The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Apple Scruff on February 07, 2024, 04:20:09 AM
-
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?
I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh85HWnn/antart.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvRd6LdG/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
And not this..
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
The earth is demonstrably spherical with no extra lands to discover…
-
why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded
?
M
On tours to Antarctica they only take you to the edges,
What’s this tour?
THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE
Embark on an expedition that will test your strength, endurance, and resolve and join an elite group who have arrived at the Geographic South Pole under their own power. Ski South Pole is the ultimate challenge, a journey that spans an entire Antarctic season and traverses 702 mi (1130 km) from Hercules Inlet, on the edge of the frozen Antarctic continent, to the Geographic South Pole.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/ski-south-pole-hercules-inlet/
Or this?
Fly to the South Pole 2023/2024
Fly to the South Pole, where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world. History comes alive as you stand at 90° South, the ultimate goal of polar explorers Amundsen and Scott. Imagine how it felt to head out across the frozen continent and into the unknown over 100 years ago. Feel the spirit of determination and discovery that has inspired a century of Antarctic exploration and scientific research. Now can you be one of the selected few that have set foot on the Geographic South Pole.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20232024
Anyone staying over night with a camera could figure out if they were at the South Pole.
(https://i.natgeofe.com/n/80c94e88-a8ef-4c70-a736-1ebd02c97b26/77822.jpg?w=826&h=550)
Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy
More FE goal post moving?
Anyway. FYI. Star trails at the equator.
(https://i0.wp.com/vivekphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Celequator.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1)
https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/
-
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
No. FEers claim that, but there is no evidence of such a thing.
Antarctica appeasers to be a small continent, not a solid ring of ice around the world.
why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
It isn't.
This is just a bold lie FEers make to try to prop up their failed fantasy.
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
Actually, prior to the Antarctic treaty, going to Antarctica was met with questionable issues.
The lands of Antarctica where claimed by various nations, so going there could be considered invading their country or unlawful entry into it, and you could face serious punishment.
But with the treaty, it was declared open for all, so you couldn't. The treaty made sure Antarctica stayed open, as long as you weren't trying to establish a military base, or destroy the natural resources.
So it is pretty much the exact opposite of your claim.
Prior to the treaty, if you went to explore you could be severely punished for invading/illegally entering a country.
After the treaty it is open so anyone can go explore Antarctica.
But of course, that doesn't fit with the FE fantasy, so they lie about it.
-
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?
I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh85HWnn/antart.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvRd6LdG/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.
-
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?
I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh85HWnn/antart.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvRd6LdG/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.
I'm convinced there are extra lands or like you say, the earth maybe infinite which I'm inclined to go with after reading the book 'World Beyond The Poles'.
-
I find it hard to get very far thinking about this, or at least i haven't, but possiblly cause it has little to do with my ambitions in the world personally. To me i think what we all have around us - i myself am in canada - is more than most realize, but i suspect there are definitely some secret islands that are pretty large, maybe not australia size, but just speculating. Northern parts of the world cumulatively have millions of square km of boreal forest from what i understand, mostly north of most civilization. Though a lot of that maybe scrubby and sparse as far as trees go...
-
I haven't looked into it though. But i think they are hiding all types of stuff.
-
I haven't looked into it though. But i think they are hiding all types of stuff.
Most definitely.
-
Episode 2
• The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ...
Episode 3
• The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 3 Th...
Episode 4
• The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ...
Episode 5
-
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?
I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh85HWnn/antart.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvRd6LdG/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator. Are there extra lands? Probably so. But unlike the round Earth model, you fly outside domes rather than through "space."
-
Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.
Which in no way explains why people south of the equator, when they look south at night see the same stars and constellations like this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
Where in a flat earth, celestial south would be pretty meaningless.
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
Are there extra lands? Probably so.
There is no Ice wall. Just Antarctica at the geographical South Pole.
Sorry. Flat earth is debunked. No new major land masses to discover. Unless you travel space and find new planets.
-
Episode 2
• The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ...
Episode 3
• The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 3 Th...
Episode 4
• The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ...
Episode 5
Oh. This BS thread is just to generate foot traffic to fantasy pieces like Alice in Wonderland.
It’s just an advertisement.
-
The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.
And there could be what we call space that is literally close to infinite as possible, and holds new lanes we call planets around distance stars.
As far as earth, exploration and celestial navigation have debunked flat earth. But you keep living out your best life fantasy champ.
-
Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.
Which in no way explains why people south of the equator, when they look south at night see the same stars and constellations like this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
Where in a flat earth, celestial south would be pretty meaningless.
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
Are there extra lands? Probably so.
There is no Ice wall. Just Antarctica at the geographical South Pole.
And you know this because ?
-
Episode 2
• The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ...
Episode 3
• The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 3 Th...
Episode 4
• The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ...
Episode 5
Oh. This BS thread is just to generate foot traffic to fantasy pieces like Alice in Wonderland.
There's a lot of truth in fairy tales, take the 'Wizard of Oz' for instance.
-
Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.
Yes, quite like you would expect if Earth was a sphere.
There is no reason for there to be different stars for a flat Earth, instead they would just be in a different position.
But the real killing point is the south celestial pole, which stars in the south appear to circle.
And you know this because ?
Which part?
The existence of the south celestial pole which is observable to everyone in the south?
Or that Earth is round?
-
And you know this because ?
Was in the navy, been south of the equator.
Now.
How can people in Africa, South America, and Australia look south and see the same celestial South Pole constellations. As illustrated and attested to.
Where shown on a FE, celestial South Pole would be meaningless.
And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator. Spherical earth explains how as you travel south across the equator the North Star Polaris doesn’t change in magnitude of brightness but when one travels far enough south its becomes physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.
Traveling relative east from a north south line out of South America leads to Africa, not to Antarctica
(https://i.imgur.com/w6p8gJw.jpeg)
Flat earth is debunked. There is no ice wall. There are no major land masses on earth to discover.
-
And isn’t it a little “naive American” to think other lands wouldn’t be populated with their own people exploring, have the capability of flight, and have the technology for satellites?
-
And you know this because ?
And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator.
I don't but this guy does.
-
And you know this because ?
And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator.
I don't but this guy does.
Ok?
If it isn’t because the earth is spherical, then it’s not a probable explanation.
Show using a triangle and trigonometry why the North Star would be blocked from view south of the equator.
-
The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California. And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model. The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.
-
And you know this because ?
And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator.
I don't but this guy does.
Oh. The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?
Hint. As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor. The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
Note. Added. Or. More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky? Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?
Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0
I’ve done my own homework. Have you?
-
The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California. And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model. The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.
So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z
This so called curve, prove it.
-
The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California. And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model. The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.
So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z
This so called curve, prove it.
?
To stick with the angle of navigation to not derail this thread too much…
If the sun should help lead one straight west without turning north from say California to China.
Which wouldn’t be the case on a FE
This is what the orbit of the sun would look like on a FE. See the gif in the quote.
I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.
Anyway..
The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.
(https://i.imgur.com/scGMEr1.gif)
If you followed the sun on a flat earth, you would have to continually turn right in the shown perspective.
See below. A sun molded for FE shows the sun wouldn’t set below the horizon for all of earth.
This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.
https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html
No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.
-
So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show
First. It is physically blocked by the curvature of the earth.. Why once far enough south below the equator you can’t bring it back into view with a telescope.
Second, I did. You ignored it, and haven’t addressed what was actually posted.
Oh. The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?
Hint. As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor. The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
Note. Added. Or. More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky? Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?
Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0
I’ve done my own homework. Have you?
-
In other words. In the context of navigation from the meaning of south, why people below the equator see the same stars when they look south, the sun, and the northern star. It all shows that Antarctica is a continent at a geographic South Pole on a spherical planet. With no proof Antarctica is an ice wall encircling the known continents.
-
The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California. And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model. The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.
So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z
This so called curve, prove it.
?
To stick with the angle of navigation to not derail this thread too much…
If the sun should help lead one straight west without turning north from say California to China.
Which wouldn’t be the case on a FE
This is what the orbit of the sun would look like on a FE. See the gif in the quote.
I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.
Anyway..
The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.
(https://i.imgur.com/scGMEr1.gif)
If you followed the sun on a flat earth, you would have to continually turn right in the shown perspective.
See below. A sun molded for FE shows the sun wouldn’t set below the horizon for all of earth.
This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.
https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html
No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.
Once again sunset is due to perspective.
-
Once again sunset is due to perspective.
Again. It is not. As shown in the provided models.
There would be an apparent change in the sun’s size. There is not.
That is covered here…
Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0
If you want to post in that thread to stop derailing your own thread.
On a flat earth, passing over California for example. The sun would appear to turn north. The sun’s apparent speed would seem fast as it passed overhead, and then would seem to increasingly slow down as it travel out to sea. It’s apparent size would seem huge overhead, and keep getting smaller and smaller as it traveled out to sea.
“Prospective” doesn’t cover how radiation of the sun becomes physically blocked and undetectable on the surface of the earth after sunset. Specially where radio astronomy equipment cannot pinpoint the sun’s location from the dark side of the earth.
“Prospective” doesn’t cover how light of the sun becomes physically blocked where the sun can’t be brought back into view with a telescope that changes “perspective”.
It’s because the sun’s light and radiation are physically blocked or shielded by the earth.
An object emitting light above a flat plane can’t be physically blocked from view (prevent the light getting to the viewer) when the viewer is above the same plane.
If you think it’s mathematically possible, then illustrate using right angles.
And you haven’t addressed “prospective” at all. And its failure to block anything from view as outlined in the quote below..
Oh. The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?
Hint. As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor. The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
Note. Added. Or. More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky? Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?
Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0
I’ve done my own homework. Have you?
-
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation there is an ice wall encircling the known world, with these forms of navigation pointing to Antarctica being a continent at the geographical South Pole of a spherical planet.
-
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation
I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.
-
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation
I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.
And there might be dinosaurs in my basement, and a magical land where numbers end up once they are erased from a blackboard.
Life has moved on. Outside the box to discover new lands is now outer space or jumping / phase shifting dimensions.
-
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation
I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.
Life has moved on. Outside the box to discover new lands is now outer space or jumping / phase shifting dimensions.
There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.
-
I don't but this guy does.
No, they don't.
This is shown by the fact that all you can do is link the video rather than even attempting an explanation.
If that person really did have an explanation you would be able to understand it and provide it here.
The video just appeals to the standard BS FE "Law of perspective", which is just a fancy way of saying that FE has no explanation, so we will take reality, which is a round Earth and just pretend that is flat to pretend it produces the same result.
The actual law of perspective is quite simple.
For an object a height h above a theoretical straight line passing level through the observers eye (or whatever observation device is being used), located a distance of d along that theoretical line, the angle of elevation will be given by:
a=atan(h/d).
For the commonly stated 5000 km altitude of Polaris, this correctly gives an angle of elevation of 90 degrees for 90 degrees north, and 45 degrees for 45 degrees north.
But at the equator it gives 26.5 degrees. And even at 90 degrees south this is still positive at 14 degrees.
Perspective does NOT explain why Polaris is not visible below the equator.
You can even try this with a scaled down model.
Go find a hallway with a light.
Note the point on the floor directly below the light.
From an observation on the floor, find the point where it appears at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees.
See what that distance is. Now go double that distance from the light.
If these FE lies were true, the light should now have an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.
But we observe it having a positive angle of elevation.
As we move further away, now corresponding to the region south of the equator, the light is still visible with a positive angle of elevation.
It would take an infinite distance for it to drop to 0.
Here is a simple image comparing reality to what would be expected on a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/m5bJQAj.png)
Directly below Polaris, they align well, being 90 degrees.
At 45 degrees north, they align well, being 45 degrees.
At the equator, there is a massive mismatch.
Reality (and by extension the RE) has it at 0 degrees, but FE demands it is 26.5 degrees.
At 45 degrees south, reality has it below 0 degrees. If you extrapolate it would be -45 degrees. But FE demands it is at 14.0 degrees.
You can also try this with a large sphere, and an object very far away and observe how that does match reality.
So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ?
Yes, because that is what actually explains it.
As for proof, again, refer to Polaris.
Observations of Polaris clearly demonstrate the distance is not changing significantly (as the brightness remains roughly the same, and the constellations don't change and so on), meaning the reference point (Earth) changing orientation is what is causing the angle of elevation to change.
Observations of Polaris and other celestial objects show there is a curve.
Once again sunset is due to perspective.
Once again, that is a blatant lie which completely misrepresents how perspective works to pretend Earth is flat.
Is that going to be your answer to everything?
Entirely ignore the argument and just assert Earth is flat?
Try explaining how perspective magically blocks the view.
There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.
Pure BS.
All the available evidence clearly points to outer space.
This includes the simple evidence of a pressure gradient in all fluids, which when applied to the atmosphere will result in the pressure dropping to virtually nothing after enough altitude.
There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.
And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.
-
I don't but this guy does.
There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.
And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.
So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.
And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxTsnQKB/a-manned.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
-
There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.
Everything from pressure in the atmosphere would equalize like a pressure bottle, no indication by radar, millennia of dust / dirt buildup, no reflections by the sun and moon, meteorites and cosmic dust, to charged particles and the van Allen belts. There is no indication of a dome structure above the earth
With meteorites to comets, the number of satellites that have added to the night time lights in the sky over the past 100 years, to radio broadcasts from objects put in space, to radar tracking. Every indication of space, and mankind putting objects in space.
-
I don't but this guy does.
There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.
And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.
So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.
And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxTsnQKB/a-manned.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
What? Something debated and explained by several people?
One. The rocket didn’t hit any physical object.
Two. The arc to place something or itself into orbit in space around the earth. Care to provide the launch date and the mission? What is the vehicle and context of the image?
Three. This was provided by stash for a poster that wanted a rocket that went straight up into space. This fulfills that requirement
UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight
Four. Why is the firmament being brought up in this thread. I can demonstrate spherical earth and space. But why can’t there be a spherical earth with a “dome”? If you want to think outside the “box”? A dome doesn’t prove FE.
-
I don't but this guy does.
There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.
And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.
So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.
And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxTsnQKB/a-manned.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
What? Something debated and explained by several people?
One. The rocket didn’t hit any physical object.
Two. The arc to place something or itself into orbit in space around the earth. Care to provide the launch date and the mission? What is the vehicle and context of the image?
Three. This was provided by stash for a poster that wanted a rocket that went straight up into space. This fulfills that requirement
UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight
Four. Why is the firmament being brought up in this thread. I can demonstrate spherical earth and space. But why can’t there be a spherical earth with a “dome”? If you want to think outside the “box”? A dome doesn’t prove FE.
Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.
GoFast - Rocket hits the sky firmament
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxTsnQKB/a-manned.png)
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
Don't bother. Instead of admitting that either (a) the entire nature of space travel is fraud and they actually just camp out for a few months like in Capricorn One
(b) or that other worlds move horizontally rather than vertically (scientists have even admitted as much by claiming "the universe is flat"),
they instead take the absurd position that the Earth is round, and because of this, an object that should clearly be going straight up (or up at an angle) instead curves downward. Maybe an object going straight across might appear to climb the sky, but this is a far cry from how an object that actually ascends behaves.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1205379964430450739/TrajectoryPerspective.png)
In other words, despite the behavior of angles being at odds with this theory, that's the lame explanation you'll get. Ascending objects do not fall except when there are shenanigans.
Reality (and by extension the RE) has it at 0 degrees, but FE demands it is 26.5 degrees.
I feel like everyone gunning for RE secretly wants to abbreviate it as R(eal) E(arth). Well, I'm sorry but it's more like R(idiculous) E(xpectations). Polaris can't be at 0 degrees. That would make it ahead of you, not above you. If something is above you, it should be at 90 degrees. Your Ridiculous Expectations have put it at a weird and arbitrary angle.
-
I notice you ignore the vast majority of my post and instead choose to focus on 2 tiny points.
Why do you entirely ignore the fact that perspective doesn't match the FE claims at all?
So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.
If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong.
Claims from a fairy tale is not evidence.
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
No, why would it?
The vast majority of rockets launched are to put things in orbit.
If you launch it straight up, it falls back down.
If you want it in orbit you need a lot of tangential velocity.
Also, do you notice the dishonest double standard you imply?
The sun appears to go down, yet you claim that is magic doing it.
You appeal to a rocket, which is clearly getting further away, and pretend it must be going down.
Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.
GoFast - Rocket hits the sky firmament
Yay, I was hoping you would provide that.
You are right about one thing, that video certainly proves a lot.
Firstly, the label, including what YOU have referred to it as, demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.
It did not hit a dome.
There is NOTHING to indicate that.
Do you know what something travelling at a very high rate of speed hitting a solid well built object looks like?
This:
Notice how the plane basically just disintegrates?
Yet what do we see for this rocket?
It deploys its despin mechanism to stop the rapid rotation; and continues moving upwards.
Even reaching "space" where we can see darkness above.
So this rocket demonstrates that if there is a dome, it is beyond space.
So great job refuting yourself, and showing your dishonesty in the process.
-
scientists have even admitted as much by claiming "the universe is flat"
How many times are you planning on repeating this lie?
Again, it means nothing like what you pretend.
they instead take the absurd position that the Earth is round
No. We take the entirely rational position that Earth is round, as that is what all the evidence demonstrates.
an object that should clearly be going straight up (or up at an angle) instead curves downward.
Why should it be going straight up or up at an angle?
In other words, despite the behavior of angles being at odds with this theory, that's the lame explanation you'll get. Ascending objects do not fall except when there are shenanigans.
You seem to be describing FEers here.
Where we observe things like the sun and moon, appear to go down; yet FEers claim it is magic and it actually goes up.
I feel like everyone gunning for RE secretly wants to abbreviate it as R(eal) E(arth).
Real Earth, Rational Earth, Repeatable Earth, Replicable Earth, Right Earth.
As opposed to Fantasy Earth, Fictional Earth, Fabricated Earth, and so on.
But I know you hate that.
So I leave it as Round Earth and Flat Earth.
There is nothing ridiculous about expecting a model, which is allegedly a model of reality, to match reality.
Polaris can't be at 0 degrees. That would make it ahead of you, not above you. If something is above you, it should be at 90 degrees. Your Ridiculous Expectations have put it at a weird and arbitrary angle.
No, reality puts it at that angle.
The FE fails to explain it.
You have just pointed out the problem with a FE.
For the FE fantasy, Polaris is always above you, and should always appear with a positive angle of elevation.
For the RE, it is NOT always above you.
Instead, the angle varies depending upon where you are on Earth.
At the north pole, it is basically straight up.
At the equator, looking north, it is in front of you, with an angle of elevation of basically 0.
At the south pole, if you could see through Earth it would be straight down.
So the RE matches observations, the FE does not.
Thanks for pointing out that the FE cannot explain Polaris, and observations of Polaris refute the FE.
-
Don't bother.
That man has added objects to space that has increased the night time lights in the sky? And that it can be traced to specific space missions?
Little legal recourse for astronomers concerned about Starlink
https://spacenews.com/little-legal-recourse-for-astronomers-concerned-about-starlink/
(https://i0.wp.com/spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/starlink-trails.jpg?w=879&ssl=1)
An image released by the IAU June 3 shows trails made by dozens of Starlink satellites as they passed through the field of view of a telescope during an observation shortly after launch. The IAU noted in its statement that the density and brightness of the satellites in this image is not representative of their appearance in their final orbital configuration. Credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory
[/img]
-
Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.
Your wrong.
But what the hell does that have to do with “Are There Extra Lands”
And this reply…
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation there is an ice wall encircling the known world, with these forms of navigation pointing to Antarctica being a continent at the geographical South Pole of a spherical planet.
-
Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.
Your wrong.
But what the hell does that have to do with “Are There Extra Lands”
And this reply…
FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation there is an ice wall encircling the known world, with these forms of navigation pointing to Antarctica being a continent at the geographical South Pole of a spherical planet.
Okay then I'll stay on topic.
The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.
The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel the waters surrounding the Antarctic Circle, finding an unknown passage to an open sea. Other lands await him behind, along with another civilization, the story will begin to reveal to the entire group another reality based on the true past and future of the human being. It will finally lead him to the discovery of other worlds behind the Antarctica and most importantly to know himself, a unique journey from which nothing will ever be the same again.
He does go on to find all kinds of lands such as the land of Mars, land of Annunaki, Asgard etc.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PJfMzDD/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RCbv71VJ/a-world-beyond.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.
Ok? Go on expedition and see if you can verify.
But, first. How would you navigate there when celestial navigation proves the world is spherical with Antarctica a continent at the geographical South Pole of the globe.
-
The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel
So, why wasn’t he a captain of his own boat? What was his boat? And where are his charts?
-
The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel
So, why wasn’t he a captain of his own boat? What was his boat? And where are his charts?
Read the book.
-
The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.
But, first. How would you navigate there when celestial navigation proves the world is spherical with Antarctica a continent at the geographical South Pole of the globe.
Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere & secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.
-
Read the book.
A work of fiction like Alice in Wonderland vs actually navigating the globe?
-
Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere
Yeap. It does. As already proven.
https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-daughter-power-attorney-1817511
& secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.
From my time in the Navy and dealing with other Sailors. To how celestial navigation works.
There is no proof of your ice wall.
There is proof of a continent at the south geological pole of the sphere we call earth.
And if you have enough money, you can take a trip there…
why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded
?
M
On tours to Antarctica they only take you to the edges,
What’s this tour?
THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE
Embark on an expedition that will test your strength, endurance, and resolve and join an elite group who have arrived at the Geographic South Pole under their own power. Ski South Pole is the ultimate challenge, a journey that spans an entire Antarctic season and traverses 702 mi (1130 km) from Hercules Inlet, on the edge of the frozen Antarctic continent, to the Geographic South Pole.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/ski-south-pole-hercules-inlet/
Or this?
Fly to the South Pole 2023/2024
Fly to the South Pole, where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world. History comes alive as you stand at 90° South, the ultimate goal of polar explorers Amundsen and Scott. Imagine how it felt to head out across the frozen continent and into the unknown over 100 years ago. Feel the spirit of determination and discovery that has inspired a century of Antarctic exploration and scientific research. Now can you be one of the selected few that have set foot on the Geographic South Pole.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20232024
Anyone staying over night with a camera could figure out if they were at the South Pole.
