, who still claims to be a baby Christian growing in your understanding of your faith, are up against people who have been christian for longer than you've been alive, some have been RAISED as christians from birth. I was a Christian for  24 years, homeschooled with a Christian curriculum through college. I was baptized, I attended youth group until I went to RUF on my college campus, I KNOW YOUR FAITH, I believed it as sincerely as possible. I know that my list of credentials means nothing to you, I know it's all about my heart and faith... I know that, because I believed that. I know it better than you. I have the urge to correct your doctrine before I refute it. I'll give you only one example of this urge, there is no biblical evidence of "age of accountability." The only thing that comes close is when David says that he will see the child that was born of his sin one day again, but even that is arguable because that could have been a fervent hope as opposed to a god-breathed truth. You come in here with your christianese lingo and your beliefs like we don't know what it is. Stop it. Stop talking to us like we don't know exactly what you believe, because we stopped believing it. 

 

I could show you the things I've written about dying to your flesh, dying to your self, dying to the secular world for Christ. Oh the tears I have shed in worship to "my almighty god," "my loving father," the tears from prayers to keep me from "losing my faith." You have no idea. What ultimately led me to question what I believed was the concept of hell. From there, it only took a basic understanding of history, human error, decent morality, and common sense. Trust me, we understand that you think you're on a different plane of understanding than us "atheists," that we don't have your knowledge. It is only having our eyes opened, (ironic considering you believe Jesus heals blindness) that we see how prideful you are, how full of shit you are, and how ultimately uneducated you are. Your posts make no sense, you don't answer our questions or face them for yourself, and we are left thinking that Christians are even dumber than we remember, back when we were one. 

 

If you won't research our secular sources, then at least read the goddamn bible before you come in here claiming to know what it says. So, let's stick to your original post's intent.

 

Rape is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

Slavery is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, agree or disagree?

People, in general, are not to be considered the property of any other person, agree or disagree?

So now you actually "Do" want answers to your questions after a previous post of saying clearly that you don't want answers to your questions,when you have calmly collected yourself and have decided if you would like answers to your questions,then I'll consider answering said questions,after all what's the use in talking to someone who has no intention of listening,I have been through the scenario of talking to such one sided people and nothing ever results from such conversations,if both people in a conversation are not going to speak "Maturely" to each other as well as "Listen" to each other,then nothing results that is of any good use,I get that you are upset with God but if you can't respectfully speak with me how do you expect me to speak with you?

People like BAA I speak to because they are respectful,make sense,and are not one sided in conversation I don't think that is asking too much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Ah yes, Ron Wyatt via World Net Daily aka Wing Nut Daily.

 

Your research skills are impressive.

Lol I admit I typed in something along the lines of Red sea division proof and his claims popped up,it sure looked real enough but considering @Realist's link showing other scientists debunking his claims,I'm back to the drawing board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Realist said:

Seriously ... if you will fall for that link you will fall for anything!!! 

 

Tell me, have you ever seen anything that has been under water for ANY length of time?? Obviously not! :49:

 

Maybe you would like to read a bit more on this con artist from a christian website???? :lol:

 

http://www.practicalbible.com/top-stories/beware-of-ron-wyatts-alleged-chariot-wheels

 

 

Yes I've seen stuff under water for amounts of time lol,I am so glad I didn't "Officially" get BAA and I's conversation started now,that's the internet for you,type something in and you get something whether it's accurate or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

So now you actually "Do" want answers to your questions after a previous post of saying clearly that you don't want answers to your questions,when you have calmly collected yourself and have decided if you would like answers to your questions,then I'll consider answering said questions,after all what's the use in talking to someone who has no intention of listening,I have been through the scenario of talking to such one sided people and nothing ever results from such conversations,if both people in a conversation are not going to speak "Maturely" to each other as well as "Listen" to each other,then nothing results that is of any good use,I get that you are upset with God but if you can't respectfully speak with me how do you expect me to speak with you?

People like BAA I speak to because they are respectful,make sense,and are not one sided in conversation I don't think that is asking too much.  

You say this as if it is a given that your god exists to be mad at in the first place.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.