(https://i.natgeofe.com/n/80c94e88-a8ef-4c70-a736-1ebd02c97b26/77822.jpg?w=826&h=550)
Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy
More FE goal post moving?
Anyway. FYI. Star trails at the equator.
(https://i0.wp.com/vivekphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Celequator.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1)
https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/
So.. When’s your expedition. I’ve been on mine through the Navy.
-
So.. When’s your expedition. I’ve been on mine through the Navy.
Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
-
Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
?
Again…
Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….
Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.
-
Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
?
Again…
Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….
Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.
Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.
-
Okay then I'll stay on topic.
The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.
So to stay on topic, you appeal to a fictional story?
What will you do next, appeal to Harry Potter to claim there is a platform 9&3/4?
Appeal to Allice in Wonderland to claim that by going down the rabbit hole you end up in the world of wonderland?
If you want to stay on topic, then a reminder of your OP.
You asked if there are extra lands beyond Antarctica, and why is it so heavily guarded, appealing to the Antarctic treaty.
The fact is that it is not heavily guarded and the Antarctic treaty, which you can read for yourself) ensures access rather than prevents it.
And we know there isn't land beyond it, because it is a pole, as shown by the existence of the south celestial pole, due south for everyone.
Why should we believe your work of fiction over observations of the south celestial pole?
Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere & secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.
Wrong on both counts.
The fact that celestial navigation works by finding your latitude with reference to the celestial pole, and using angles is entirely based upon a round Earth, shows that Earth is a sphere.
This includes the diagram you ignored above:
(https://i.imgur.com/m5bJQAj.png)
If Earth was flat, we would get the angles shown in red for the equator and 45 degrees south.
But as Earth is round, we get the angles shown in green.
Celestial navigation demonstrates Earth is round.
All the evidence, including the south celestial pole, shows that Antarctica is a continent, and that it does not circle the Earth.
This also includes circumnavigations, like by Captain Cook, which completed far too quickly for it to be a wide ring around a flat Earth.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
And more dishonest BS.
They were just off the coast of Melbourne. No where near Antarctica.
-
Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
?
Again…
Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….
Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.
Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.
Are you feeling well?
There is no ice wall surrounding the known continents. The earth is spherical as backed by celestial navigation that proves Antarctica is a land mass / continent at the geographic South Pole. You can travel to the geographic South Pole and confirm you are there at night by the stars and southern constellations and how they spin about the celestial south pole.
-
Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.
I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.
?
Again…
Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….
Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.
Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.
Are you feeling well?
There is no ice wall surrounding the known continents. The earth is spherical as backed by celestial navigation that proves Antarctica is a land mass / continent at the geographic South Pole. You can travel to the geographic South Pole and confirm you are there at night by the stars and southern constellations and how they spin about the celestial south pole.
Your deluded.
-
Your deluded.
Why?
Because they don't believe a work of fiction?
-
Your deluded.
Why?
Because they don't believe a work of fiction?
Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.
-
Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.
You seem to be describing yourself.
You are appealing to a work of fiction to pretend Earth is flat and there are lands beyond Antarctica.
You entirely ignore celestial navigation and how perspective works to further pretend Earth is flat.
-
Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.
You seem to be describing yourself.
You are appealing to a work of fiction to pretend Earth is flat and there are lands beyond Antarctica.
You entirely ignore celestial navigation and how perspective works to further pretend Earth is flat.
You mean to tell me that a spinning ball hurtling through space isn't a work of fiction ? Lol'z
-
You mean to tell me that a spinning ball hurtling through space isn't a work of fiction ? Lol'z
You not liking reality doesn't make it fiction.
Conversely, the angles not matching does demonstrate the flat Earth is fiction.
-
You mean to tell me that a spinning ball hurtling through space isn't a work of fiction ? Lol'z
You not liking reality doesn't make it fiction.
Okay - Prove to me that we live on a spinning ball.
-
Okay - Prove to me that we live on a spinning ball.
How about you deal with the topic first.
Polaris has already been raised.
The angle of elevation of Polaris is inconsistent with it being above a flat plane, but it is entirely consistent with it being above a round surface.
Do you accept that?
If so, that already shows Earth is a ball; importantly demonstrating there aren't extra lands beyond Antarctica.
If you don't accept, then explain why Polaris is not visible in the south and why it goes to an angle of elevation of 0 at the equator.
Likewise, we have the existence of the south celestial pole. Obseverable due south for observers south of the equator. It is also determinable by those north of the equator by examine star trails to the south (in timelapse photograph) and identifying the centre point, which is below ground level.
This, along with the north celestial pole, and the fact that they are always 180 degree apart, demonstrates that there is a point due north of everyone and a point due south of everyone. Again, showing Earth is a ball.
-
Okay - Prove to me that we live on a spinning ball.
How about you deal with the topic first.
Polaris has already been raised.
The angle of elevation of Polaris is inconsistent with it being above a flat plane, but it is entirely consistent with it being above a round surface.
Do you accept that?
If so, that already shows Earth is a ball; importantly demonstrating there aren't extra lands beyond Antarctica.
If you don't accept, then explain why Polaris is not visible in the south and why it goes to an angle of elevation of 0 at the equator.
Likewise, we have the existence of the south celestial pole. Obseverable due south for observers south of the equator. It is also determinable by those north of the equator by examine star trails to the south (in timelapse photograph) and identifying the centre point, which is below ground level.
This, along with the north celestial pole, and the fact that they are always 180 degree apart, demonstrates that there is a point due north of everyone and a point due south of everyone. Again, showing Earth is a ball.
What a load of jargon, firstly Poloris isn't visible in the south because of our perspective.
-
What a load of jargon, firstly Poloris isn't visible in the south because of our perspective.
Just what words do you find to be jargon?
As for Perspective, I already dealt with that BS.
Perspective does NOT cause Polaris to magically vanish.
I don't but this guy does.
No, they don't.
This is shown by the fact that all you can do is link the video rather than even attempting an explanation.
If that person really did have an explanation you would be able to understand it and provide it here.
The video just appeals to the standard BS FE "Law of perspective", which is just a fancy way of saying that FE has no explanation, so we will take reality, which is a round Earth and just pretend that is flat to pretend it produces the same result.
The actual law of perspective is quite simple.
For an object a height h above a theoretical straight line passing level through the observers eye (or whatever observation device is being used), located a distance of d along that theoretical line, the angle of elevation will be given by:
a=atan(h/d).
For the commonly stated 5000 km altitude of Polaris, this correctly gives an angle of elevation of 90 degrees for 90 degrees north, and 45 degrees for 45 degrees north.
But at the equator it gives 26.5 degrees. And even at 90 degrees south this is still positive at 14 degrees.
Perspective does NOT explain why Polaris is not visible below the equator.
You can even try this with a scaled down model.
Go find a hallway with a light.
Note the point on the floor directly below the light.
From an observation on the floor, find the point where it appears at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees.
See what that distance is. Now go double that distance from the light.
If these FE lies were true, the light should now have an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.
But we observe it having a positive angle of elevation.
As we move further away, now corresponding to the region south of the equator, the light is still visible with a positive angle of elevation.
It would take an infinite distance for it to drop to 0.
Here is a simple image comparing reality to what would be expected on a FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/m5bJQAj.png)
Directly below Polaris, they align well, being 90 degrees.
At 45 degrees north, they align well, being 45 degrees.
At the equator, there is a massive mismatch.
Reality (and by extension the RE) has it at 0 degrees, but FE demands it is 26.5 degrees.
At 45 degrees south, reality has it below 0 degrees. If you extrapolate it would be -45 degrees. But FE demands it is at 14.0 degrees.
You can also try this with a large sphere, and an object very far away and observe how that does match reality.
-
What a load of jargon, firstly Poloris isn't visible in the south because of our perspective.
Just what words do you find to be jargon?
As for Perspective, I already dealt with that BS.
Perspective does NOT cause Polaris to magically vanish.
Try watching the video again & you may just understand.
-
Try watching the video again & you may just understand.
Try reading my post, and you might understand that the video is pure garbage.
Perspective is very well understood.
It is simple geometry.
It doesn't magically make something above you appear at an angle of elevation of 0 after a finite distance.
Nor does it magically change the angle to the object without any other signs associated with a change in distance.
What you are appealing to is dishonest FE BS, where they blatantly lie to you to pretend it can work on a FE.
-
What a load of jargon, firstly Poloris isn't visible in the south because of our perspective.
That is false. It’s has been addressed and repeated repeatedly debunked. “Perspective” can’t physically block light from a light source….
Again…
And you know this because ?
And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator.
I don't but this guy does.
Oh. The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?
Hint. As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor. The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
Note. Added. Or. More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky? Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?
Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0
I’ve done my own homework. Have you?
-
Try watching the video again & you may just understand.
Try to understand reality and why prospective will not physically block light and radiation.
-
I deleted all the spam because I got tired of searching for the links - SCG
What the hell is this ?
-
What the hell is this ?
Another reminder I shouldn’t waste time on this site…..
-
(I removed the spambot links from this one, too. SCG)
What the hell is this ?
Not to worry Apple. It was moved out of the way of normal postings.
-
I deleted all the spam because I got tired of searching for the links - SCG
What the hell is this ?
Occasionally spambots come and post a bunch of random nonsense with links.
Now care to address how perspective does not explain why Polaris sets?
-
(I removed the spambot links from this one, too. SCG)
What the hell is this ?
Not to worry Apple. It was moved out of the way of normal postings.
Thank you ;D
-
I deleted all the spam because I got tired of searching for the links - SCG
What the hell is this ?
Occasionally spambots come and post a bunch of random nonsense with links.
Now care to address how perspective does not explain why Polaris sets?
What do you mean 'Polaris sets' ?
-
What do you mean 'Polaris sets' ?
Travelling to the south, the angle of elevation of Polaris matches your latitude, such that at 0 degrees, the equator, it has an angle of elevation of ~0, and once you go beyond that, it is below the horizon and not visible.
We can also tell where it is by taking a time lapse of the night sky facing north and tracing out the star trails and see that they appear to a circle a point below the horizon.
Once more, perspective cannot explain this.
Perspective requires an infinite distance for the angle of elevation to drop to 0, and it is impossible for it to cause something above you to appear with a negative angle of elevation.
-
What do you mean 'Polaris sets' ?
Travelling to the south, the angle of elevation of Polaris matches your latitude, such that at 0 degrees, the equator, it has an angle of elevation of ~0, and once you go beyond that, it is below the horizon and not visible.
We can also tell where it is by taking a time lapse of the night sky facing north and tracing out the star trails and see that they appear to a circle a point below the horizon.
Once more, perspective cannot explain this.
Perspective requires an infinite distance for the angle of elevation to drop to 0, and it is impossible for it to cause something above you to appear with a negative angle of elevation.
Well, I'll go with the video,when Eric says it's b/c of perspective, he explains this perfectly well.
-
I don't know. That guy is completely nuts and thinks Hitler is a cool guy. His books look like someone got into our library and just learned about copy paste the day prior.
-
I don't know. That guy is completely nuts and thinks Hitler is a cool guy. His books look like someone got into our library and just learned about copy paste the day prior.
I know he has weird outlook on some subjects but he certainly knows his stuff when it comes to flat earth.
-
Well, I'll go with the video,when Eric says it's b/c of perspective, he explains this perfectly well.
You mean you will reject reality and follow what your preacher says?
Simple logic demonstrates it is wrong.
Simple geometry demonstrates it is wrong.
Simple experiments demonstrate it is wrong.
But you ignore all that because you want Earth to be flat.
Yet you spout crap like this:
Your deluded.
Why?
Because they don't believe a work of fiction?
Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.
The truth is staring you right in the face.
Perspective CANNOT explain the observed angle of elevation of Polaris.
The RE can.
Observations of Polaris demonstrate Earth is not flat.
Yet you choose to reject this truth which is staring you right in the face and accept the words of your preacher, yet you cannot explain how this works.
You are accepting the words of a lying con man over logic, basic geometry and simple experiments you can do yourself.
You can even validate the formula for perspective yourself.
If you need it again, for an object a distance of h above a point a distance of d away, with that height and distance measured based upon a straight line passing through your eyes, is atan(h/d).
This is basic geometry:
(https://i.imgur.com/grRJyTf.png)
So stop rejecting the truth that is staring you right in the face, and start accepting reality.
Or, try and explain how perspective magically causes Polaris to vanish.
-
Well, I'll go with the video,when Eric says it's b/c of perspective, he explains this perfectly well.
But you ignore all that because you want Earth to be flat.
I don't want the earth to be flat, it is flat & stationary.
-
I don't want the earth to be flat, it is flat & stationary.
You clearly do want it to be flat, even if you wont admit it.
Because you clearly aren't following the evidence.
The evidence, which you keep ignoring, shows quite clearly that Earth is not flat.
And yet again, you ignore the vast majority of a post just to proclaim Earth is flat.
If you aren't even going to try to engage, why are you here?
Once more, can you explain the angle of elevation of Polaris, and explain what magic causes this to work on a flat Earth?
If you can't, stop claiming Earth is flat.
-
Once more, can you explain the angle of elevation of Polaris, and explain what magic causes this to work on a flat Earth?
If you can't, stop claiming Earth is flat.
But. There is a YouTube video stating something to their confirmation bias with providing zero evidence?
And Flat Earthers claim they are “science”? A bunch of BS…
-
I don't want the earth to be flat, it is flat & stationary.
And yet again, you ignore the vast majority of a post just to proclaim Earth is flat.
If you aren't even going to try to engage, why are you here?
Why are you here ? This forum is called 'The flat earth society' Um let me guess.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvvDyGNh/a-stupied-flat.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I don't want the earth to be flat, it is flat & stationary.
And yet again, you ignore the vast majority of a post just to proclaim Earth is flat.
If you aren't even going to try to engage, why are you here?
Why are you here ? This forum is called 'The flat earth society' Um let me guess.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvvDyGNh/a-stupied-flat.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Only the ones that can’t explain how “predictive” supposedly can block the light and radiation from a single light source like the sun……
Or how perspective can make the floor of this hallway block the doorway and ceiling from view….
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
-
What do you mean 'Polaris sets' ?
Travelling to the south, the angle of elevation of Polaris matches your latitude, such that at 0 degrees, the equator, it has an angle of elevation of ~0, and once you go beyond that, it is below the horizon and not visible.
We can also tell where it is by taking a time lapse of the night sky facing north and tracing out the star trails and see that they appear to a circle a point below the horizon.
Once more, perspective cannot explain this.
Perspective requires an infinite distance for the angle of elevation to drop to 0, and it is impossible for it to cause something above you to appear with a negative angle of elevation.
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
-
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
Prospective doesn’t explain how the sun sets relatively below the horizon so the sun becomes literally blocked by the earth’s curvature to:
One, where the sun cannot be brought back into view by a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the unaided eye into view.
Two, nightfall is literally the curvature of the earth casting a shadow across the earth.
Three, the radiation of the sun becomes physically blocked to the dark side of the earth.
-
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
If you think “prospective” can physically block objects from view…
How can perspective make the floor of this hallway block the doorway and ceiling from view….
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
And why wouldn’t a good zoom lens bring them back into view…
-
(https://i.imgur.com/EyM4v5t.jpg)
Oh. Still see that doorway light?
Hmm
(https://i.imgur.com/4AmZdLj.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4AmZdLj.jpeg)
Crop and zoom in a bit on the tiny picture to simulate a zoom lens.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttI1h4U.jpeg)
Crop and zoom in a bit on the tiny picture to simulate a zoom lens one more time..
(https://i.imgur.com/LiL7wqf.jpeg)
Sun still visibly above the earth. Huh
-
Funny. No matter how small. The sun is always visibly above the earth?
(https://i.imgur.com/S4EPk5Q.gif)
🤔
-
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
Prospective doesn’t explain how the sun sets relatively below the horizon so the sun becomes literally blocked by the earth’s curvature to:
Most people think that when the sun sets it goes down under, but it doesn't, when the sun sets it is so far away that we don't see it anymore & it turns dark.
When the sun sets it is rising somewhere else.
-
Most people think that when the sun sets it goes down under,
Again. It becomes physically blocked by the earth’s curvature. That is literally nightfall. The earth’s curvature casting a shadow across the land. Why the suns radiation becomes blocked, it’s shielded by the earth for the people on the night side. Why the sun still sets even when one is on a Mountain top. Physically blocked, why from a mountain top after sunset you can’t bring the sun back into view with a telescope.
when the sun sets
That’s the point. On a flat earth, it’s always above the flat earth. It would never have its light or radiation blocked to create night.
A sun not setting on a flat earth has been modelled.
The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.
(https://i.imgur.com/scGMEr1.gif)
And modelled again…. And demonstrated.
This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.
https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html
No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.
Jack has explained this..
Perspective CANNOT explain the observed angle of elevation of Polaris.
The RE can.
Observations of Polaris demonstrate Earth is not flat.
Yet you choose to reject this truth which is staring you right in the face and accept the words of your preacher, yet you cannot explain how this works.
You are accepting the words of a lying con man over logic, basic geometry and simple experiments you can do yourself.
You can even validate the formula for perspective yourself.
If you need it again, for an object a distance of h above a point a distance of d away, with that height and distance measured based upon a straight line passing through your eyes, is atan(h/d).
This is basic geometry:
(https://i.imgur.com/grRJyTf.png)
So stop rejecting the truth that is staring you right in the face, and start accepting reality.
Or, try and explain how perspective magically causes Polaris to vanish.
The only thing your doing Apple Scruff is ignoring the math and science and going “look here, word salad opinion FE propaganda.”
-
Most people think that when the sun sets it goes down under,
The only thing your doing Apple Scruff is ignoring the math and science and going “look here, word salad opinion FE propaganda.”
All this does not deflect from the earth still being level & stationary, in fact the earth is larger than one first thought if we were to travel over Antarctica's iced walls, I suggest reading this book.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jj5h15CC/a-book-world.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Why are you here ? This forum is called 'The flat earth society' Um let me guess.
I notice you still didn't address the issue.
Instead, you resort to childish insults.
Why I am here has nothing to do with the issue.
I asked why are you here because you seem to have no interest in any discussion.
So why did you come to a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss?
Again, observations of Polaris are clear evidence that Earth is not flat.
The truth is staring you in the face. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
Repeating the same false claims, while putting in absolutely no effort to refute what has been presented wont help you.
Linking to a bunch of useless videos wont help you.
Sun rise and sun set are also not explained by perspective.
For the same Polaris isn't.
Most people think that when the sun sets it goes down under, but it doesn't, when the sun sets it is so far away that we don't see it anymore & it turns dark.
When the sun sets it is rising somewhere else.
No, most people recognise that when the sun sets, Earth blocks the view.
This is because that is what all the evidence shows.
It clearly isn't too far away, due to things like clouds being illuminated before sunrise and after sunset.
We can also observe it with a solar filter and clearly observe it remaining basically the same angular size throughout.
We also observe it moving at the same angular rate.
And we observe it appear to sink into Earth.
None of that matches what is expected with perspective.
With perspective, it should appear to slow down and shrink and fade to nothing while still high in the sky.
And again, the angles don't match.
But another thing which really kills that nonsense is the southern summer, where the further south you are the more daylight hours you get, even in places south of the tropics.
This means for the common FE model with the north pole at the centre, you have locations closer to the sun which can't see it and places further away which can.
Now try to put in some effort and actually explain the issues, or just be honest and admit you can't.
All this does not deflect from the earth still being level & stationary
You are yet to provide anything which indicates it is flat and stationary.
And level is not the same as flat.
A level surface can curve.
I suggest reading this book.
Stop deflecting with no effort BS.
Put in the effort and explain the issues you keep dodging.
-
Why are you here ? This forum is called 'The flat earth society' Um let me guess.
I notice you still didn't address the issue.
Instead, you resort to childish insults.
Why I am here has nothing to do with the issue.
I asked why are you here because you seem to have no interest in any discussion.
So why did you come to a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss?
Again, observations of Polaris are clear evidence that Earth is not flat.
The truth is staring you in the face. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Even sun rise & sun set are down to perspective.
Repeating the same false claims, while putting in absolutely no effort to refute what has been presented wont help you.
Linking to a bunch of useless videos wont help you.
Sun rise and sun set are also not explained by perspective.
For the same Polaris isn't.
Most people think that when the sun sets it goes down under, but it doesn't, when the sun sets it is so far away that we don't see it anymore & it turns dark.
When the sun sets it is rising somewhere else.
No, most people recognise that when the sun sets, Earth blocks the view.
This is because that is what all the evidence shows.
It clearly isn't too far away, due to things like clouds being illuminated before sunrise and after sunset.
We can also observe it with a solar filter and clearly observe it remaining basically the same angular size throughout.
We also observe it moving at the same angular rate.
And we observe it appear to sink into Earth.
None of that matches what is expected with perspective.
With perspective, it should appear to slow down and shrink and fade to nothing while still high in the sky.
And again, the angles don't match.
But another thing which really kills that nonsense is the southern summer, where the further south you are the more daylight hours you get, even in places south of the tropics.
This means for the common FE model with the north pole at the centre, you have locations closer to the sun which can't see it and places further away which can.
Now try to put in some effort and actually explain the issues, or just be honest and admit you can't.
All this does not deflect from the earth still being level & stationary
You are yet to provide anything which indicates it is flat and stationary.
And level is not the same as flat.
A level surface can curve.
I suggest reading this book.
Stop deflecting with no effort BS.
Put in the effort and explain the issues you keep dodging.
I thought I just did.
-
I thought I just did.
Address the issues? No, not even close.
You have made no attempt to.
Instead you just post videos and books to nonsense.
You try to explain here.
Again, perspective is basic geometry which you can test yourself:
(https://i.imgur.com/grRJyTf.png)
The angle of elevation is given by atan(h/d).
That means Polaris cannot drop to 0 degrees at the equator, nor can it go below when you are south of the equator.
Go find a hall or a room, or even just outside, and see how far you need to go over a flat surface to make something disappear from view.
-
I thought I just did.
Go find a hall or a room, or even just outside, and see how far you need to go over a flat surface to make something disappear from view.
Here Apple Scruff, I’ll help you out with a thread on this very site.
Start here…
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.msg2367945#msg2367945
I’ve done my homework.
-
I thought I just did.
On a flat earth, how would the sun ever be out of the line of sight from the west coast of California?
(https://i.imgur.com/pLT8r27.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0gY9kO1.png)
-
Here Apple Scruff, I’ll help you out with a thread on this very site.
Start here…
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.msg2367945#msg2367945
Thanks but all's I could read about was this blue duck......Yawn
-
d read about was this blue duck......Yawn
So. How does a flat surface physical block an object from view when the viewer is above the same surface.
-
d read about was this blue duck......Yawn
So. How does a flat surface physical block an object from view when the viewer is above the same surface.
We are talking about the sun which travels above flat earth & traverses the sky in a circular motion, so when it travels south so the north becomes dark & vice a versa.
So to see the sun set is a matter of distance so therefore it must be a matter of perspective.
So in reality the sun never really sets, it's just a matter of distance.
-
Thanks but all's I could read about was this blue duck......Yawn
So you fail at basic reading comprehension, yet want to accuse people of being delusional for not accepting your false claims that Earth is flat?
We are talking about the sun which travels above flat earth & traverses the sky in a circular motion, so when it travels south so the north becomes dark & vice a versa.
So to see the sun set is a matter of distance so therefore it must be a matter of perspective.
So in reality the sun never really sets, it's just a matter of distance.
Again, we see the sun with roughly the same angular size, and it doesn't appear to slow down, nor fade high in the sky. So we know it is not a matter of distance.
And for the common FE map, we see regions south of the tropics having more daylight hours, such that a location more distant from the sun can see it while a location closer can't. This again shows it is not a matter of distance.
Repeating the same false claim that perspective magic hides it wont help you.
-
We are talking about the sun which travels above flat earth & traverses the sky in a circular motion, .
But there is no evidence of that. When the sun off the coast of California, it sets in the west. For a flat earth, the sun would turn visibly north. It wouldn’t set at all.
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
For a person in California, the map and the circular path for the sun on a FE shows if the sun “sets”, it would appear to set to the north after coming from the east. The sun sets in the west for a person in California.
More explained…
How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.
https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html
Moreover, during an equinox, the sun appears to rise due east and set due west everywhere on Earth except at the poles. For this to hold true on a flat Earth, where some cities are physically many times farther away from the sun than others, the sunlight would have to bend at hundreds of different angles simultaneously. That's the only way it could appear as if it was always coming from the east. YouTube user Flat Out, another prolific globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated the impossibility of this explanation using simple computer simulations in 2017.
-
We are talking about the sun which travels above flat earth & traverses the sky in a circular motion, .
But there is no evidence of that. When the sun off the coast of California, it sets in the west. For a flat earth, the sun would turn visibly north. It wouldn’t set at all.
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
For a person in California, the map and the circular path for the sun on a FE shows if the sun “sets”, it would appear to set to the north after coming from the east. The sun sets in the west for a person in California.
More explained…
How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.
https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html
Moreover, during an equinox, the sun appears to rise due east and set due west everywhere on Earth except at the poles. For this to hold true on a flat Earth, where some cities are physically many times farther away from the sun than others, the sunlight would have to bend at hundreds of different angles simultaneously. That's the only way it could appear as if it was always coming from the east. YouTube user Flat Out, another prolific globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated the impossibility of this explanation using simple computer simulations in 2017.
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
And not this..
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
The earth is demonstrably spherical with no extra lands to discover…
Traveling relative east from a north south line out of South America leads to Africa, not to Antarctica
(https://i.imgur.com/w6p8gJw.jpeg)
Following a sun on a FE that turns north would mean what to navigation?
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
Vs following the sun to go west on a spherical earth?
-
Apparently in the land of Mars the folks there live to a good old age & the story goes that Admiral Byrd didn't die, he went off to live in the land of Mars which is over the iced walls of Antarctica.
(https://i.postimg.cc/85W4f46x/a-lands-of-mars.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
No.
South is meaningless on a FE.
Hello?
Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
And not this..
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
The earth is demonstrably spherical with no extra lands to discover…
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
South is meaningless on a FE.
Yes I suppose it is in a way, like I said, to go south just takes you in one big circle to end up where you first started.
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
South is meaningless on a FE.
Yes I suppose it is in a way, like I said, to go south just takes you in one big circle to end up where you first started.
I though, south will take you to the Ice wall
-
Yes I suppose it is in a way, like I said, to go south just takes you in one big circle to end up where you first started.
As pointed out. How? On a flat earth with an Ice Wall? Supposedly guarded by NASA? Or some BS?
(https://i.imgur.com/zfXZduN.jpg)
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
So? What does south mean on a flat earth to get there? How would you navigate on a flat earth?
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
South is meaningless on a FE.
Yes I suppose it is in a way, like I said, to go south just takes you in one big circle to end up where you first started.
I though, south will take you to the Ice wall
As the earth is circled by Antarctica, any direction will take you to the iced walls, but apparently there are passages through the iced walls which will take to you to earths extra lands.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
-
As the earth is circled by Antarctica, any direction will take you to the iced walls, but apparently there are passages through the iced walls which will take to you to earths extra lands.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
Which has nothing to do with…
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
Lands which can't exist because Earth is round. As shown by countless things. Including the south celestial pole.
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
On your FE, going south would either take you off the edge, or take you to these magical new lands.
In reality, going south takes you to a point, the south pole.
The point under the south celestial pole.
-
Thanks for all this jargon, but this thread is about extra lands .............
Lands which can't exist because Earth is round. As shown by countless things. Including the south celestial pole.
To go south would just take you in one big circle, this is why Columbus never fell of the edge as the earth is circumferenced by Antarctica's iced walls.
On your FE, going south would either take you off the edge, or take you to these magical new lands.
In reality, going south takes you to a point, the south pole.
The point under the south celestial pole.
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
-
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
Vs? You just posting lots of random links with no actual argument?
-
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
Vs? You just posting lots of random links with no actual argument?
Watch the video then we can discuss it.
-
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
Vs? You just posting lots of random links with no actual argument?
Watch the video then we can discuss it.
Discuss what? I was in the navy and sailed around the world and all major land masses are discovered and accounted for. Also flew around the world on leave. No ice wall around the continents. No “gurad” to keep people off Antarctica.
What now? Parcheesi? Cribbage?
-
How about instead of looking at a mythical past debunked by celestial navigation.
Let’s discuss the possibilities in the future?
The Universe: Life On Another Planet! "The Next Earth?! (S3, E9) | Full Episode
-
How about instead of looking at a mythical past debunked by celestial navigation.
Let’s discuss the possibilities in the future?
The Universe: Life On Another Planet! "The Next Earth?! (S3, E9) | Full Episode
Lol'z - And why don't we watch an episode of star trek why we're at it.
-
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
The fact you need to continually ignore my posts and just insult me shows that I likely do know a lot and you know you can't con me.
Again, stop just linking me to crap.
Try to explain it yourself.
If all you can do is link to FE preachers, you have no case.
If you want me to even consider the video, make sure it address angle to celestial objects, make it sure supports it based upon basic geometry instead of just boldly proclaiming FE magic, and make sure it addresses the south celestial pole.
And once you find a video like that, summarise it here yourself.
If you aren't willing to watch it to summarise the explanation, why should I bother?
Lol'z - And why don't we watch an episode of star trek why we're at it.
Yes, good question.
Why should we bother watching your video rather than star trek?
How about you stop with the videos, and try a basic explanation?
-
How about instead of looking at a mythical past debunked by celestial navigation.
Let’s discuss the possibilities in the future?
The Universe: Life On Another Planet! "The Next Earth?! (S3, E9) | Full Episode
And BTW this video is not available in my country.
-
Watch this video if you want to learn more b/c at the mo you don't seem to know a lot.
The fact you need to continually ignore my posts and just insult me shows that I likely do know a lot and you know you can't con me.
I didn't realize I was ignoring your posts - Sorry.
-
I didn't realize I was ignoring your posts - Sorry.
And there you go again. Entirely ignore the content of the post because you can't refute it.
Again, plenty of observations show that Earth is round and there is a south pole.
The question is why you are doing this.
Are you just yet another troll, or do you believe so much you are willing to ignore anything that shows it is wrong.
-
I didn't realize I was ignoring your posts - Sorry.
And there you go again. Entirely ignore the content of the post because you can't refute it.
Again, plenty of observations show that Earth is round and there is a south pole.
The question is why you are doing this.
Are you just yet another troll, or do you believe so much you are willing to ignore anything that shows it is wrong.
Once a flat earther always a flat earther, there is no going back into believing that we live on a spinning ball.
This is God's earth, he created it, read Genesis 1.
-
Interesting story here, it's called 'The bonkers story' but they have to call it that else people may start to believe it like I do.
https://journalnews.com.ph/the-bonkers-story-of-the-alien-guest-at-the-pentagon/
-
Once a flat earther always a flat earther, there is no going back into believing that we live on a spinning ball.
This is God's earth, he created it, read Genesis 1.
So once indoctrinated into delusional BS, you will cling to it at all costs?
That you will now entirely discard evidence and forms of rational thought which clearly demonstrate Earth is not flat?
You can leave your religion out of this, as it has no bearing on the discussion.
-
Once a flat earther always a flat earther, there is no going back into believing that we live on a spinning ball.
This is God's earth, he created it, read Genesis 1.
So once indoctrinated into delusional BS, you will cling to it at all costs?
That you will now entirely discard evidence and forms of rational thought which clearly demonstrate Earth is not flat?
You can leave your religion out of this, as it has no bearing on the discussion.
I will not believe a word of what the scientists say anymore especially about space, rockets & the moon etc. And after their planned pandemic it makes me wonder how any one can trust scientists anymore.
Your wrong about religion/the Bible as they do play a significant part in flat earth, so don't tell me to leave religion out of the discussion.
-
.
-
I will not believe a word of what the scientists say
This isn't about what scientist say.
This is about what countless people say, and observations you can make yourself.
This is about you rejecting anything which doesn't match your fantasy.
Your wrong about religion/the Bible as they do play a significant part in flat earth, so don't tell me to leave religion out of the discussion.
Only if you want to admit your belief in the FE is an entirely religious belief, not based upon any evidence or rational thought, but instead is just because your religion says so.
That you are trusting the words of long dead and incredibly ignorant people, that made up these words to control people; rather than your own eyes and countless others?
Is that really what you want to say?
-
I will not believe a word of what the scientists say
This isn't about what scientist say.
This is about what countless people say, and observations you can make yourself.
This is about you rejecting anything which doesn't match your fantasy.
Your wrong about religion/the Bible as they do play a significant part in flat earth, so don't tell me to leave religion out of the discussion.
Only if you want to admit your belief in the FE is an entirely religious belief, not based upon any evidence or rational thought, but instead is just because your religion says so.
That you are trusting the words of long dead and incredibly ignorant people, that made up these words to control people; rather than your own eyes and countless others?
Is that really what you want to say?
There are billions who believe in the word of God & I reckon it's about time they knew the truth, the earth is flat with a dome/ firmament above it, where the sun, moon & the stars rotate in it daily.
TRUTH-
-
There are billions who believe in the word of God
And how many of think Earth is flat?
How many of those actually believe everything in the Bible?
How many of those actually practice it?
There are also many more that don't believe in the "word of God".
I reckon it's about time they knew the truth
That the Bible is a work of fiction, created by ignorant, primitive men to control people; that Earth is round and rotating?
Because you are trying to spread fiction, not the truth.
-
There are billions who believe in the word of God & I reckon it's about time they knew the truth, the earth is flat with a dome/ firmament above it, where the sun, moon & the stars rotate in it daily.
The earth isn’t flat, and it’s proven and demonstrated spherical.
The truth of my creation and creator.
t everything.
If you're not on board with Christianity, by all means be Norse, Greek/Roman, or Egyptian.
Again.
Your god’s creation you box your god into..
(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1351047610/photo/beautiful-bright-small-goldfish-in-round-glass-aquarium-isolated-on-white.webp?s=612x612&w=is&k=20&c=egPYDqGlH0ulFqllgKGFUobN8T3QR3ewwNKQxg0f28w=)
I don’t put limits on my creator and creation.
(https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2022/07/webb_s_first_deep_field/24354723-1-eng-GB/Webb_s_first_deep_field_pillars.png)
The bible makes provisions to stone women to death for being adulterous and owning slaves. Would you own slaves or stone a women to death.
The bible also uses statements of figurative speech. Like, if your eye or hand causes you to sin, cut it off. The bible also states nobody is without sin. How many eyes and hands have you cut off?
As for as figurative speech concerning the firmament in the bible.
It’s especially silly because they insist their particular verses must be literally understood, while also insisting others must be understood figuratively. For example, one verse flat earth proponents often go to is this one from Isaiah:
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
They will say that the “circle of the earth” must refer to a flat plane circle. Their claim it cannot refer to a round sphere, even though the same Hebrew word is used for both. They also refuse to acknowledge that Isaiah could have just used a figure of speech to refer to “the whole earth”. Yet the very same Biblical author Isaiah also wrote this verse:
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
By their literal logic, this verse must be referring to a rectangle. Yet it is not possible to interpret both of these verses literally because a circle does not have four corners.
However, if we interpret both verses figuratively, there is no conflict at all. When understood figuratively, both verses refer to the entire earth without describing the specific shape of the planet.
Insisting their interpretation of a handful of scripture verses is the only possible way they can be understood makes proponents of flat earth look a little silly.
https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/
-
There are billions who believe in the word of God & I reckon it's about time they knew the truth, the earth is flat with a dome/ firmament above it, where the sun, moon & the stars rotate in it daily.
As for as figurative speech concerning the firmament in the bible.
It’s especially silly because they insist their particular verses must be literally understood, while also insisting others must be understood figuratively. For example, one verse flat earth proponents often go to is this one from Isaiah:
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
They will say that the “circle of the earth” must refer to a flat plane circle. Their claim it cannot refer to a round sphere, even though the same Hebrew word is used for both. They also refuse to acknowledge that Isaiah could have just used a figure of speech to refer to “the whole earth”. Yet the very same Biblical author Isaiah also wrote this verse:
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
By their literal logic, this verse must be referring to a rectangle. Yet it is not possible to interpret both of these verses literally because a circle does not have four corners.
However, if we interpret both verses figuratively, there is no conflict at all. When understood figuratively, both verses refer to the entire earth without describing the specific shape of the planet.
Insisting their interpretation of a handful of scripture verses is the only possible way they can be understood makes proponents of flat earth look a little silly.
https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Couldn't put it any plainer my self ( pun intended )
-
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Then how is this possible?
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
A sphere does have the same outline of a circle. 😁
But if the bible is literal, how does a circle have four corners?
Is the below false.
Romans 3:23
New International Version
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
And is this false?
Matthew 5 KJV
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Asked you a question Apple Scruff. If the bible is literal, how many body parts have you cut off? Or you going to hell?
-
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Couldn't put it any plainer my self ( pun intended )
If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong.
All you are doing with this is showing the Bible is wrong.
But if the bible is literal, how does a circle have four corners?
Or we take the easy option. The Bible is wrong.
This is an example of one of many contradictions.
-
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Then how is this possible?
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
A sphere does have the same outline of a circle. 😁
But if the bible is literal, how does a circle have four corners?
Is the below false.
Romans 3:23
New International Version
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
And is this false?
Matthew 5 KJV
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Asked you a question Apple Scruff. If the bible is literal, how many body parts have you cut off? Or you going to hell?
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxdQd11b/a-four.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
As for cutting off body parts, none as my right hand & my right eye has not offended me.
In Aramaic, the language of Jesus, it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
-
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Couldn't put it any plainer my self ( pun intended )
If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong.
All you are doing with this is showing the Bible is wrong.
But if the bible is literal, how does a circle have four corners?
Or we take the easy option. The Bible is wrong.
This is an example of one of many contradictions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxdQd11b/a-four.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxdQd11b/a-four.jpg)
Do you notice how that isn't flat?
And providing this image doesn't help with your fantasy at all.
Especially concerning Polaris.
We see the northern section might bear some similarity, but beyond the point of inflection, Polaris should appear to rise.
In the southern hemisphere, not only should you be able to clearly see Polaris, you should also easily be able to see the northern hemisphere.
So you are going from a broken, failed model, to an even worse one.
-
As for cutting off body parts, none as my right hand & my right eye has not offended me.
Then this is a lie?
In Aramaic, the language of Jesus,
I thought the New Testament was written in Greek and Hebrew?
What word is that?
it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
You mean the bible isn’t literal? Like the original Hebrew used for firmament was used in the context of expanse.
-
As for cutting off body parts, none as my right hand & my right eye has not offended me.
Then this is a lie?
In Aramaic, the language of Jesus,
I thought the New Testament was written in Greek and Hebrew?
What word is that?
it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
You mean the bible isn’t literal? Like the original Hebrew used for firmament was used in the context of expanse.
I don't care what you or Black Jack says, the earth is still flat, it can't be anything BUT level & flat.
-
I don't care what you or Black Jack says, the earth is still flat, it can't be anything BUT level & flat.
You don't need to limit it to us.
You clearly don't care what anyone says or what any evidence shows.
You have decided that Earth is flat, so that is what you will believe, regardless of anything to the contrary.
Yet you claim others are delusional.
-
I don't care what you or Black Jack says, the earth is still flat, it can't be anything BUT level & flat.
You don't need to limit it to us.
You clearly don't care what anyone says or what any evidence shows.
You have decided that Earth is flat, so that is what you will believe, regardless of anything to the contrary.
Yet you claim others are delusional.
Yep - delusional & deceived.
-
Yep - delusional & deceived.
That does describe you quite well.
-
I don't care what you or Black Jack says, the earth is still flat, it can't be anything BUT level & flat.
Why a ship disappears bottom up while going over the horizon proves otherwise.
Why south means something proves otherwise.
Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
And not this..
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
The earth is demonstrably spherical with no extra lands to discover…
-
I don't care what you or Black Jack says, the earth is still flat, it can't be anything BUT level & flat.
Why a ship disappears bottom up while going over the horizon proves otherwise.
It's what you and Jack should do ;D
-
They need a horse, not a boat.
(https://il2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/7357834/thumb/12.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160))
-
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." – Mark Twain
https://rayedwards.com/are-ayn-rand-and-christianity-compatible/]
Then why did you come to a website hoping you would be in the majority.
And why are you reduced to using lies?
Again…
If the earth was flat, from California the sun would have to visibly turn relative north or to the right after passing overhead and going out to sea.
-
Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north. Fiat is not real argument. It needs to do this "because I say so". Why do you say so? Well because...
Yeah no.
Then why did you come to a website hoping you would be in the majority.
I come to have friends to talk to. On my forum in Discord, I have friends of all sorts. Some are Muslim, some other religions, and no they do not have to all agree with me. Here, however, the majority appears to be flat Earthers, but they have all been bullied into silence by what I would call the actual majority, since it constitutes what many people off the forum believe.
The majority is not this small forum where much of those people have minority opinions. It is the senseless mob from outside the forum that bullies those on the forum to shut up or head to a private section.
Now you. Why go from forums where you are in the majority to antagonize people who dare to disagree with you. They were literally minding their business before you people came.
https://www.brighteon.com/8de17293-3ab4-4246-8fbd-f336ee89287f
This is why you cannot agree with me. Because you are terrified of this world having anything outside it other than emptiness. "God might condemn me, so I would rather not anything outside this Earth watching me." I'm sorry but oblivion is Hell, not fire and brimstone (everything you knew, everything you stand for, everything you are is gone, like a person screaming "I don't wanna die" suddenly cut silent forever). And Hell does not exist.
-
Flat Earth Antarctic Explorers Killed Jarle Andhoy Navy Goes Beserk
-
It's what you and Jack should do ;D
Why?
Don't like us refuting your BS, so you want us to just disappear?
Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.
It has been proven, and you ignored it.
Here, however, the majority appears to be flat Earthers, but they have all been bullied into silence
Pointing out arguments are BS, and continually refuting them is not bullying.
They were literally minding their business before you people came.
No, they weren't.
They were encouraging a dangerous mindset of rejecting reality, which led to things like people rejecting health advice during a pandemic and killing far more people.
It leads to rejection of things like climate change which is actively harming people.
So no, they were not minding their own business.
This is why you cannot agree with me. Because you are terrified of this world having anything outside it other than emptiness.
Quite the opposite.
This is why YOU cannot agree.
Because you are so terrified of the universe being vast and empty. You need it to care about you.
-
I thought the New Testament was written in Greek and Hebrew?
What word is that?
Probably shouldn't be arguing with people if you don't know what they are talking about.
In Israel, the languages were Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic is now a dead language except for a few speakers. It influenced the development of Arabic. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic a fair amount as a Jew. The Greek part comes from the fact that Greek was the lingua franca of that world (like English today, everyone spoke it). The trouble with the New Testament is two-fold. Firstly, the problems of translating Hebrew & Aramaic into Greek. Second, Hebrew/Aramaic were languages that for much of their history had no vowels. The vowels were recited by oral tradition. So if time passed, and it was no longer known whether the word was abugar or ibegur (I made those words up), you could get a muddled meaning. Under ideal circumstances, this is not a problem due to context. But in some cases due to textual errors (an ink blot being mistaken for a line or a tablet indentation made in error) or by design through correct priests, you'd get strange text like "like a lion my hands and feet" instead of "they pierce my hands and feet." Or "Simon the leper" (ahem, jarmaker, as the story tells of a rare jar of perfume). Or "It is easier for a camel (rope) to pass through the eye of a needle." Modern Jews and Christians think there words are unambiguous, but the kinda aren't.
-
Probably shouldn't be arguing with people if you don't know what they are talking about.
What languages were the 4 gospels of the New Testament written in?
This is the scripture in question.
Matthew 5
If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Jusses was preaching figuratively.
The verse across various translations is “gouge out your eye, cut off your hand.”
Now. What recorded account actually recorded what Jesus exactly said in Aramaic? Where can I find that recorded account.
-
Probably shouldn't be arguing with people if you don't know what they are talking about.
Funny. You’re the one ignorant enough to believe a “false prophet” of flat earth and the lies of a video soundly debunked beyond doubt.
-
Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.
This is so stupid.
The partial red circle represents the “orbit” of the sun on a FE.
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
For a person looking “relative” west from their position on the USA, the sun has to turn right.
For a person looking relative west in California out to sea, the sun has to literally turn right or north for it to orbit above a FE. The sun on a flat Earth has to literally continuously turn.
Flat earth is soundly debunked. Your to entrenched in dogma to even comprehend. You’re blind to the obvious.
-
What languages were the 4 gospels of the New Testament written in?
This is the scripture in question.
What language did Jesus speak? Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Suppose I speak to you in English. And you say the authoritative account of my words is in Portuguese. Would this be accurate? Or can I rightly say you're all wet?
What recorded account actually recorded what Jesus exactly said in Aramaic? Where can I find that recorded account.
Here ya go!
https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/
Oh, and I see something noticeably missing from the Aramaic scriptures. Revelation. This is because unlike much of the church tainted by Roman Catholicism, they don't seem to see that as authoritative.
So back to that text of yours.
"29 But, if your right eye causes you to makshla {stumble/offend i.e. to sin}, pluck it out and throw it from you, for, it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not all your body be thrown into Gihana {Gehenna}. 30 And if your right hand causes you to makshla {to stumble/offend i.e. to sin}, cut it off and throw it from you, for, it is better for you that one from your members should perish and not all your body be thrown into Gihana {Gehenna}."
He was actually speaking in context. He talked immediately before about sins of adultery. It would be better for you to be blind or unable to touch than to use your hands or eyes in lust after a woman. You see, those lusts usually end in you being murdered. Nothing figurative about it. He is literally better not to see or touch, as you won't be cursed by a jealous lover.
You’re the one ignorant enough to believe a “false prophet” of flat earth...
Ah, I see. So you hold the orthodoxy, hmmm?
I believe in myself, and in God. I don't put stock in the words of men. Meanwhile, go and learn what this means.
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
From my own experiences, I know the Earth is flat. Anyone after that simply offers ideas.
Is it from your own experiences that you're sure Earth is round? No, you "know" from the various teachers you've gathered for you. Like this guy.
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
-
What language did Jesus speak? Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Well the first question to ask is if Jesus existed in the first place.
But as you have already drunk the cool aid I guess you skip over that.
Why would a god allow their words to be corrupted so much?
Meanwhile, go and learn what this means.
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Sure seems to match you quite well.
You don't like evidence based "doctrine" and instead you reject that and go listen to FE preachers.
From my own experiences, I know the Earth is flat.
No, you don't. You foolishly believe it. But you cannot justify it at all.
Is it from your own experiences that you're sure Earth is round?
Yes. The fact that plenty of other things show this as well doesn't negate that my experiences show Earth is round.
-
What language did Jesus speak? Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Well the first question to ask is if Jesus existed in the first place.
But as you have already drunk the cool aid I guess you skip over that.
Why would a god allow their words to be corrupted so much?
Meanwhile, go and learn what this means.
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Sure seems to match you quite well.
You don't like evidence based "doctrine" and instead you reject that and go listen to FE preachers.
From my own experiences, I know the Earth is flat.
No, you don't. You foolishly believe it. But you cannot justify it at all.
Is it from your own experiences that you're sure Earth is round?
Yes. The fact that plenty of other things show this as well doesn't negate that my experiences show Earth is round.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBLrYZLr/a-truthx.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://postimages.org/)
-
He was actually speaking in context. He talked immediately before about sins of adultery. It would be better for you to be blind or unable to touch than to use your hands or eyes in lust after a woman.
you think the you should literally cut your hand off or gouge out your eye.
Which is not what Apple Scruff
it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
The bible and has this..
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Which, oddly enough. A circle has the same outline as a sphere?
So how can a circle have four comers?
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
Ever think the bible is very figurativ vs literal.
But on a flat earth, the sun would literally have to continuously and visually turn relative to the viewer in the USA like this.
The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.
(https://i.imgur.com/scGMEr1.gif)
If fact, time lapse of the sun should create a similar pattern like the star trails in the norther hemisphere.
For one night?
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg?format=1500w)
The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.
But the sun does this…. For six months…
(https://media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg)
Again. Flat earth soundly debunked…
-
Well the first question to ask is if Jesus existed in the first place.
God have us free will. So we don’t always act in accordance with the rules of creation. Pretty simple. 😁
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBLrYZLr/a-truthx.jpg)
Yes, people like you.
Which is why you entirely ignore arguments that show you are wrong, and instead spend more time on insulting those who show you are wrong.
God have us free will. So we don’t always act in accordance with the rules of creation. Pretty simple. 😁
Yet everything is allegedly part of its plan, meaning we aren't acting with free will, and it repeatedly violates free will.
Pretty BS.
-
Yet everything is allegedly part of its plan, meaning we aren't acting with free will, and it repeatedly violates free will.
Pretty BS.
And yet. For coming from primordial soup we have the need of some moral code where others may wrong us and need to be apologised to. What’s some hurt feelings in the whole of the universe? Or this tiny thread? What is a lie to the sun? The truth to a nova? Yet we have the capacity to love and sacrifice? To what end when a gamma ray burst could end almost all life and on earth at any second.
Have you ever sacrificed JackBlack? Why? To what end? Would it stop a hurricane or a tornado?
Or we all just little biological bots making excuses for all our behaviour being driven by hormones.
Are you just a big walking hormone factory JackBlack, or do you have a soul?
-
What language did Jesus speak? Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Well the first question to ask is if Jesus existed in the first place.
About that.
Whether Jesus did miracles, rose from the dead, etc are matters of faith. However, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins... That he existed...
No serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus Christ. Atheist scholars and Christians alike acknowledge the reality and impact of his life.
Why does no serious historian doubt his existence? Because there are records of him in history from his enemies. From outside Christianity as well as in it. Moreover, the only delay in the disciples immediately writing about him was that they were kinda sorta busy trying to survive persecution. Moreover, they were willing to die facing extreme punishment rather than recant. People don't die for something they don't believe is 100% true.
Contrast to Muhammad where history now insists as a historical figure. However Robert Spencer and others point out that the actual story of his existence was hogwash. A community-planned folk tale to lend credibly to their actions. They had noticed that all the major empires of the world had religious trappings. So as part of a get-rich-quick-scheme they manmade a god and his prophet. This prophet was allowed to marry multiple women, to steal, to kill, and even to be a pedophile. But the origins of this myth are not in Mecca, an area that was in the desert and originally had no water. It was up north of that, which is why the earliest mosques face north. Yes, there are serious doubts to the existence of this man continuing with the fact that his name is actually a title, and it wasn't until centuries later that a "life and times" of him was made. In other words, until enemies of Christ started including this story in history as the cause of Islam (instead of a bunch of ruffians uniting under the banner of a lie), the only historical evidence was within Islam. It is easy to kill and steal on behalf of lies. Hell, you don't even have to know the truth. Killing and stealing is just too tempting.
Not only do atheist historians admit Jesus existed but they have no doubt he died on the cross. What you won't find in these histories is the idea that Jesus is some kind of big name priest. As far as they are concerned, he's some small-scale wandering rabbi whose followers did a really good job at spreading the news of who he was.
If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ's suffering and death. Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalem—the very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, this new religion was a distortion of the Jewish faith, and, in fact, was blasphemy, since Christians claimed that Jesus was himself the Son of God (Mark 14:61-64). “We have a law,” the Jewish leaders said to Pilate, “and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7).
The fact is that Christians openly based their faith on the fact that Jesus was publicly tried, condemned, executed, and raised from the dead. They spoke this way within weeks after these events, when thousands of people who opposed this faith could have proved it wrong, if Jesus had not died. They could have gone to Pilate the governor or Herod the king or the Jewish Council or the soldiers or other witnesses of the crucifixion and gotten proof that he had not been condemned or crucified the way Christians said he was. But, in fact, no one did that. Everyone in Jerusalem knew that Jesus had been crucified, and many had watched him die. The resurrection was disputed, but not the crucifixion.
Moreover why would a group of Jews (for all the first Christians were Jews by birth) fabricate the death of Christ? The Christians had nothing to gain from creating the story of a crucified Messiah. It made the spread of Christianity almost impossible from a natural viewpoint. Crucifixion was an obscene form of torture and execution reserved for despised criminals. Most people, hearing the Christian message that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God who died by crucifixion, thought it was ludicrous. One of the earliest first-century Christian preachers said, “ We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [that is, non-Jews]” (1 Corinthians 1:23 ). It was not to the advantage of Christians to concoct a crucified Messiah. It made their life and mission much harder.
The claim of many Muslims that Christ was never crucified, and that early Christians were mistaken or were myth-makers, goes against all the historical and intuitive evidence. The key issue between Christians and Muslims is not first and foremost the identity of Allah, but the fact and meaning of the death of Jesus Christ. This is also true for Judaism and Christianity: Who was this Jesus and why did he die? Both Judaism and Islam deny the essence of Christianity—that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah, the divine Son of God, who was crucified and raised from the dead to bring forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who believe in him.
And this.
https://www.hillfaith.org/history/theres-more-historical-evidence-for-jesus-than-for-tiberius-caesar/
-
About that.
About what?
You posted this..
He was actually speaking in context. He talked immediately before about sins of adultery. It would be better for you to be blind or unable to touch than to use your hands or eyes in lust after a woman.
Which is not what Apple Scruff posted?
it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
The bible and has this.. which you are ignoring.
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Which, oddly enough. A circle has the same outline as a sphere?
So how can a circle have four comers if the below bible verse is literal?
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
Ever think the bible is very figurative vs literal.
Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.
But on a flat earth, the sun would literally have to continuously and visually turn relative to the viewer in the USA like this.
The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.
(https://i.imgur.com/scGMEr1.gif)
If fact, time lapse of the sun should create a similar pattern like the star trails in the norther hemisphere.
For one night?
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg?format=1500w)
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg
The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.
But the sun does this…. For six months…
(https://media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg)
media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg
Again. Flat earth soundly debunked…
-
If fact, time lapse of the sun should create a similar pattern like the star trails in the norther hemisphere.
For one night?
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg?format=1500w)
It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.
By contrast, what RE claims is that Earth orbits the sun while tilting and wobbling, while both of them spiral around the Milky Way galaxy.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2018/08/motion_through_universe.jpg
The shape does not match up. And the stars are the same despite this supposed trip.
RE soundly debunked.
-
It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.
Why wouldn’t stars relative stationary to a rotating earth not produce this?
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg?format=1500w)3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg
Where at the South Pole, a similar picture can be taken but the stars trail in a different direction?
(https://i.natgeofe.com/n/80c94e88-a8ef-4c70-a736-1ebd02c97b26/77822.jpg?w=826&h=550)
Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy
And at the equator the star trails do this…
(https://i0.wp.com/vivekphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Celequator.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1)
https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/
(Where’s that delusional parabola?)
With you once again bulmabriefs144 trying to change the argument
The sun supposedly orbits the celestial North Pole on a flat earth like this…
(https://i.imgur.com/avuZiOR.jpg)
Is that false.
On a flat earth, supposedly the starts orbit the celestial North Pole. Like this.
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg?format=1500w)
Is that false.
So. Why isn’t the sun orbiting the celestial North Pole.
(https://media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg)
media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg
Note. Added.. bulmabriefs144, why did you ignore and try to change the subject away from the above picture of sun trails that show the sun doesn’t orbit the celestial North Pole as required by flat earth?
Again. Flat earth soundly debunked…
-
It's good that you mention this.
Trying to change the subject again…
You posted this..
He was actually speaking in context. He talked immediately before about sins of adultery. It would be better for you to be blind or unable to touch than to use your hands or eyes in lust after a woman.
Which is not what Apple Scruff posted?
it meant what we would mean when we say “cut it out!”. In other words, STOP IT. If you are doing something that is offensive or harmful, stop it
The bible has this.. which you are ignoring.
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
— Isaiah 40:22 (NKJV)
Which, oddly enough. A circle has the same outline as a sphere?
So how can a circle have four comers if the below bible verse is literal?
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
— Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)
Ever think the bible is very figurative vs literal.
. How does a circle in a literal bible have four corners?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxdQd11b/a-four.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxdQd11b/a-four.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Funny, you used the term “troll” in another thread. But Apple Scruff you offer no actual developed arguments or explanations. Just random crap and links.
-
It’s fun to post random things.
Funny, a post that uses an actual photo?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain
-
It’s fun to post random things.
Funny, a post that uses an actual photo?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
-
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
From the phraseology and cadence of your sentence which is absolutely void of any proof of a flat earth, you are full of the technical term “BS”.
-
And yet. For coming from primordial soup we have the need of some moral code where others may wrong us and need to be apologised to. What’s some hurt feelings in the whole of the universe? Or this tiny thread? What is a lie to the sun? The truth to a nova? Yet we have the capacity to love and sacrifice? To what end when a gamma ray burst could end almost all life and on earth at any second.
Trying to say nature doesn't care doesn't give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
This wasn't even focusing on that.
This was just pointing out the idea of free will being an excuse doesn't work considering how often your god allegedly interferes with it.
However, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins... That he existed...
Is still a question up for debate.
Was there a single Jesus figure, or are the stories recorded in the Bible a collection of stories about a bunch of different people.
I would say there is about as much evidence for Jesus existing, as there is for Harry Potter.
But again, notice how you latch onto the religious BS, rather than focusing on the fact that your fantasy Earth simply doesn't work.
-
It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.
Wrong again.
The effect of the orbit will depend upon the size of it.
The fact you accept Earth rotating in place can cause it means you accept that not being directly at the centre can cause an insignificant variation to the pattern.
And guess what else can? A small displacement due to the orbit.
By contrast, what RE claims is that Earth orbits the sun while tilting and wobbling, while both of them spiral around the Milky Way galaxy.
How many times are you planning on repeating this same dishonest BS?
Again, it isn't that it is "tilting". It is that it is tilted, that the axis of rotation is not aligned with the orbit.
That is not motion, that is a statement about 2 parts of its motion.
The effect of this tilt is that the SUN appears to change the angle of elevation at solar noon and a few similar things.
It does nothing to the other stars.
The effect on the stars is the precision of that, which takes an incredibly long time and will not be visible in a time-lapse.
The effect of the orbit is a tiny displacement, which again is entirely insignificant unless you have very precise tools to measure it.
Likewise, the motion of the solar system through the milky way will produce a tiny difference.
So no, the RE explains it just fine.
Do you know what doesn't explain it?
The stars circling in a disc or dome overhead a flat stationary Earth.
There is no way for such stars to drop below the equator. Nor for them to circle a point due south, nor for them to move in a vertical circle about you at the equator.
FE soundly debunked.
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
I take it that is just your fancy way of saying that Earth is round and you refuse to admit it?
-
Trying to say nature doesn't care doesn't give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
If there is no god, is creation evil? And if it isn’t evil, then what could be good?
-
If there is no god, is creation evil? And if it isn’t evil, then what could be good?
Your evil POS does nothing for morality.
Morality coming from your evil POS is no better than morality coming from Hitler.
But the most ridiculous part of your statement is still calling it creation.
Do you mean if there is no god is the universe evil?
In which case, no, the universe, not being sentient, would be incapable of being good or evil.
But again, that says NOTHING about what happens if it was created by your god.
Again, appealing to uncaring nature does not give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
But again, why try to derail the topic?
-
Do you mean if there is no god is the universe evil?
In which case, no, the universe, not being sentient, would be incapable of being good or evil.
Strange. You keep mentioning evil. So, what is good? Seems man was created to kill and destroy? You claim a choice? But no god, no moral authority to choose. Maybe war is to man what it is with wolves and territories. Seems neither can actually change. Are wolves evil. They seem sentient in that they can survive.
If there is only nature, what’s the difference if man destroys life on earth vs a gamma ray bust. Man and star are both a product of creation. Both only do what nature programmed them to do. Star is ruled by its nuclear chemistry, man is ruled by the chemistry of hormones.
In the scheme of the time line of the universe, what does it matter if man destroys all life in 20 years, a comet destroys life on earth in a 100 years, or a gamma ray burst ends life in 10,000 years? Same out come, why is one evil? No real impact man was around on the weight of the time line of the universe.
You post all you want about truth, but what is truth to a comet or gamma ray burst that might be destined to destroy all life on earth?
-
In which case, no, the universe, not being sentient,
Do we have souls? Or just little chemical robots? And we can change the quality of how sentient we are with drugs. Note added, just pop a pill to reprogram the old chemical robot. And what does being sentient have to do with being evil or good?
-
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
I take it that is just your fancy way of saying that Earth is round and you refuse to admit it?
Your exploratory research points to responsive incremental projections.
-
Again, appealing to uncaring nature does not give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
Then how could a product of godless nature create good or evil. It only results in behavior that is nether good nor evil.
So. What is good to you jack. And what does it matter in the time line of the universe?
-
not being sentient,
Do you like that Jackie Boy.
We are just little misbehaving chemical robots that need to be reprogrammed with designer drugs to achieve a higher level of sentient. Fashion man in man’s own image of the ideal man to achieve lasting peace?
So what “good” traits would you want the designer drugs to refashion the human race into?
-
If man is truly in control of ourselves, why are drugs used to control our behavior being prescribed at an increase rate?
And yes, Jack. There have been children I’ve been around that do benefit from properly prescribed medication. But there were also ones that were misprescribe too.
-
Sentient.
I was thinking about this Sentient thing. Maybe humans are just sentient war beings? Back to the wolves example. We evolved to hunt and protect territories like wolves. I still would say wolves are sentient at some level. But human’s developed a higher level of sentient hunting and sentient territorial behavior to make us more efficient. And that maybe our evolution might be keeping us from achieving as a species the level of sentient you want us to have to find your paradise. Hey Jackie boy sentient is your Jesus. Everyone has their idea of a savior😂
-
Strange. You keep mentioning evil. So, what is good? Seems man was created to kill and destroy?
Again, if we were created by your god to destroy, then your god is responsible.
Otherwise, you can stop with the creation BS.
Stop trying to deflect away to nature to pretend your god gets off the hook.
But no god, no moral authority to choose.
Your god is no better moral authority than Hitler, or Satan.
And what does being sentient have to do with being evil or good?
Good and evil require intent.
Then how could a product of godless nature create good or evil.
Again, your god is no better than Hitler.
Where did God get good and evil from?
Do you like that Jackie Boy.
Are you sure you are okay?
You seem rather upset, spamming so many useless posts which add nothing, all because I had the nerve to call out your god as an evil POS.
And you have made no attempt to actually defend your god, instead just deflecting.
Is it because you know your god is irredeemable?
-
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
I take it that is just your fancy way of saying that Earth is round and you refuse to admit it?
Your exploratory research points to responsive incremental projections.
And by that, I take it that is just yet another projection from you?
Still refusing to accept the truth because you don't like it?
-
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
I take it that is just your fancy way of saying that Earth is round and you refuse to admit it?
Your exploratory research points to responsive incremental projections.
And by that, I take it that is just yet another projection from you?
Still refusing to accept the truth because you don't like it?
You really can't fail with deconstructed incremental concepts.
-
And yet. For coming from primordial soup we have the need of some moral code where others may wrong us and need to be apologised to. What’s some hurt feelings in the whole of the universe? Or this tiny thread? What is a lie to the sun? The truth to a nova? Yet we have the capacity to love and sacrifice? To what end when a gamma ray burst could end almost all life and on earth at any second.
Trying to say nature doesn't care doesn't give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
This wasn't even focusing on that.
This was just pointing out the idea of free will being an excuse doesn't work considering how often your god allegedly interferes with it.
However, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins... That he existed...
Is still a question up for debate.
Was there a single Jesus figure, or are the stories recorded in the Bible a collection of stories about a bunch of different people.
I would say there is about as much evidence for Jesus existing, as there is for Harry Potter.
But again, notice how you latch onto the religious BS, rather than focusing on the fact that your fantasy Earth simply doesn't work.
'arry Potter? Really?!?
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus and others wrote of Jesus. These were not Christians, they were enemies of Christianity. But they nevertheless knew the troublemaker that had caused this problem. As did the Jews, as their texts describe him as a magician and hope that he is burning in a pile of excrement. His name in these texts is YESHU (a corruption of Yeshua, it's an Hebrew acronym meaning "That his name and memory be forgotten"). There is physical evidence of similar crucifixions by Romans in Israel.
No serious historian would buy your theory. They would slap you upside the head for saying something that stupid.
Only Washington Post thinks the evidence doesn't add up. Real historians know this is a load of crap. If you have the witness of your enemies, people who want you dead with all their heart, people who would like to deny you exist nonetheless know you exist, then yeah there's a pretty flimsy case against your existence.
Imagine someone tried to sloppily erase the existence, not of Christ, but Christianity. They do so by burning all Bibles and everything said by witnesses for Christianity. Would this be enough to erase the memory of Christianity? No. A historian coming across old writings would notice a number of passages condemning the Christians. If further the word Christian itself was erased, you would still find evidence of some religious group that created trouble. They would loudly complain about it. In much the same way, if the theory of flat Earth was heavily suppressed (as much of there writings have been), we would nonetheless realize there is concerted effort to make sure everyone falls in line with round Earth. Why push it so hard, unless it's opposing something.
You see, without any writings at all from the New Testament, there is still a Jesus-shaped piece that history forms around. Like a puzzle with a single piece missing, the history only adds up with the addition of that piece. The Christians were tortured and killed for 300 years before finally giving them a break in the West. And this is the exception, not the rule. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, pagans, all of these have persecuted Christianity for centuries, because it threatens their reality. If there was no Christ, why would anyone have become a Christian? No, Jesus lived and died in Israel. And he lives.
Jesus threatens your reality. You cannot accept God because you see him as a tyrannical POS.
This position is not atheism. You cannot simultaneously believe God does not exist and hate him with all your heart. This is known as maltheism or misotheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
But you are not even honest about this! You do all in your power to try to convince me Jesus was never real, that God does not exist. But I know Jesus exists, surely as I knew there was a historical Jesus, backed up by all his enemies and their accusations of Christians as vampires and Jesus as a sorcerer. You know God exists too, you call him a tyrannical POS. He can either not exist, or he can be a tyrannical POS. So let's stop lying to me. Why do you hate God?
I don't need you to answer this question. But if you won't, I'll thank you kindly to stop insulting all of us by telling us you think there's no God. You know there's a God. And you hate him.
The enemies of God prove he exists. They testify to his existence. And this is why Jesus said, "Love your enemies." Because in a backhanded way, our enemies help us out.
The enemies of Jesus established the Catholic church in an attempt to cover the truth of Christianity with bureaucracy. The worship of God was replaced with the saints, Mary, and to some extent the Pope. If not for God's enemies, Christianity would not have remained to the 21st century. Likewise, the enemies of Jesus provide the best possible historical evidence of his existence.
So, thank you. Thank you for hating God so much you proved my point.
-
'arry Potter? Really?!?
Yes really.
Do you think someone with that name has never existed, in England?
Because it is similar for this.
Jesus threatens your reality. You cannot accept God because you see him as a tyrannical POS.
Your imaginary fiend doesn't threaten me at all.
Likewise, even if Jesus did exist, it wouldn't threaten me at all. The stories in the Bible are clearly BS.
This position is not atheism.
You mean your strawman isn't. A strawman that says nothing about me.
You cannot simultaneously believe God does not exist and hate him with all your heart.
I don't hate your imaginary fiend.
But you are not even honest about this! You do all in your power to try to convince me Jesus was never real
There you go projecting again.
I have done virtually nothing.
All I did was put forward the question of if he existed.
And that appears to be such a threat to you you feel such a strong compulsion to attack.
But lets be honest, you are using it as a pathetic excuse to avoid your complete to explain things like the angle of elevation of Polaris and the south celestial pole. Two things which trivially destroy your flat fantasy.
-
And yet. For coming from primordial soup we have the need of some moral code where others may wrong us and need to be apologised to. What’s some hurt feelings in the whole of the universe? Or this tiny thread? What is a lie to the sun? The truth to a nova? Yet we have the capacity to love and sacrifice? To what end when a gamma ray burst could end almost all life and on earth at any second.
Trying to say nature doesn't care doesn't give your evil POS a get out of jail free card.
This wasn't even focusing on that.
This was just pointing out the idea of free will being an excuse doesn't work considering how often your god allegedly interferes with it.
However, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins... That he existed...
Is still a question up for debate.
Was there a single Jesus figure, or are the stories recorded in the Bible a collection of stories about a bunch of different people.
I would say there is about as much evidence for Jesus existing, as there is for Harry Potter.
But again, notice how you latch onto the religious BS, rather than focusing on the fact that your fantasy Earth simply doesn't work.
'arry Potter? Really?!?
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus and others wrote of Jesus. These were not Christians, they were enemies of Christianity. But they nevertheless knew the troublemaker that had caused this problem. As did the Jews, as their texts describe him as a magician and hope that he is burning in a pile of excrement. His name in these texts is YESHU (a corruption of Yeshua, it's an Hebrew acronym meaning "That his name and memory be forgotten"). There is physical evidence of similar crucifixions by Romans in Israel.
No serious historian would buy your theory. They would slap you upside the head for saying something that stupid.
Only Washington Post thinks the evidence doesn't add up. Real historians know this is a load of crap. If you have the witness of your enemies, people who want you dead with all their heart, people who would like to deny you exist nonetheless know you exist, then yeah there's a pretty flimsy case against your existence.
Imagine someone tried to sloppily erase the existence, not of Christ, but Christianity. They do so by burning all Bibles and everything said by witnesses for Christianity. Would this be enough to erase the memory of Christianity? No. A historian coming across old writings would notice a number of passages condemning the Christians. If further the word Christian itself was erased, you would still find evidence of some religious group that created trouble. They would loudly complain about it. In much the same way, if the theory of flat Earth was heavily suppressed (as much of there writings have been), we would nonetheless realize there is concerted effort to make sure everyone falls in line with round Earth. Why push it so hard, unless it's opposing something.
You see, without any writings at all from the New Testament, there is still a Jesus-shaped piece that history forms around. Like a puzzle with a single piece missing, the history only adds up with the addition of that piece. The Christians were tortured and killed for 300 years before finally giving them a break in the West. And this is the exception, not the rule. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, pagans, all of these have persecuted Christianity for centuries, because it threatens their reality. If there was no Christ, why would anyone have become a Christian? No, Jesus lived and died in Israel. And he lives.
Jesus threatens your reality. You cannot accept God because you see him as a tyrannical POS.
This position is not atheism. You cannot simultaneously believe God does not exist and hate him with all your heart. This is known as maltheism or misotheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
But you are not even honest about this! You do all in your power to try to convince me Jesus was never real, that God does not exist. But I know Jesus exists, surely as I knew there was a historical Jesus, backed up by all his enemies and their accusations of Christians as vampires and Jesus as a sorcerer. You know God exists too, you call him a tyrannical POS. He can either not exist, or he can be a tyrannical POS. So let's stop lying to me. Why do you hate God?
I don't need you to answer this question. But if you won't, I'll thank you kindly to stop insulting all of us by telling us you think there's no God. You know there's a God. And you hate him.
The enemies of God prove he exists. They testify to his existence. And this is why Jesus said, "Love your enemies." Because in a backhanded way, our enemies help us out.
The enemies of Jesus established the Catholic church in an attempt to cover the truth of Christianity with bureaucracy. The worship of God was replaced with the saints, Mary, and to some extent the Pope. If not for God's enemies, Christianity would not have remained to the 21st century. Likewise, the enemies of Jesus provide the best possible historical evidence of his existence.
So, thank you. Thank you for hating God so much you proved my point.
Well said bulmabriefs.
King James Bible
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved Mathew 10:22
-
Stop trying to deflect
I’m not deflecting Jack.
I accept you don’t believe in god. Or even a spiritual existence.
Now Jack Boy. Where does it state evolution must only create peaceful and high level sentient beings. Why can’t evolution result in say territorial sentient beings? Sentient beings that horde? Or warlike sentient beings. Where in evolution does it state beings are only sentient if they meet Jacks approval? Regardless, it’s only evolution. If evolution creates a war like race of sentient beings, it’s neither evil nor good. It’s just evolution.
-
I’m not deflecting Jack.
You certainly seem to be.
I simply said the first question is if Jesus existed in the first place.
You decided to respond by bringing up free will and suggesting it is pretty simple.
I merely pointed out the fact that that makes no sense at all given how many times God violated free will and how everything is meant to be part of its plan.
You then decided to deflect to morality and nature.
Nature is not a get out of jail free card. Stop pretending it is.
You do nothing at all to address the massive inconsistencies between free will being an excuse, and God repeatedly violating that and having a plan for everything.
Even now, you continue to deflect, continuing to appeal to nature and morality and so on rather than attempting to defend your religion.
You are as bad as a FEer. But that isn't surprising given the similarities between religious belief and FE belief.
-
L
I simply said the first question is if Jesus
I accept you don’t believe in Jesus. Why do you keep going on about something you don’t believe in?
I’m more than willing to discus things you do believe in. And that would be evolution.
I am asking what are the “rules” of evolution. Why can’t evolution result in a sentient war race of beings? And why would that make them “evil”?
-
I accept you don’t believe in Jesus. Why do you keep going on about something you don’t believe in?
Why do you keep going on about the FE?
I’m more than willing to discus things you do believe in. And that would be evolution.
Which has nothing to do with the topic, and is just a deflection.
-
I accept you don’t believe in Jesus. Why do you keep going on about something you don’t believe in?
Why do you keep going on about the FE?
I’m more than willing to discus things you do believe in. And that would be evolution.
Which has nothing to do with the topic, and is just a deflection.
I don’t know what you want jack boy.
I’ve taken Jesus and God out of the equation.
Since evolution resulted in people not obtaining the level of peacefulness and level of sentient you desire, and keep throwing around the term evil because of it.
I have offered a solution of using designer drugs to speed up the process of evolution so us little chemical robots can achieve the level of peacefulness and level of sentient desire by you Jack Black.
What’s wrong with the plan?
-
I don’t know what you want jack boy.
I’ve taken Jesus and God out of the equation.
Which was the focus on my comment.
If you take it out, you take out the discussion.
I also notice you ignored the simple question:
Why do you keep going on about the FE?
Just because I don't believe in your imaginary fiend, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how it makes no sense.
Just like people who don't believe in a flat Earth can comment on it.
-
Why do you keep going on about the FE?
Why do you keep going on about flat earth.
And I can commit that it’s stupid for people that only believe in evolution to use the term evil. Shrugs.
-
Why do you keep going on about flat earth.
Asking me that question is pointless.
I asked it to you, to show your hypocrisy.
The point of discussion was about your god, and how free will is not the get out of jail free card you want to pretend it is.
A discussion you tried to escape from by asking why I would "keep going on" about it when I don't believe.
Yet you are happy to keep going on about the FE even though you don't believe in it.
This shows the dishonesty of your position.
And I can commit that it’s stupid for people that only believe in evolution to use the term evil. Shrugs.
Yes, you can say all sorts of stupid things.
Especially given your god does nothing for morality.
-
why I would "keep going on"
For you, it’s easy. About the same as any of the people that regularly post here. No matter the argument, you want the last word. Cheers. 😂
-
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved Mathew 10:22
Well, I'm not entirely in a love relationship with God, more like a on-again-off-again.
The point I was making, is that if you hate God, why can't you just be honest about it?
What, you think I'd judge you? No, what I hate is people who can't just say what they mean. You do not understand just how many jobs told me they'd call me. DON'T SAY THAT if you aren't gonna call!!! Just fucking tell me you aren't interested, because I don't pick up on cues and I wait by the phone.
If I had to speak to God in person, I would have my own list of grievances about how God allows a world were families sell a home rather than being able to will it to their kids, leaving them to fend for themselves. Or how no matter how hard you work to find meaningful relationships, some people just end up pathetically alone. Or when you work hard at a job, instead of getting a full-time job, the boss instead decides not to give it to you and tries to abuse you until you leave. The thing is, all of this shit is something that I legit could tell people about.
I don't have to hide my annoyance with God by pretending he isn't there. What is the point of that? I don't always like God's decisions, but there's definitely a God. Even if sometimes it feels like he hates me.
I simply said the first question is if Jesus existed in the first place.
And I've told you that even atheist historians accept that there was a man alive named Jesus and that he died on the cross. They might reject his miracles and his godhood. They don't reject his existence, because they themselves aware that the very enemies of Jesus confirm that. Why would Romans admit this? It was not in their best interest to admit it. Jesus's followers were a major nuisance, with them killed in public spectacle as part of bread and circuses. Did that stop the movement? No, it backfired. Why would Jews admit this? The Christians took many of their congregation.
Yet in both cases, they admitted there was a person called Jesus.
-
Well, what can I say about God other than I love him & thank him everyday for him being here & everything I'm blessed with.
If it weren't for God I wouldn't be alive today.
-
This is why I say I have a mixed relationship.
Along with all the bad things, I have a list of good things. I have not had to work in two years. God has provided me food to eat. In fact, I have had so much provided that I am now having to cut back because of diabetes. I have come from a life filled with depression to one where... well, I'm still depressive, but I can see that there's a purpose for my life in writing. And I could talk about a long and weird spiritual journey.
-
This is why I say I have a mixed relationship.
Along with all the bad things, I have a list of good things. I have not had to work in two years. God has provided me food to eat. In fact, I have had so much provided that I am now having to cut back because of diabetes. I have come from a life filled with depression to one where... well, I'm still depressive, but I can see that there's a purpose for my life in writing. And I could talk about a long and weird spiritual journey.
I'm sorry to hear you are still depressed, keep writing if this helps, I know that I will never stop writing & promoting God & his flat earth Bible. This I know is what God wants me to do.
I used to post on the David Icke forum until I got banned for posting a picture of Icke with his arm around Russel Brand at the Groucha club. I was a prominent God flat earth poster on there, up to nearly 10,000 posts, but stuff em, their loss.
Nearly 7 years ago, I collapsed on the kitchen floor & flown to a Cardiff hospital where I underwent a tripple A heart operation which took about 6 hours, the surgeon was just about to finish his shift but stayed on to operate on me.
If it hadn't of been for my hubby finishing his shift early & the first response team getting to me so quickly, I'd be dead.
I know God was looking after me that day as there is only 1% chance of someone surviving this operation.
Well, I do hope your depression lifts & I shall prey for you.
-
For you, it’s easy. About the same as any of the people that regularly post here. No matter the argument, you want the last word. Cheers. 😂
And notice how you still don't answer, or even attempt to address your hypocrisy.
You truly are just as bad as a flat Earther.
The point I was making, is that if you hate God, why can't you just be honest about it?
Why can't you just be honest that people can not believe in a fictional character, and still point out how that fictional character is evil.
I don't need to hate Voldemort to say he is evil.
I don't always like God's decisions, but there's definitely a God.
Yet as repeatedly established, there is no reason to think there is one.
And I've told you that even atheist historians accept that there was a man alive named Jesus and that he died on the cross.
Except the name wasn't actually Jesus.
That is a later invention.
The name was closer to Joshua, or Yeshua.
There were plenty of people by that name, and plenty of people who were crucified.
Just like there are plenty of people alive who are actually called Harry Potter.
Does that mean if a cult of Harry Potter fanatics develop, believing in Harry Potter as the saviour who saved everyone from Voldemort, the fact that a person called Harry Potter lived in England around that time then means there is a historical Harry Potter?
And that they can claim their Harry Potter really existed?
Because a key question regarding the historic of Jesus is if Jesus was A historical figure, that is singular, that there was a single individual that the myth of Jesus is based upon.
Or, were the myths focusing on a bunch of different people?
God has provided me food to eat.
Did it, or did someone else?
How did you confirm it was your imaginary fiend that gave it to you; or are you just attributing anything good to it?
Was it like in the OT, where people just went out to the fields and found bread to eat; and if they took too much it would go bad the next day, except on Friday, when they collected enough for 2 days so they could stay inside on the Sabbath?
Or did another person give it to you?
If it weren't for God I wouldn't be alive today.
And think of all the people that can say the opposite, that because of disease allegedly invented the evil POS you worship, their loved one is dead?
That because of a natural disaster (i.e. an act of God), their loved one is dead?
God doesn't seem to be interested in interacting with the world at all.
So I would say there is absolutely no basis to believe you are only here because of God.
This I know is what God wants me to do.
No, you BELIEVE it is what your imaginary fiend wants you to do.
And if it wants to lie to people, why do what it wants?
I guess you are just as bad as the clinically insane individual known as Abraham that was willing to murder his son just because a voice in his head told him to.
If it hadn't of been for my hubby finishing his shift early & the first response team getting to me so quickly, I'd be dead.
Conversely, if your imaginary fiend was looking after you, you wouldn't have collapsed and needed an operation.
You should be thanking the people that helped you, rather than trying to assign it to your imaginary fiend.
I know God was looking after me that day as there is only 1% chance of someone surviving this operation.
So what you are saying is your god hates people so much that it decides to murder 99 out of 100 people who get this operation?
Are you really sure that is a good thing?
If your god is looking out for people, why is the survival chance so low?
If your god is looking out for people, why do people need this operation in the first place?
If anything, it seems more likely your god tried to kill you, and your husband finishing work early and the doctor staying on to do the operation meant his plan failed.
You shouldn't be thanking God for this; you should be asking him why he tried to kill you.
-
This is why I say I have a mixed relationship.
Along with all the bad things, I have a list of good things. I have not had to work in two years. God has provided me food to eat. In fact, I have had so much provided that I am now having to cut back because of diabetes. I have come from a life filled with depression to one where... well, I'm still depressive, but I can see that there's a purpose for my life in writing. And I could talk about a long and weird spiritual journey.
I'm sorry to hear you are still depressed, keep writing if this helps, I know that I will never stop writing & promoting God & his flat earth Bible. This I know is what God wants me to do.
It's not so much that I'm depressed. I think Isaiah 45:7 or so says that God creates light and makes darkness, he produces good tidings and brings misfortune. Blaming the devil is to give him power. But God is behind both good and bad things.
Though I am depressed about my health.
You made me giggle there. Pray, not prey.
-
There is no reason to think there is one.
I'd like to say you are delusional, but the answer is leaning towards dishonest.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7_1Ej8q_CZo/S8fY4g2oX8I/AAAAAAAAABM/R5wKFvcGK3M/s1600/Circular-1-atheism+copy.jpg)
"If there's a chair, there's a carpenter." The created world necessitates a Creator.
And yes, despite him being a RE person, his points stand.
-
But God is behind both good and bad things.
So why worship such an evil being?
I'd like to say you are delusional
But the answer is you are.
A god solves nothing.
If the universe needs a god, so does god.
And then that makes your god entirely useless.
Your god solves nothing. All it does is push the problem back.
-
For you, it’s easy. About the same as any of the people that regularly post here. No matter the argument, you want the last word. Cheers. 😂
And notice how you still don't answer, or even attempt to address your hypocrisy.
You truly are just as bad as a flat Earther.
Still see you’re after the last word?
Let me guess Jack, you can stop posting anytime. Is that what you tell yourself?
😁
-
well i believe that the ice wall actually separates the flat earth from space and has a atmospheric magic or protection or something that prevents the air from leaving us and us all affixiateing
We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?
Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?
I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?
Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh85HWnn/antart.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvRd6LdG/a-navigator.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
But God is behind both good and bad things.
So why worship such an evil being?
Why would you not?
God does good and evil to us, interfering with our life when we would probably rather he not.
You think a cold uncaring universe is preferable to interference, because you are like a bratty 16-year-old despite whatever age you are, wanting to have freedom to kill, rape, and steal from others without a relevant moral system. But by no stretch of the imagination would it be. It's just an excuse for nihilistic license. You see, this Earth would not exist by random chance, nor would the moon, sun, or stars. There are formulas to their behavior that have to be programmed into the system. But if we being totally charitable and somehow suns, moons, planets, and stars all exist despite this being formless random void, it would still be be far crueler and more arbitrary than anything the most evil god could dream up. One place has a sun too close, and life never comes to be, because it is scorched to death in the span of a day. Another has a sun too far, and they freeze to death. Or the waves are too high, or there are creatures that are so deadly that humans never have a chance, or the moon scrapes against the planet and people are periodically crushed to death. A random world doesn't care whether we live or die.
By contrast, sometimes God lets your mom or dad die of cancer. Sometimes God gives a freak snowstorm that ruins your crops, and you as a farmer are out of business. Sometimes God also gives you things you very definitely shouldn't deserve, like a full-time job at a major company. And often, the good and bad averages to okay. I ought to have every reason to curse God and die, but there doesn't seem to be any point to that. After all, if I believed as you tell me I should, there really would truly be no point to my life. There'd be no afterlife, so all the pain and suffering in my life, like a cruel joke, would be for nothing. But I'd be at peace right? No, oblivion is not peace. It's erasure. There are between 3 and 100 million species of life on Earth. Is there some evil in the world? Yes. Do I care? No. Because there is also a great number of beings that God cares for.
Sun is good for crops, right? And rain is also good for them too? But just because something is good now doesn't mean nothing but it is good. If you were to call sun good, and decide rain was bad, and you got nothing but sunny days, you'd have a scorched desert. On the flipside, you'd have water erode the land if nothing but rain fell. We call things "evil" but they just are. Misfortune is an essential ingredient.
Why would I serve such a God? Because. Because the alternative is nothing.
You're trying to con me. But the truth is that you've been sold a bill of goods. As you get reincarnated again and again, learning nothing from the encounter, keep that in mind.
-
Why would you not?
Because I have no interest in worshiping an evil POS.
You think a cold uncaring universe is preferable to interference
Do I think a universe which doesn't care, is better than a god intentionally screwing with people, intentionally harming them, tormenting them?
YES!
you are like a bratty 16-year-old despite whatever age you are, wanting to have freedom to kill, rape, and steal from others without a relevant moral system.
You appear to be talking about Christians; who thing they can do whatever they want, and then pray for forgiveness and its fine.
Your god, which you admit is evil (or at least does evil), is not a valid basis for a moral system.
Following your god is no better than following Hitler.
You see, this Earth would not exist by random chance, nor would the moon, sun, or stars.
The exact same BS can be said about your god.
You see, your god would not exist by random chance. It needs to have been created, by an intelligent creator.
it would still be be far crueler and more arbitrary than anything the most evil god could dream up. One place has a sun too close, and life never comes to be, because it is scorched to death in the span of a day. Another has a sun too far, and they freeze to death.
Or as opposed to what we have now, with planets like Mercury, which are too close to the sun and it is scorched. And dwarf planets like Pluto, which are far and too cold.
Do you know the real difference between an uncaring universe, and the evil POS you worship?
In an uncaring universe, those conditions aren't fit for life, so life does not emerge.
With your evil POS, it intentionally creates life there to make them suffer, or creates life elsewhere for them to prosper, only to move them there to make them suffer.
So an uncaring universe is vastly better than a being intentionally creating suffering.
or the moon scrapes against the planet and people are periodically crushed to death.
That would require a god to maintain the moon, otherwise it would be torn apart.
A random world doesn't care whether we live or die.
As opposed to your evil god, that wants us to suffer.
By contrast, sometimes God lets your mom or dad die of cancer.
Why say "let"?
Why not say "causes"?
After all, if I believed as you tell me I should, there really would truly be no point to my life.
Which again shows why you really believe the crap you down.
You can't handle reality.
But I would rather no point, than to be the toy of a childish evil tyrant, a toy that it makes suffer for fun.
Sun is good for crops, right? And rain is also good for them too?
In the appropriate amount.
We call things "evil" but they just are.
Which is just a way of saying there isn't a sentience controlling it.
You're trying to con me.
No, the religious folk have already done a great job of that.
I'm just objecting to your BS.
-
You wouldn't know BS if it stared you in the face.
This is BS.
(https://i.imgflip.com/1ashts.jpg)
Do I think a universe which doesn't care, is better than a god intentionally screwing with people, intentionally harming them, tormenting them?
YES!
Alright then, here's a Pascal's Wager for you. Your mom is sick. If God exists, you can pray to him, and he may or may not decide to heal her. On the other hand, if God does not exist, nothing will cure her even though it is a simple cold. Is interfering better than not caring?
NO!
And because you expect the worst of any interference, her death is preferable to saying a five-minute prayer, because you might have to believe if something happens, you think.
You appear to be talking about Christians; who thing they can do whatever they want, and then pray for forgiveness and its fine.
I see some past experience here. Care to talk about it with the rest of us?
Your god, which you admit is evil (or at least does evil), is not a valid basis for a moral system.
Following your god is no better than following Hitler.
Good point. Hitler was a secular man who used the German people's Christianity as a tool for their cooperation. He actually believed in some weird combination of atheism, Norse paganism, totemism, Nietzsche ubermensch philosophy, and eugenics. I most definitely would refuse to follow such a person.
Why does God do evil? Well, suppose God allowed us to live forever, do you know what would happen?
(Hint: You'd be stuck in a long boring painful existence for all time)
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/questions-about-the-tree-of-life/
But consider God’s statement here:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22)
This seems to imply that Adam and Eve could have eaten from the Tree of Life after they sinned to live forever. Had they been permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, then they would have been forced to live eternally in a sin-cursed world.
God is good, all of the time. Even when he does (or allows) evil, these things are for our (long-term) good.
Do you know what the Old Testament calls Satan? The Adversary or the Accuser. It is often quoted that the greatest trick of Satan is to convince us he does not exist. That is wrong. The greatest trick is to accuse God (or to pretend to be God). You are letting him whisper sweet nothings in your ear right now. >:D
Name one evil thing God has done, and I will show you how it's also good.
The exact same BS can be said about your god.
You see, your god would not exist by random chance. It needs to have been created, by an intelligent creator.
You can't have the Creator have a creator. It's a recursive paradox.
Do me a favor. Read in-depth about the scientific law of cause and effect.
Or better yet, I've already explained why this tired stupid assumption is fallacious. Go back and read those posts.
Or as opposed to what we have now, with planets like Mercury, which are too close to the sun and it is scorched. And dwarf planets like Pluto, which are far and too cold.
Prove outer space exists. NASA says it exists. They have graphic artists make photorealistic images, and even foam objects. But none of that is unassailable proof.
Why say "let"?
Why not say "causes"?
Because cancer would kill them if God did nothing. Just as cancer would kill them in your godless universe.
Either you invent God in your atheist world, just to blame him for every cancer, or God's supposed nonexistence has the same effect as God not acting. And if that is the case, then logic dictates you cannot blame God if you say he does not exist. You necessarily must instead blame the absence of God for not being able to help.
Again, the Pascal's wager I set above. God has some chance of helping. Nothing has no chance.
In the appropriate amount.
And with no sentience to decide appropriateness, no guy behind the curtain, turning a giant water pipe in the sky on and off, how's that? Oh wait, you expect me to believe that without sentience, somehow there is a definition of appropriate.
Which is just a way of saying there isn't a sentience controlling it.
No, it's a way of saying that you are naming things "evil" when they actually are a mix or even good things.
Just as you don't know BS when you see it, and I have to point it out to you, without a God to write moral law, you don't even have a concept of good and evil. It's borrowed from a vague facsimile of religion.
-
This is why I say I have a mixed relationship.
Along with all the bad things, I have a list of good things. I have not had to work in two years. God has provided me food to eat. In fact, I have had so much provided that I am now having to cut back because of diabetes. I have come from a life filled with depression to one where... well, I'm still depressive, but I can see that there's a purpose for my life in writing. And I could talk about a long and weird spiritual journey.
I'm sorry to hear you are still depressed, keep writing if this helps, I know that I will never stop writing & promoting God & his flat earth Bible. This I know is what God wants me to do.
It's not so much that I'm depressed. I think Isaiah 45:7 or so says that God creates light and makes darkness, he produces good tidings and brings misfortune. Blaming the devil is to give him power. But God is behind both good and bad things.
Though I am depressed about my health.
You made me giggle there. Pray, not prey.
Oops ;D
-
You wouldn't know BS if it stared you in the face.
Says the one who appears to be gobbling up BS and spouting it for others.
Alright then, here's a Pascal's Wager for you. Your mom is sick. If God exists, you can pray to him, and he may or may not decide to heal her. On the other hand, if God does not exist, nothing will cure her even though it is a simple cold. Is interfering better than not caring?
The problem with this is that you have already decided what the outcome will be, and acted like God had nothing to do with it.
What you ignore are possibilities like:
God decided to make her sick and she is only suffering because God decided that.
If you disturb God by praying to it, it will make you sick and die as well.
If you disturb God by praying, instead of healing naturally, she will be sick forever, slowly dying in agony.
If you disturb God by praying, it will finish until the moment before you finish the prayer, and then kill her, meaning you wasted that time you could have been spending with her.
If you disturb God by praying, it will make her be in excruciating pain, unable to hear you or know you are there until she dies many years later, with nothing able to stop the pain or give her any peace.
If God doesn't exist, then she will naturally heal.
So is interfering better than not caring? That depends on what that interference is.
You have decided the interference from your evil POS will be good. But there is no reason to think that.
But notice how you aren't even attempting to argue for the existence of your evil POS, instead you are basically saying you should cower to it even if it doesn't exist in the hopes that you might get some benefit.
No thanks.
I'd rather make the most of the time I have.
her death is preferable to saying a five-minute prayer
You mean her death which might be caused by a prayer, which might not happen if you don't pray?
I see some past experience here. Care to talk about it with the rest of us?
Well if you want a great example, look at Hitler.
Good point. Hitler was a secular man
Hitler was a Christian.
Why does God do evil? Well, suppose God allowed us to live forever, do you know what would happen?
That would entirely depend upon how your god made the world.
Also the standard Christian belief is that you go to heaven after death where you live forever.
You'd be stuck in a long boring painful existence for all time
Why would it be painful?
Because your god made it so?
God is good, all of the time.
No. When your god does evil, it is evil.
There is no excuse for it.
Name one evil thing God has done, and I will show you how it's also good.
Set up Adam and Eve to fail
Lie to Adam and Eve
Not give a damn about the world, until he decides to flood it and murder countless people.
Choosing to save Job from the destruction of Sodom, while killing everyone else there.
Choosing to turn Job's wife into a pillar of salt.
Cursing one of Noah's sons for merely seeing his father naked.
Making humans naked when it is a sin to see people naked.
Tormenting the Egyptians to show off.
Permitting rape and slavery, even encouraging it.
Demanding people mutilate the genitals of their children.
And that is just from the Bible.
You can't have the Creator have a creator. It's a recursive paradox.
No, it isn't a paradox. It is a demonstration that your creator does nothing.
That it is useless.
That all it does is merely push the problem back.
Or better yet, I've already explained why this tired stupid assumption is fallacious. Go back and read those posts.
No, you haven't. You have dismissed it because you know it destroys your delusional BS.
Your BS relies upon an incredibly dishonest double standard, where you make one set of rules for everything other than your god, and then allow your god to violate them because otherwise it destroys your argument.
As I explained before, any reason you give for the universe needing a creator works equally well for your god.
Any excuse you provide for why your god shouldn't need a creator works equally well for the universe.
Ultimately the question is why is there something rather than nothing.
And ultimately, the only answer is NOTHING!
A god is not the answer.
All it does is push the problem back.
If we need a creator, then so does your god.
The above question can also be reframed in terms of complexity.
Prove outer space exists.
Wilful rejection of reality wont save you here.
The simple fact is that your "godless alternative" is the world we find ourselves in.
I get it. You can't handle that reality. So you flee to a fantasy.
But that doesn't change reality.
Because cancer would kill them if God did nothing. Just as cancer would kill them in your godless universe.
Or they wouldn't have gotten cancer unless God gave it to them, and then they die from it.
Unless you want to say your god doesn't exist and isn't responsible for anything in this world?
Because if your god created us, it created us in a way where we would get cancer.
Just like it created diseases.
if that is the case, then logic dictates you cannot blame God if you say he does not exist
And I don't blame God.
Instead, I say that if your god created this world it is to blame and it is evil.
A good, loving god would not have created this world.
Again, the Pascal's wager I set above. God has some chance of helping.
And a chance for making it worse.
God not existing has a chance for things to get better or worse.
And with no sentience to decide appropriateness
Instead life typically adapts and evolves for the environment it finds itself in.
That which does survives. That which doesn't dies.
No, it's a way of saying that you are naming things "evil" when they actually are a mix or even good things.
Not in the slightest.
Again, if your god is intentionally doing it, then it isn't "just is". It is your god being evil.
So if there is no sentience behind it, it just is. But if there is sentience behind it, causing it, then it is evil.
Just as you don't know BS when you see it
You not liking the fact you are spouting BS doesn't mean I don't know BS when I see it.
It means you don't.
without a God to write moral law
Again, your god is no better than Hitler, or any other sentient being.
A moral law coming from such an evil POS is inherently subjective and no better than a moral law from any other sentient being.
-
Alright then, here's a Pascal's Wager for you. Your mom is sick. If God exists, you can pray to him, and he may or may not decide to heal her. On the other hand, if God does not exist, nothing will cure her even though it is a simple cold. Is interfering better than not caring?
The problem with this is that you have already decided what the outcome will be, and acted like God had nothing to do with it.
As far as I'm concerned, God could decide whatever he wants. Like "JackBlack needs his mom to die of cancer, because later bulmabriefs144 will need someone to argue with. I'm sure JackBlack will get over it." The point is, God being a dick, or not being a dick are both chances of happening. But if there's nothing there, praying to nothing always will have the same result. Nothing will happen.
What you ignore are possibilities like:
God decided to make her sick and she is only suffering because God decided that.
If you disturb God by praying to it, it will make you sick and die as well.
If you disturb God by praying, instead of healing naturally, she will be sick forever, slowly dying in agony.
If you disturb God by praying, it will finish until the moment before you finish the prayer, and then kill her, meaning you wasted that time you could have been spending with her.
If you disturb God by praying, it will make her be in excruciating pain, unable to hear you or know you are there until she dies many years later, with nothing able to stop the pain or give her any peace.
If God doesn't exist, then she will naturally heal.
And if there is actually no such thing as natural healing? God made our bodies. If I dumped chemicals into a vat, I would probably make a corpse. If you saw at a corpse's leg, no amount of time would make it heal. Oh sure, some of those could happen. I've even thought of one you haven't thought of. She gets better, but she actually wanted to die. She has nothing left to live for, and the sickness was actually a blessing to her.
So is interfering better than not caring? That depends on what that interference is.
Today, I had my dad telling me that I should go out and meet people. I don't want to. My experience with people is alot of getting used and abused, and I am thoroughly weary of life. Would I rather he hadn't talked to me at all? No. I am lonely, and it's important for me to remember that, even if I don't feel like going out and risking my time.
You have decided the interference from your evil POS will be good. But there is no reason to think that.
But notice how you aren't even attempting to argue for the existence of your evil POS, instead you are basically saying you should cower to it even if it doesn't exist in the hopes that you might get some benefit.
No thanks.
That's because I don't need to. Existence itself is evidence for the existence of God, whether you think he's an evil POS or not.
Let me tell you a story. I'm sure you've heard of Jonah, right, and how he got swallowed by a whale/large fish? Wanna know the context? Well, Jonah got called to save Ninevah, a nation so wicked that God was going to destroy it if they didn't change their ways. Yes, this God you're convinced is an evil POS, despite the threat of destruction, he wanted to send a prophet to a country that was not Jewish or one of the chosen people, just to save them from his own potential actions. So he sent Jonah, a man who didn't even like them. Jonah ran the other way, got on a boat, and tried to ignore his call from God. A terrible storm came up, and everyone was in despair. Jonah told them to throw him overboard, and the storm would stop. Sure enough, the storm stopped and Jonah spent three days sulking inside a fish, before finally he's like, "Okay God, I'll do it." He gets vomited out and this time, he heads straight to Ninevah, gives them the bad news, and it so successful that businessmen could use this as an example of the kind of charisma you ought to have. Is Jonah happy? Quite the opposite. He sulks under a tree. Eventually, the tree dies from the hot sun. Jonah's like, "Wtf God? I wanted you to punish the people of Ninevah, and you saved them! I wanted a tree to shelter under, and you burned it up!" And God's like "Ninevah is full of people and animals. That tree you didn't even plant or water, and you're concerned about that. Why can't I be concerned of these?"
If God is a POS, it's because he wants the best for us and others, even though we don't. I would prefer to live and die as a shy person, but instead I'm arguing with you.
her death is preferable to saying a five-minute prayer
You mean her death which might be caused by a prayer, which might not happen if you don't pray?
We are not talking benign cancer that mysteriously gets worse because you pray. We are talking about prayer that could make things worse, or still kill you if nothing is done, or could heal you. After all, we don't normally pray for little things.
I see some past experience here. Care to talk about it with the rest of us?
Look at Hitler.
I believe I was talking about you.
Good point. Hitler was a secular man
Hitler was a Christian.
Hitler was no Christian.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/
“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”
Hitler's religion was Darwinism. Then occult Norse paganism. Then a sort of superman mentality.
Bullock, in describing Hitler as a “rationalist and materialist,” quotes him in a wartime conversation with aides as saying:
The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science ... Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”
Had the Jews been destroyed, Hitler would probably have persecuted the Christians next.
You'd be stuck in a long boring painful existence for all time
Also the standard Christian belief is that you go to heaven after death where you live forever.
Why would it be painful?
Because your god made it so?
Every time you bang your knee, every heartbreak, every loneliness... for all time. I believe only in Afterlife, I make no assumptions about it being forever, or just until you want to reincarnate. The difference between this and this life is that there is no body to feel such pain.
God is good, all of the time.
No. When your god does evil, it is evil.
There is no excuse for it.
Very well. And when you do evil, and blame the results on God, it is evil. It's your evil tho.
Name one evil thing God has done, and I will show you how it's also good.
Set up Adam and Eve to fail
Lie to Adam and Eve
Not give a damn about the world, until he decides to flood it and murder countless people.
Choosing to save Job from the destruction of Sodom, while killing everyone else there.
Choosing to turn Job's wife into a pillar of salt.
Cursing one of Noah's sons for merely seeing his father naked.
Making humans naked when it is a sin to see people naked.
Tormenting the Egyptians to show off.
Permitting rape and slavery, even encouraging it.
Demanding people mutilate the genitals of their children.
And that is just from the Bible.
Yes, and these people thought they were righteous. They puzzled over why God would do bad things to good people. You wonder why God would punish people. It never occurred to you during this read that maybe they only thought they were the chosen people, and God blessed them as an example? God blessed them despite their only virtue being blind obedience, and fully being capable of barbaric things like stoning people to death. God moved them out of this, toward civilized culture. God chose them to show "I can save even these people!"
Btw, this is what that passage means.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent
His son had sex with him. That's what he was punished for, not merely showing his nakedness.
You can't have the Creator have a creator. It's a recursive paradox.
No, it isn't a paradox. It is a demonstration that your creator does nothing.
That it is useless.
That all it does is merely push the problem back.
That's what a recursive paradox is.
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/IkAda59JrXEAAAAC/loop.gif)
God makes the heavens and the Earth, until you ask, "Well, what made God?"
Another God makes God, Another Another God makes Another God, Another Another Another God makes Another Another God... you replaced a coherent creation with a loop that just goes outward.
Let's unravel that. Obviously there is a heavens and the Earth, and nothing could not have created it using no means. So we start with the one cause and the one effect, instead of infinite causes and one effect, and instead of no cause and one effect.
The rest was too fucking long, and I didn't want another 403 error.
-
As far as I'm concerned, God could decide whatever he wants.
i.e. God can be an evil piece of shit, so interacting does not necessarily make it better.
i.e. your garbage fails.
But if there's nothing there, praying to nothing always will have the same result. Nothing will happen.
Other than things like wasting time, having people cling to religious BS which results in the spread of so much hate, and so on.
God made our bodies.
Prove it.
My mothers body made me.
That's because I don't need to. Existence itself is evidence for the existence of God, whether you think he's an evil POS or not.
If it was, you wouldn't be trying to resort to such crap.
You wouldn't be switching back and forth between trying to argue god exists and trying to argue god is good.
But more importantly, if existence is proof of God, then God's existence would be proof of UBERGOD!
Let me tell you a story.
Or, how about you try to defend your BS.
If God is a POS, it's because he wants the best for us and others, even though we don't.
Or, because we are his play things and he likes tormenting us.
We are not talking benign cancer that mysteriously gets worse because you pray. We are talking about prayer that could make things worse, or still kill you if nothing is done, or could heal you. After all, we don't normally pray for little things.
Which means it could be good or bad.
I believe I was talking about you.
No, you were talking about Christians that do what they please and then pray for forgiveness.
Hitler was no Christian.
Hitler was a Christian, including during his rise to power.
But even if you wanted to reject him, there are plenty of other evil Christians.
Every time you bang your knee, every heartbreak, every loneliness... for all time. I believe only in Afterlife, I make no assumptions about it being forever, or just until you want to reincarnate. The difference between this and this life is that there is no body to feel such pain.
And if your evil POS did make us, why did it make us feel pain? Especially if there is the option to not feel pain?
Very well. And when you do evil, and blame the results on God, it is evil. It's your evil tho.
That entirely depends upon how you want to view God.
If that is part of God's plan, isn't it God's evil as well?
If God violated free will and forces someone to do something, isn't that God's evil?
Yes, and these people thought they were righteous.
So I provide several examples, and you just ignore them all, not being able to explain why they are actually good.
Why bother asking for examples when you have no intention of directly addressing them?
God moved them out of this, toward civilized culture.
And has done an incredibly poor job of it.
But a bigger question, why couldn't God start them like that?
Why did God need to go through such barbarity?
Btw, this is what that passage means.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent
His son had sex with him. That's what he was punished for, not merely showing his nakedness.
I'm well aware of that blatant misreprsentation of the passage, as well as the more common idea that they had sex with his wife.
And it makes sense, ... until you bother reading to see what else happens.
You know, that verse your lying pile of garabge dishonestly removes.
That verse which demonstrates the claim is pure BS.
Genesis 9:23 - "But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked."
Did they walk in backwards, with a garment draped between them, to make sure they didn't accidentally have sex with their father?
Who needs to go to those steps to make sure they don't accidentally rape someone?
No one.
So that is why the lying pile of garbage you reference intentionally leaves that out.
But considering you want to discuss the rape of parents, what about Lot's kids? The ones that decided to get their father drunk and rape him so they would get pregnant?
Or was the problem in your dishonest BS that it was a male having sex with a male? Because your god seems fine with raping your father.
That's what a recursive paradox is.
No, it isn't.
A recursive paradox would be that God created God.
Saying that a different being created God gives an infinite regress.
God makes the heavens and the Earth, until you ask, "Well, what made God?"
Another God makes God, Another Another God makes Another God, Another Another Another God makes Another Another God... you replaced a coherent creation with a loop that just goes outward.
No, I demonstrated the stupidity with your garbage.
Let's unravel that. Obviously there is a heavens and the Earth, and nothing could not have created it using no means.
And why can't we stick God in there instead?
According to you it is obvious that a god exists. And surely if you need a god to create something like Earth, you also need a god to create a god.
If you want to get out of it, its simple, you discard the BS premise that lead to an infinite series of gods.
You accept that complex things can exist without a god creating them.
And that means you stop at the universe.
-
Prove it. My mother's body made me.
If your mom and dad were the only ingredients, you would be a stillbirth (a corpse). The human being lives for 60+ years without incident, then decays within a month without outside help. This is because without a living body, the stomach, liver, and intestines literally create gas that explodes the body from the inside out.
During this bloating stage, the skin can slip and blister and marbling can occur, in which greenish-black blood vessels can be seen through the skin within about 24 to 48 hours of death, according to "Evaluation of Postmortem Change." Eventually, the bloat collapses, and in a process known as black putrefaction, the body's organs and tissues soften, and life forms such as insects and microbes eat the remaining soft tissues, leaving the skeletal remains.
In a very real sense, your spirit (btw, "breath" and "spirit" are synonymous in about half or more of human languages) is keeping your body from doing some very nasty things to itself. You stop breathing, the body autolyzes itself.
Stage One: Autolysis
The first stage of human decomposition is called autolysis, or self-digestion, and begins immediately after death. As soon as blood circulation and respiration stop, the body has no way of getting oxygen or removing wastes. Excess carbon dioxide causes an acidic environment, causing membranes in cells to rupture. The membranes release enzymes that begin eating the cells from the inside out.
Rigor mortis causes muscle stiffening. Small blisters filled with nutrient-rich fluid begin appearing on internal organs and the skin’s surface. The body will appear to have a sheen due to ruptured blisters, and the skin’s top layer will begin to loosen.
Stage Two: Bloat
Stage two of human decomposition consists of bloating to the body. Leaked enzymes from the first stage begin producing many gases. Due to the gases, the human body can double in size, giving it that bloated look.The sulfur-containing compounds that the bacteria release also cause skin discoloration. In addition, insect activity can be present.
The microorganisms and bacteria produce extremely unpleasant odors called putrefaction. These odors often alert others that a person has died, and can linger long after a body has been removed.
Stage Three: Active Decay
Fluids released through orifices indicate the beginning of active decay. Organs, muscles, and skin become liquefied. When all of the body’s soft tissue decomposes, hair, bones, cartilage, and other byproducts of decay remain. The cadaver loses the most mass during this stage.
Stage Four: Skeletonization
Because the skeleton has a decomposition rate based on the loss of organic (collagen) and inorganic components, there is no set timeframe when skeletonization occurs.
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.
3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
It only takes one month for the body to start to turn into liquid after death. Something that didn't happen in 60+ years of living. Is that proof enough for you? Your mom birthed you. But God made you live.
If it was, you wouldn't be trying to resort to such crap.
You wouldn't be switching back and forth between trying to argue god exists and trying to argue god is good.
I'm responding to your own waffling assertions between "God does not exist" and "God is a tyrannical POS." Pick one!
Which means it could be good or bad.
More often in practice, prayer either does nothing or a good effect.
If for instance, some Muslim severed your arm, you would not pray for that. We as humans only pray to cure things that are conditions that can heal. That is, it may heal faster on its own, but we typically wouldn't expect a complete regrowth of an organ. Cancer has sometimes been known to go into remission, or even disappear. My dad once talked about how he felt led to make a prayer that was basically "Make this cancer gone," and it actually worked. The prayer doesn't tend to do certain things, but it can effect changes that the person praying wants to some extent. So only a person convinced that God is their enemy would believe that prayer's normal effect is to quickly get worse. The normal effect is to slowly get worse (that is, for nothing to happen). The exceptional effect is for the prayer to be answered. It would be an extremely exceptional event for the prayer to actually makes things actively worse.
The third party studies (of prayer) reported either null results, correlated results, or contradictory results in which beneficiaries of prayer had worsened health outcomes. For instance, a meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 looked at 2774 patients in 23 studies, and found that 13 studies showed statistically significant positive results, 9 studies showed no effect, and 1 study showed a negative result
In 23 studies, there was only one contradictory result, the majority had marked improvement, and the minority was no effect, contrary to my prediction that no effect would be the more common result.
No, you were talking about Christians that do what they please and then pray for forgiveness.
I was talking about how you very definitely have had a bitter experience with Christians.
Atheists also do what they want, and blame God for the results of atheism.
Hitler was a Christian, including during his rise to power.
Hitler called himself a Christian. I could call myself a Hindu, start killing Buddhists, then when I'm done my next goal would be to kill Hindus. There's a term for this. It's called a false flag. As in, I wave a flag, declaring myself part of one group, and gullible idiots believe it.
And if your evil POS did make us, why did it make us feel pain? Especially if there is the option to not feel pain?
About that.
Not feeling pain is only good if you have an immortal body. Otherwise, you get terribly hurt without realizing it. Like cutting your arm off, and not noticing it.
If that is part of God's plan, isn't it God's evil as well?
If God violated free will and forces someone to do something, isn't that God's evil?
The reason evil exists, is because God has made himself subject to our free will. God will not stop you if you gouge out ten people's eyes. But now there are a bunch of people walking around with severed eyes.
God allows us to do our purpose or betray it. But God's original plan involved dying on a cross on behalf of evil people. So that even you, after gouging those eyes out, might have some chance to make things right.
So I provide several examples, and you just ignore them all, not being able to explain why they are actually good.
Okay then, we'll look at the examples again.
Set up Adam and Eve to fail
Lie to Adam and Eve
Which gave us a real world where we can make choices instead of a protected dollhouse where we weren't able to defy God.
Not give a damn about the world, until he decides to flood it and murder countless people.
Allowing these humans to have perfect freedom, until the world actually became horribly polluted.
Choosing to save Job from the destruction of Sodom, while killing everyone else there.
Suppose you went to a prison, and pulled out someone for good behavior. The rest are murderers or serial rapists. That's what God did. He was not obligated to save the psychopaths. He could have, but not moral law on Earth demands that.
Choosing to turn Job's wife into a pillar of salt.
Weird choice of words. If a volcano erupts, or an avalanche hits, and instead of making your way to the exit, you go back to get your iPad, is it the volcano's fault you are dead? Or are you dumb enough to value your stuff over your life?
Cursing one of Noah's sons for merely seeing his father naked.
Making humans naked when it is a sin to see people naked.
The literally term for showing nakedness, again, is a euphemism.
"Lev 20:17 If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity."
To expose someone's nakedness does not mean to point and laugh, "hahahaha, Noah is naked." It means that while he is drunk, you remove his clothes, and have sex with him. The language of the Bible is filled with terrible euphemisms. Feet for instance, means genitals. And when they say Adam removed a rib, "rib" is tsela also meaning side. Adam was originally a double-bodied man/woman. Men and women do not have different number of ribs.
Tormenting the Egyptians to show off.
Yes, because the Egyptians were poor suffering people. Wait no, God favored the Jews, who were being tormented for hundreds of years. The Egyptians killed their children. They whipped them. They forced them to make large bricks (sometimes without any straw) and then move them to make buildings. Their awful suffering was tolerated for years, until God had enough and put a stop to it. Tormenting them? No. There were ten distinct punishments with no torture involved.
Permitting rape and slavery, even encouraging it.
The entire world permitted slavery at the time these laws were made. An excerpt from a novel that a Jewish friend of mine wrote:
I showed him the text and he quickly read through it. When he finished, I asked "Since slavery is so evil, and this book shows how bad it is, why does it have all these laws about how to keep a slave? Why doesn't it just prohibit it, like it prohibits other common things?"
"In a world where slavery is common, what would happen if you abolish it outright? What is the effect of having all these rules about keeping a slave?" he answered my question with a question. I went
back to my room to think about it.
If one nation alone abolished slavery completely, it would draw the ire of all surrounding nations. If slaves kept escaping to it, sooner or later the other nations would ally against it and destroy it, and once it was destroyed, the idea of freedom would die with it.
On the other hand, all these rules required the master to provide his slaves with a minimum standard of living, give them a weekly day of rest, and prohibited more extreme punishments and abuses. The slaves would be happy that they were enslaved in this nation rather than in the neighboring nations, and in order to prevent slave uprisings, other nations would have to improve the way they treated their slaves. Moreover, it would force the masters to acknowledge that their slaves were people with dignity, and make slavery less profitable. Both would subtly discourage the practice of slavery.
Oh look, America and much of the West abolished slavery. What happened? Under the UN's open border system, human trafficking rises, and the sovereignty of America (and much of the West) begins to fall. Literally, the cause of Exodus and the Egyptians being "tormented" was mostly about slavery and abortion.
Demanding people mutilate the genitals of their children.
Which is strange, I'll admit. But these genitals, unlike victims of FGM, are actually functional. Also, if you've ever encountered a certain variety of clams, you have to peel off their foreskins, because they store grit and grime. The foreskin isn't that helpful.
And has done an incredibly poor job of it.
But a bigger question, why couldn't God start them like that?
Why did God need to go through such barbarity?
For the same reason that God doesn't start us all out as adults, but makes us spend time as children. Some things are a process. You who have never made any such progress, are you superior to them?
"But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked."
In the process of having sex with his father, he stripped him naked. The Jews are prudes. The same friend earlier thinks that Western swimsuits are terribly immodest, and that these dorky things are sensible.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/ouwp/images/f_auto,q_auto/v1689525418/ouredesign/life/modest-swimwear/modest-swimwear.jpg?_i=AA)
The act of sex is one thing, the stripping him naked is another. They didn't want to be complicit in their brothers actions, and wanted to return some dignity to him. That doesn't change the fact that Noah was fucked up the ass by his son.
Or was the problem in your dishonest BS that it was a male having sex with a male? Because your god seems fine with raping your father.
Women get cut all kinds of breaks. Of course that is fine.
A recursive paradox would be that God created God.
Saying that a different being created God gives an infinite regress.
That's a loop. A recursion is an infinite regress.
It doesn't actually matter whether the same person does something, or infinite number of different folk do it. It's the repetition of the event. It doesn't actually matter whether the same man does something, or infinite number of different people do it. It's the repetition of the event. It doesn't actually matter whether the same guy does something, or infinite number of different citizens do it. It's the repetition of the event.
Little details like changes in subject don't matter so much as that you heard the same thing three times.
And why can't we stick God in there instead?
According to you it is obvious that a god exists. And surely if you need a god to create something like Earth, you also need a god to create a god.
And according to you, the only two (clearly obvious) options are that nothing exploded and created everything, or that if I say a God created things, he cannot be self-existing, so we have to have an endless chain of sorta gods do one thing, to create the God who creates the universe. If they were only strong enough to create the next God before going poof into your imagination, what good are they? God exists, not because something had to make him, not because there was a time where he didn't exist. He exists because he always was, and is, and will be.
I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to understand.
https://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html
A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist.
You know that things do exist. But even if you didn't, there naturally would have to be an illusionist to convince you of their existence. This still demands a Creator, even though the world is now unreal.
-
If your mom and dad were the only ingredients, you would be a stillbirth (a corpse).
They aren't ingredients, it is more of a factory.
A factory that takes in energy in the form of food to carry out work.
It only takes one month for the body to start to turn into liquid after death. Something that didn't happen in 60+ years of living. Is that proof enough for you?
No. That isn't proof at all.
All you are doing is showing a living body is different to a corpse.
I'm responding to your own waffling assertions between "God does not exist" and "God is a tyrannical POS." Pick one!
Except that isn't my assertion. I am correctly stating that there is no reason to believe a god exists, not that a god does not exist.
They are only in direct response to what you have said.
So why don't you pick one.
More often in practice, prayer either does nothing or a good effect.
There is no evidence to indicate it ever does anything.
If for instance, some Muslim severed your arm, you would not pray for that. We as humans only pray to cure things that are conditions that can heal.
Because people deep down recognise that prayer is useless garbage and it wont do that are impossible.
With this, you are basically admitting that prayer is useless and does nothing.
If prayer actually worked, you would pray for that.
What, you don't want to give up 5 minutes to pray to try to get a functional arm back?
My dad once talked about how he felt led to make a prayer that was basically "Make this cancer gone," and it actually worked.
Did it? Or did it do absolutely nothing?
So only a person convinced that God is their enemy would believe that prayer's normal effect is to quickly get worse.
How many people have prayed to have their loved one get better, only for it to get worse?
How many people have prayed to have their loved one make it through a surgery, only for them to die?
There is no evidence of any affect of prayer.
I was talking about how you very definitely have had a bitter experience with Christians.
So you weren't talking about I said then.
Atheists also do what they want, and blame God for the results of atheism.
No, atheists don't blame god.
Hitler called himself a Christian.
There is no evidence to suggest he only called himself a Christian, rather than actually being one.
However, again, there are plenty of examples.
Like all the Christians that followed him.
Not feeling pain is only good if you have an immortal body. Otherwise, you get terribly hurt without realizing it. Like cutting your arm off, and not noticing it.
Which is just pushing the problem around.
Why make this body able to get hurt?
You are saying your god enjoys suffering so much that it decided to make us a body which gets hurt and feels pain rather than the alternative where our bodies wouldn't get hurt and we wouldn't feel pain.
And yet, there are even some people with an ailment that makes them unable to feel pain.
The reason evil exists, is because God has made himself subject to our free will.
Except God happily violates that. And that is no excuse anyway.
It would also mean God can't have a plan that must happen.
Which gave us a real world where we can make choices instead of a protected dollhouse where we weren't able to defy God.
If God wanted this real world, why not start with it?
What is the actual purpose of setting Adam and Eve up to fail?
Instead, it is used as a pathetic excuse for why there is evil in the world.
But this is just showing that evil is God's plan.
Allowing these humans to have perfect freedom, until the world actually became horribly polluted.
Which doesn't address it at all.
Why allow the world to become horribly polluted?
Why murder everyone except a few?
Suppose you went to a prison, and pulled out someone for good behavior. The rest are murderers or serial rapists.
Except they aren't.
Weird choice of words. If a volcano erupts, or an avalanche hits, and instead of making your way to the exit, you go back to get your iPad, is it the volcano's fault you are dead? Or are you dumb enough to value your stuff over your life?
Again, not addressing it.
Why should turning to look back result in them being turned to salt?
The literally term for showing nakedness, again, is a euphemism.
Again, I demonstrated that is pure BS.
Why would the brothers need to walk in backwards with a garment draped between them to make sure they didn't accidently rape their father?
It makes no sense in the context you present.
But it makes perfect sense (in a coherent narrative, not the punishment being just) if it was literally seeing them naked.
It being a euphemism in one place does not mean that it is a euphemism in every place.
And when they say Adam removed a rib, "rib" is tsela also meaning side.
I prefer the more rational interpretation. Rib means supporting structure.
And humans are one the few mammals without a penis bone.
Problem solved.
Yes, because the Egyptians were poor suffering people.
Yes, including the slave at the well that had their first born child murdered.
Wait no, God favored the Jews
Yet set up the events to make them slaves in Egypt.
Tormenting them? No. There were ten distinct punishments with no torture involved.
Torment does not necessarily involve torture.
The plagues were tormenting them.
Again, what is the purpose of them?
If God wanted to free the Jews, he could have told Moses to gather the Jews and go.
Instead, he hardened the pharaoh's heart (i.e. directly interfering with free will so the pharaoh wouldn't let them go), and sent in various plagues to make the Egyptians suffer.
Why?
Well conveniently the Bible tells us. So his wonders would multiply.
i.e. God did it to show off.
And what's your excuse? Well the Egyptians were mean to the Jews.
The entire world permitted slavery at the time these laws were made.
Which is no excuse for God allowing it.
And definitely no excuse for encouraging it.
If one nation alone abolished slavery completely, it would draw the ire of all surrounding nations. If slaves kept escaping to it, sooner or later the other nations would ally against it and destroy it, and once it was destroyed, the idea of freedom would die with it.
i.e. the Jews were not protected by a loving God.
They were just a nation of people, with rules made by people.
Oh look, America and much of the West abolished slavery. What happened?
Who cares, because they didn't have a god supporting them.
If an all powerful god abolished it, it would be different.
Which is strange, I'll admit. But these genitals, unlike victims of FGM, are actually functional.
Not strange, evil.
There is no justification for it.
And for both MGM and FGM, the functionality varies depending on the extent of mutilation and how it is performed.
For the same reason that God doesn't start us all out as adults, but makes us spend time as children. Some things are a process.
Except it clearly isn't.
When we start out as Children, we don't start out in such a barbaric land and grow up to become adults here.
We instead grow up in this much more civilised world.
What advantage is there in starting out with such barbarity?
And was the process initially so much of a failure that god had to murder basically everyone?
Just think, if God actually gave a damn and wasn't incompetent, we could start out in a quite ideal society and you wouldn't have had things like Noah's flood, or the plauges of Egypt, or Sodom being wiped out.
-
In the process of having sex with his father, he stripped him naked. The Jews are prudes. The same friend earlier thinks that Western swimsuits are terribly immodest, and that these dorky things are sensible.
The act of sex is one thing, the stripping him naked is another. They didn't want to be complicit in their brothers actions, and wanted to return some dignity to him. That doesn't change the fact that Noah was fucked up the ass by his son.
That is not a fact. That is your perversion of the story.
It makes it clear that they did not want to see him naked. That is why they did it.
They could have just gone in and put the sheet over him.
The only way in which your garbage makes sense is if you believe they were doing this to make sure they didn't accidentally rape him.
Otherwise, the far more logical interpretation is that one saw their dad naked, and the others then covered him.
Women get cut all kinds of breaks. Of course that is fine.
So your god is fine with a woman raping her father, but not a man.
So more evil BS.
That's a loop. A recursion is an infinite regress.
No, it isn't.
An infinite regress is NOT a loop.
If you need an example, consider counting, and as we want it to be a regress, we will count backwards from 0. To find the "First number".
There is an integer below 0, -1.
But there is also one below that, -2.
And so on.
This continues forever.
But it never repeats.
It is not a loop. It is not recursion.
It doesn't actually matter whether the same person does something, or infinite number of different folk do it. It's the repetition of the event.
And again, if this a problem, all that means is your argument for the existence of a god is BS because it leads to such a problem.
To be honest and consistent, you either accept the infinite regress, or you reject the argument that caused it.
You do not dishonestly construct a double standard, where you apply the argument to get what you want, and then stop it applying to go further than you want.
And according to you, the only two (clearly obvious) options are that nothing exploded and created everything, or that if I say a God created things, he cannot be self-existing, so we have to have an endless chain of sorta gods do one thing, to create the God who creates the universe.
My argument is simple.
If a god can exist without cause, why can't the universe?
Likewise, if the universe needs a god to create it, then so does your god.
You cannot provide a logically consistent reason for why the universe should need a creator, but not your god.
And you again misrepresent reality.
It is not NOTHING exploded.
It is a singularity decayed.
We have no idea what was before the big bang other than that singularity.
We have no idea if it was created by something else, if it was a virtual partial, if it existed forever, and so on.
If they were only strong enough to create the next God before going poof into your imagination
Who says they went poof?
If you would like a comparison, you believe your god allegedly made us.
Now consider the games we play, including games like Sim City, and the Sims.
In these games we act as a god.
We create the world, and control it.
In some, we can change the rules as we see fit.
So now consider it in terms of the people of these games, speculating that their world must be created and governed by a god.
That god would be us.
So your argument is that your god is useless.
I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to understand.
Again, I understand just fine.
The problem is why can't this apply to the universe?
That the universe does not exist because it was created, but because it always existed in some form?
The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be.
Just like the theists that want to claim the universe came from somewhere. Specifically their god.
Again, ultimately the question is why is there something rather than nothing.
Any "thing", including a god, you suggest CANNOT answer the question.
All it can do is push it back.
In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
In the same way, the universe is not in the category of things that are created or caused. The universe is uncaused and uncreated—It simply exists.
Notice the issue?
The argument you put forward for why your god doesn't need a creator can apply to the universe.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes.
And taking the simple option, that would mean that the universe has always existed in some form.
There is no reason to suggest a god exists from this.
It is also unsupported, as already demonstrated by virtual particles.
What we actually know is that things suppress the formation ex nihlo of other things.
i.e. it isn't that from nothing, nothing comes.
Instead it is from something, nothing extra comes.
-
No. That isn't proof at all.
All you are doing is showing a living body is different to a corpse.
Exactly. A body is not a sum of chemicals. It has an anima, a driving force.
Except that isn't my assertion. I am correctly stating that there is no reason to believe a god exists, not that a god does not exist. They are only in direct response to what you have said. So why don't you pick one.
I don't need to. God exists. God is also good (and does/allows evil in order to produce overall improvement in humanity).
There is no issue here.
Now you.
On the one hand, we have you telling us God doesn't exist, and Jesus never lived.
On the other hand, you tell us God is a tyrannical POS.
"Man, I hate flying green porcupines! They're all over nowhere and they don't exist, and I just loathe them!"
There is no evidence to indicate (prayer) ever does anything.
If we're gonna be perfectly clinical, prayer is a placebo effect. Guess what? Placebo has demonstrated efficacy, enough that they have to measure medicines against it (as in, 15% more effective than placebo).
Did it? Or did it do absolutely nothing?
End result, complete cancer remission.
No, atheists don't blame god.
Oh? What about "God is a tyrannical POS" isn't blaming God for things?
There is no evidence to suggest he only called himself a Christian, rather than actually being one.
However, again, there are plenty of examples.
Like all the Christians that followed him.
There's historians that can slap you around for that. Wikipedia itself says otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
And Christians have never followed after false leaders, thinking they are the great, right? Explain Trump.
Which is just pushing the problem around.
Why make this body able to get hurt?
Pain is an important quality for self-preservation, and an even more important quality for empathy. If we humans were functionally free of pain and suffering but had the ability to kill and eat other creatures, we would have no remorse about the lives of other living things. In the same way, that I care at all about your theoretical cancer mom is because I knew what pain feels like. It's also an important learning tool. Cats don't go to houses where water has been sprayed on them.
Except God happily violates that. And that is no excuse anyway.
It would also mean God can't have a plan that must happen.
Seems to me like you have a ton of freedom actually. Where is God interfering in your free will?
No, it means that God deliberately withholds omnipotence to instead let us determine our own happiness. If you were to closely examine all of the events God supposedly violated free will, you would find that most evil done to others is actually of human origin. Is that terrible? Yes. Does it seem unacceptable that God doesn't mete out justice for every guy who runs a red light and causes a kid's death?
Only if you think God is not responsible for causing life, but is responsible for causing death.
If God wanted this real world, why not start with it?
What is the actual purpose of setting Adam and Eve up to fail?
Why don't you look at the story with fresh eyes? Knowledge of good and evil is the ability to make choices about things. But you can't gain the ability to make choices without being informed what is good and what is evil, and making a choice to have the ability to choose. Yes, it's very screwy logic, but this is the explanation of what happened in Eden.
Why murder everyone except a few?
Yet you believe in natural selection, correct?
What happens when those most fit for the kingdom of God survive? Both the result to the non-fittest and to the fittest?
Care to explain your own contradiction?
Except they aren't.
Canonically, they were. They wanted to butt-sex some angel boys. Liberal Christians try to defend gayness by saying it's some other issue, but this misses the point. Sodom was basically a town that had turned into a 20th century prison. Though there were girls there (and Lot even offered his daughters to these people), they wanted to rape.
Why should turning to look back result in them being turned to salt?
Because she wasn't moving fast enough if she was sitting there looking back. The others continued to get away, even though it seemed like a safe spot.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107688808100712
This was turned as in a magical transformation. Under extreme heat, her body turned into calcite.
We must recognize first that the ancient ancestors of the Hebrews did not have access to atomic
absorption spectroscopy to distinguish one salt from another. Hence we can assume that they used the
word 'salt' in a generic sense to refer to any solid with mineral character and a salt-like taste.
They go on to say that the conversion of carbon to calcite is not entirely implausible give the temperature.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1210007942745690213/Equation1.png?ex=65e8feb6&is=65d689b6&hm=b17c4efc3e6d72d4460e21e7c6b3ae7677b63cd5b829f9cce76344ed50d5ce8a&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1210008097179836526/Equation2.png?ex=65e8fedb&is=65d689db&hm=ee0e89c72f4e5ab3bd0fda4d88bb79344f332b508b72beac34cec3620ff98652&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1210008164683091988/Equation3.png?ex=65e8feeb&is=65d689eb&hm=369c2f142cbebe75ebed5723812df6949dc2cbad9c2e4c3ca1d2646013ad2940&)
Thus by turning around in her direction of flight, Mrs Lot exposed herself instantly to stresses that
generated immediate enormous escalations in concentrations of (Ca 2+ ) and (C0 2 ) , so that the critical
limits specified by equation (6) were exceeded overwhelmingly and instantaneously
Turning around literally killed her.
But this is how it likely happened chemically.
Torment does not necessarily involve torture.
1. Great physical pain or mental anguish.
2. A source of harassment, annoyance, or pain.
3. The torture inflicted on prisoners under interrogation.
Yeah it kinda does. The punishment of Egypt was death not "torment." It was swift and brutal, but it was not torment.
Again, what is the purpose of them?
If God wanted to free the Jews, he could have told Moses to gather the Jews and go.
And they wouldn't really be free. Runaway slaves are bound by papers of slavery, and by contract get returned to their owner. God set up the terms where pharaoh would void their contract. Moreover, they were apparently awarded gold and cattle for their troubles.
Btw, these plagues? Each of them attacks one of the Egyptian gods.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Ten-Plagues-For-Ten-Gods
i.e. the Jews were not protected by a loving God.
They were just a nation of people, with rules made by people.
These rules were basically like a tax on slavery. If you want to discourage something, you heap heavy regulations on it. They were laws made by a people who themselves had been horribly enslaved.
Who cares, because they didn't have a god supporting them.
If an all powerful god abolished it, it would be different.
Try to keep up.
https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/
When we start out as Children, we don't start out in such a barbaric land and grow up to become adults here.
We instead grow up in this much more civilised world.
Do you not understand what history is? It's progress built atop previous mistakes. There had to be a Stone Age for there to be a modern age. Erasing history you don't like is to have amnesia. Rather that progress, it means to repeat mistakes.
So yes, we we can bring modern sensibilities to an amazingly modern document for its time, condemning it for not being obviously against slaves. But you don't set up rules for the treatment of slaves unless you intend they be treated better at some later time.
-
Exactly. A body is not a sum of chemicals.
It is an autocatalytic chemical system.
A system which requires input, and which if you stop it functioning, it then stops completely.
You can think of it like an engine, which runs a fuel pump, which takes in fuel and burns to keep running and take in more fuel.
If you stop it, it stops.
On the one hand, we have you telling us God doesn't exist, and Jesus never lived.
On the other hand, you tell us God is a tyrannical POS.
Again, I can describe fictional characters as evil.
I can also say that if something exists in this world, then it is evil.
And no, for the most part I am saying there is no reason to think a god exists.
And I only bring up it being an evil POS, when people like you decide to bring it up and pretend it is good.
Again, there is nothing wrong with showing the god of the bible is evil, using the bible, even while thinking it is entirely fictional.
And there is nothing wrong with saying if your god exists in this world it is evil.
The point is to show that this world is incompatible with a loving god.
If we're gonna be perfectly clinical, prayer is a placebo effect.
i.e. your god does nothing.
End result, complete cancer remission.
Which doesn't address the question.
Oh? What about "God is a tyrannical POS" isn't blaming God for things?
I don't blame god for things in reality. In the work of fiction of the Bible, God is an evil POS.
There's historians that can slap you around for that. Wikipedia itself says otherwise.
Are you suggesting wikipedia says I'm wrong, or contradicts those historians?
"In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "not a Catholic, but a German Christian"."
"His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity, but later totally rejected it."
But again, there are plenty of other examples.
Pain is an important quality for self-preservation
Only if that needs to be preseved.
You have already indicated there is no pain in the afterlife. So why should it be needed here?
If we humans were functionally free of pain and suffering but had the ability to kill and eat other creatures
So maybe your god should have made it so we don't need to kill and eat other things to live?
Seems to me like you have a ton of freedom actually. Where is God interfering in your free will?
Again, the Bible provides plenty of examples.
Free will as an excuse doesn't hold.
Why don't you look at the story with fresh eyes? Knowledge of good and evil is the ability to make choices about things. But you can't gain the ability to make choices without being informed what is good and what is evil, and making a choice to have the ability to choose. Yes, it's very screwy logic, but this is the explanation of what happened in Eden.
Why don't you follow your own advice.
Instead of looking it through the lens of "God must be good", choose to critically examine it and see if it matches the behaviour of a good being.
I'll give you a hint, it doesn't.
As you said, in order to be able to make choices, you need to have that knowledge.
That means without that knowledge you couldn't make an informed choice, so it was basically God choosing anyway.
Either the end result is good so God should have skipped the BS and just made man with knowledge of good and evil, or the end result is bad, and god set up Adam and Eve to fail.
There is no way out of it.
Yet you believe in natural selection, correct?
Nature is not an omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being.
Deflecting to nature wont save you.
Care to explain your own contradiction?
Care to try and demonstrate a contradiction?
Canonically, they were.
No, they weren't.
Not all of them.
Meanwhile, Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Yet Lot was the one God saved?
Meanwhile, the men betrothed to the daughters seemed to be fine, but thought Lot was just making crap up when he said God was going to destroy the city.
They didn't seem to be in the group of people who approached Lot's house. Not to mention it appeared to be only men. What about all the other women? What about the children?
Because she wasn't moving fast enough if she was sitting there looking back.
Still no justification.
Especially as God, interfering with magic, would have had no safe distance.
Yeah it kinda does. The punishment of Egypt was death not "torment."
Except your own definition shows it doesn't.
The Egyptians didn't just get death. They got a series of plagues to torment them while your evil POS showed off.
And they wouldn't really be free. Runaway slaves
And your god couldn't make them free?
And what happened after they left, the Egyptians chased after them only to get swept away by the red sea.
You are making excuses for your evil POS.
These rules were basically like a tax on slavery. If you want to discourage something, you heap heavy regulations on it.
Or if you are an omnipotent, omniscient being, you prohibit it outright and prevent it happening.
Try to keep up.
Follow your own advice.
I don't recall God ever coming down and interacting with the world to stop slavery in the US.
The point is it was MEN doing it. Not a god.
Those men may have appealed to a god, but it was the men doing it.
There had to be a Stone Age for there to be a modern age.
No, there doesn't. Not if you have a god to simply set up the modern age.
If that were true, every single person alive would need to start out at the stone age.
But you don't set up rules for the treatment of slaves unless you intend they be treated better at some later time.
Do you mean better than the rules you establish?
If you are an omnipotent god, you don't make rules for the treatment of slaves, unless you are fine with slavery.
-
If you are an omnipotent god, you don't make rules for the treatment of slaves, unless you are fine with slavery.
Suppose I were to run a small nation called Bulmabriefsia. Now keep in mind, all of the "civilized" countries around me not only have slaves but beat them horribly, rape them, and the beat and rape their little children. They can be murdered a whim.
I declare, "Nobody in this country will be enslaved! We in Bulmabriefsia don't want slaves to be a thing," exactly as the US and the West tried to. So what happens?
Well first, so-called progressives open the borders wide, allowing literally anyone who wants to invade us. But while this is going on, a great deal of human trafficking starts. Businesses get hooked on the idea of cheap labor, pleasure district sends little children to sick places.
But even if none of that artificial immigration happened, natural immigration in the form of runaway slaves would start to trickle in. Sooner or later, other countries notice. Bulmabriefsia is attacked on all sides, and being a tiny country, it goes poof. Slavery goes back to before.
OR
I set up competitive standards for my slaves. My slaves get a day off every week, I am taxed for owning them, they are set free every 50 years of work, there are certain standards to my treatment of them and their children. When other countries visit, they see how I treat my slaves, and the slaves see how I treat my slaves, and suddenly the slaveowners get desperate to avoid a slave revolt in their own country. This omnipotent God has arranged a system whereby a much smaller country has shamed all the surrounding countries to treat their slaves better.
The amazing part (as kabool would say), is that I will wager money that you aren't anti-slavery. That your own house has some kind of hired help who is paid in less than ideal terms and/or that you have recently supported open borders, who promotes this very sort of trafficking. But you accuse away at Christians and Jews even though your actual values have nothing to do with that. You just want to discredit religion, you don't care about being moral.
(I might answer the other responses later)
-
Again, I can describe fictional characters as evil.
You can't simultaneously call God fictional, and blame him for every major disaster in this world. Suspension of disbelief prevents us from doing this, because imaginary characters are not a real part of real life. Therefore, if you make God the source of blame in this world, you very much do accept he exists.
The point is to show that this world is incompatible with a loving god.
The world is very much compatible with a loving God. If you were to stop reading the news for 100 days, and just go outside, you'd see berries to eat in nearby trees, crops that you planted, you'd see neighbors down the street celebrating their new kid. You'd see harvest festivals, and all sorts of joy. Then you turn on the news, and there are murders, wars, and all sorts of evil.
"Dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is news."
This was something I learned in journalism class. It's not news if it's the normal thing. So everything you see on the news? It's the exception.
i.e. your god does nothing.
Placebo effect is remarkably effective, actually. Giving patients a placebo drug literally marked "placebo", has 50% effect of the actual medicine, according to studies. According to other studies, the nocebo effect (that is, negative placebo) actually heightens the effect of placebo to nearly 100%. That is, if I were to hand you salt pills that were colored to look like Nexium, it wold be slightly more than that 50% because it is convincing. But if I were to do an experiment (which has been done) where one group is handed the actual drug, two groups are handed placebo, but one of those groups gets listed the side effects, guess what they found?
The group that heard the side effects, experienced the side effects. And efficacy of the placebo jumped to about 100%. That's right, your own mind can give you side effects mirroring those listed by the drug.
I don't blame god for things in reality. In the work of fiction of the Bible, God is an evil POS.
Suuuure.
Are you suggesting wikipedia says I'm wrong, or contradicts those historians?
Wikipedia says you're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.
In early 1937, he was declaring that "Christianity was ripe for destruction" (Untergang), and that the churches must therefore yield to the "primacy of the state", railing against "the most horrible institution imaginable"
He was not a practising Christian but had somehow succeeded in masking his own religious skepticism from millions of German voters. Though Hitler has often been portrayed as a neo-pagan, or the centrepiece of a political religion in which he played the Godhead, his views had much more in common with the revolutionary iconoclasm of the Bolshevik enemy.
You have already indicated there is no pain in the afterlife. So why should it be needed here?
Because we have bodies in this world, in order to learn and to grow our souls.
So maybe your god should have made it so we don't need to kill and eat other things to live?
And then we'd just sit there. All culinary art would cease. We couldn't use plants and animals for anything. Bye bye wool, paint, paper, medicine, etc, etc, etc.
Why don't you follow your own advice.
Instead of looking it through the lens of "God must be good", choose to critically examine it and see if it matches the behaviour of a good being.
Yeah, it does. Living in a perfect garden is fun and all, but there's nothing to do, nothing to paint, nothing to create.
There are no stakes.
As you said, in order to be able to make choices, you need to have that knowledge.
That means without that knowledge you couldn't make an informed choice, so it was basically God choosing anyway.
The serpent, who as he was created by God, was given words to speak from God, gave them all they needed for informed consent. "You will not die, but live, for God knows that when you eat of it, you will become wise..." Both of these were true. Eve, hearing this understood that yes, you might become mortal, but you also have the ability to choose things that are contrary to God. She was given informed consent. She made a choice, despite the fact that as per the story, she shouldn't have had the power to make a choice. In other words, the fruit of knowledge of good and evil wasn't eating the fruit, but choosing to eat the fruit.
Nature is not an omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being.
Deflecting to nature wont save you.
Funny. But when you describe the Big Bang, you speak in terms of an eternal universe creating itself into a sense of order, and then selecting only the best species. All of a sudden, you retreat from that position?
Not all of them
Abraham bargains with God asking him to spare it if the town as 50 good men. Then 40, 30, 20, and finally 10. Not even 10 good men can be found in Sodom. It is a town filled with Sodomites.
Meanwhile, Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Yet Lot was the one God saved?
Yes, because he tried to appease them to keep the peace. They wanted to rape these visitors instead.
It perfectly is a justification. This was akin to outrunning an explosion or volcanic eruption. If you just sit and stare, because you seem to be away from the blast zone, the convection will still kill you.
Except your own definition shows it doesn't.
The Egyptians didn't just get death. They got a series of plagues to torment them while your evil POS showed off.
They get a series of deadly plagues. Let's see, their water is tainted, their meat is tainted, and eventually their bread is tainted (and the firstborn gets first bite of it). They weren't tortured. They were simply killed, knowing that their gods were dumb idols. They didn't just suffer, they died.
And your god couldn't make them free?
And what happened after they left, the Egyptians chased after them only to get swept away by the red sea.
On the contrary, God did make them free. And he made their freedom official by making pharaoh swear to it. That he broke his vow was what doomed his people.
Or if you are an omnipotent, omniscient being, you prohibit it outright and prevent it happening.
You tell me over and again, that God is a tyrannical POS. But you want God to behave like a dictator, surveilling and policing ever behavior. Should God prevent all car accidents by making it physically impossible for humans to jaywalk?
Follow your own advice.
I don't recall God ever coming down and interacting with the world to stop slavery in the US.
The point is it was MEN doing it. Not a god.
Those men may have appealed to a god, but it was the men doing it.
Men receiving advice from a book attributed to God.
No, there doesn't. Not if you have a god to simply set up the modern age.
If that were true, every single person alive would need to start out at the stone age.
We have tried to transplant Muslims into civilized countries. They usually go on raping, killing, and enslaving like they did in their original country. Likewise, despite Rome having some modern tech like cement and a plumbing system, they were still vicious brutes. Same for the Egyptians and their architecture. This is because a location is just a location. It is the development of people and their behavior that is important. Whether you think this is about growth of the soul or just history, the point is that progress cannot be "skipped over".
-
If you are an omnipotent god, you don't make rules for the treatment of slaves, unless you are fine with slavery.
Suppose I were to run a small nation called Bulmabriefsia.
In this fantasy of yours, are you an omnipotent god?
Bulmabriefsia is attacked on all sides, and being a tiny country, it goes poof. Slavery goes back to before.
So no. You aren't an omnipotent god.
Try it again with an omnipotent god.
Where your nation is attacked, and the attacks are repelled. They have no way to stop your country, because an omnipotent god is defending it.
Again, all you are saying there is that it wasn't a god deciding it. Instead it was a bunch of primitive men.
The amazing part (as kabool would say), is that I will wager money that you aren't anti-slavery.
You do like making up pure BS.
You just want to discredit religion, you don't care about being moral.
Quite the opposite. Your cult is not moral.
That is one reason why I oppose it.
-
You can't simultaneously call God fictional, and blame him for every major disaster in this world.
Again, I don't.
In the Bible, God is evil.
If God is in control of the world, like you want to pretend, then it is evil.
A loving god is fundamentally incompatible with this world.
I don't need to believe it exists to say these things.
And I can use it to show why belief in such a god is stupid.
The world is very much compatible with a loving God. If you were to stop reading the news for 100 days
I.e. if you entirely ignore so much of the evil happening in this world.
If there was a loving god, you wouldn't need to ignore the evil.
This was something I learned in journalism class. It's not news if it's the normal thing. So everything you see on the news? It's the exception.
Wrong again.
Even if it is normal, if it is still shocking, it can be news.
But again, that is no excuse.
If a loving god existed, they wouldn't be the exception. They wouldn't happen.
Placebo effect is remarkably effective
But not your god doing anything.
Saying it is your mind doing it, is not saying it is God.
And that means you praying for something not directly involving you, without the person it involving hearing, doesn't generate that placebo effect.
Wikipedia says you're wrong.
Yet it indicated he was a Christian.
Regardless, Christians seemed happy to support him. And again, there are plenty of other examples.
Because we have bodies in this world, in order to learn and to grow our souls.
And why do we need bodies to learn?
And then we'd just sit there. All culinary art would cease.
You mean living things wouldn't be pointlessly destroyed? Pointlessly made to suffer?
We couldn't use plants and animals for anything. Bye bye wool, paint, paper, medicine, etc, etc, etc.
Wrong again.
You don't need to harm a sheep to remove its wool.
Paint can come from minerals.
Yes, we wouldn't have medicine. But we wouldn't need it.
Yeah, it does. Living in a perfect garden is fun and all, but there's nothing to do, nothing to paint, nothing to create.
So what are you planning on doing in the afterlife?
Just killing yourself because you are bored?
The serpent, who as he was created by God, was given words to speak from God, gave them all they needed for informed consent.
They still lacked the necessary ability to know good and evil to make that choice.
But all you are saying here is that God lied and the serpant told the truth.
Eve, hearing this understood that yes, you might become mortal
How? The serpent literally said they wouldn't die?
And the Bible makes it clear that they were already mortal there.
Eating the fruit didn't make them mortal.
Not eating the fruit of the tree of life meant they never became immortal.
She made a choice
Did she? Or did she just accept what the serpent said and follow it?
Without being able to evaluate if it is good or evil, did she really make a meaningful choice?
Funny.
Not funny, just typical pathetic theistic behaviour.
You can't defend your evil POS, so you deflect.
Abraham bargains with God asking him to spare it if the town as 50 good men. Then 40, 30, 20, and finally 10. Not even 10 good men can be found in Sodom.
They didn't look.
They went into Sodom.
Went into Lots, place, found Lot.
Lot went to the two men that were betrothed to his daughters, which clearly weren't among the evil.
Then the angels fled and decided to let the town be destroyed.
They did not look for those 10 good men.
And Lot, freely offering up his daughters to be raped, is clearly not a good man.
So we have the 2 men betrothed to Lot's daughters (I wonder how they would have reacted had they heard Lot was offering up their future wives to be raped?) who were good, who are destroyed, all the innocent women and children are destroyed; while Lot, an abhorrent, sub-human piece of shit, gets to live?
But it makes sense coming from an evil POS, that decided to test his chosen psychopath by ordering him to murder his son and see if he would blindly obey.
Yes, because he tried to appease them to keep the peace.
Which is not an excuse.
It perfectly is a justification.
Not when an omnipotent god is doing it.
If an omnipotent god is doing it it either confines or waits until those it chose to save are outside the area effected.
She was murdered for disobedience.
They get a series of deadly plagues.
The "deadliness" of this varies.
But the point is, they weren't simply killed like you pretend.
Do you really think having tainted water is a quick and painless death?
No.
They were tormented by an evil POS to show off.
On the contrary, God did make them free.
That is not on the contrary at all.
Your God MADE them slaves. It was his plan.
He then made sure the pharaoh would not let them go until he was finished showing off.
That he broke his vow was what doomed his people.
So going back on a promise, rather than keeping slaves?
You tell me over and again, that God is a tyrannical POS. But you want God to behave like a dictator, surveilling and policing ever behavior.
Your god already acts like a dictator. Just like your preachers.
If he wasn't going to be a dic, then he would consult people to see what the rules should be.
Instead, he boldly proclaims the rules, and sentences people to death for violating them, or other horrible treatments.
Not acting to stop people doesn't make him less of a dic.
And it doesn't require policing every behaviour, just those which cause harm.
If you wanted a middle ground, you could even have it only respond when people ask for help. e.g. if someone is about to be brutally raped/murdered and they ask your evil POS for protection, then instead of watching and doing nothing, it could act.
Should God prevent all car accidents by making it physically impossible for humans to jaywalk?
This comes back to the previous issue. Why do humans need to be able to be hurt?
If humans can't get injured from a car accident (and even better if the car can't) then it really isn't an issue.
Men receiving advice from a book attributed to God.
IS NOT GOD coming down and putting an end to slavery.
We have tried to transplant Muslims into civilized countries.
Which is NOTHING like what I said.
That is taking someone who has grown up in one culture, and placing them in a different culture.
If you instead take a new born child from that culture, and place it into a different one, it grows up just like all the other children in that culture.
What was preventing your god from starting with the appropriate culture and raising people in that culture?
-
You can't simultaneously call God fictional, and blame him for every major disaster in this world.
Again, I don't.
In the Bible, God is evil.
If God is in control of the world, like you want to pretend, then it is evil.
A loving god is fundamentally incompatible with this world.
I don't need to believe it exists to say these things.
And I can use it to show why belief in such a god is stupid.
The world is very much compatible with a loving God. If you were to stop reading the news for 100 days
I.e. if you entirely ignore so much of the evil happening in this world.
If there was a loving god, you wouldn't need to ignore the evil.
This was something I learned in journalism class. It's not news if it's the normal thing. So everything you see on the news? It's the exception.
Wrong again.
Even if it is normal, if it is still shocking, it can be news.
But again, that is no excuse.
If a loving god existed, they wouldn't be the exception. They wouldn't happen.
Placebo effect is remarkably effective
But not your god doing anything.
Saying it is your mind doing it, is not saying it is God.
And that means you praying for something not directly involving you, without the person it involving hearing, doesn't generate that placebo effect.
Wikipedia says you're wrong.
Yet it indicated he was a Christian.
Regardless, Christians seemed happy to support him. And again, there are plenty of other examples.
Because we have bodies in this world, in order to learn and to grow our souls.
And why do we need bodies to learn?
And then we'd just sit there. All culinary art would cease.
You mean living things wouldn't be pointlessly destroyed? Pointlessly made to suffer?
We couldn't use plants and animals for anything. Bye bye wool, paint, paper, medicine, etc, etc, etc.
Wrong again.
You don't need to harm a sheep to remove its wool.
Paint can come from minerals.
Yes, we wouldn't have medicine. But we wouldn't need it.
Yeah, it does. Living in a perfect garden is fun and all, but there's nothing to do, nothing to paint, nothing to create.
So what are you planning on doing in the afterlife?
Just killing yourself because you are bored?
The serpent, who as he was created by God, was given words to speak from God, gave them all they needed for informed consent.
They still lacked the necessary ability to know good and evil to make that choice.
But all you are saying here is that God lied and the serpant told the truth.
Eve, hearing this understood that yes, you might become mortal
How? The serpent literally said they wouldn't die?
And the Bible makes it clear that they were already mortal there.
Eating the fruit didn't make them mortal.
Not eating the fruit of the tree of life meant they never became immortal.
She made a choice
Did she? Or did she just accept what the serpent said and follow it?
Without being able to evaluate if it is good or evil, did she really make a meaningful choice?
Funny.
Not funny, just typical pathetic theistic behaviour.
You can't defend your evil POS, so you deflect.
Abraham bargains with God asking him to spare it if the town as 50 good men. Then 40, 30, 20, and finally 10. Not even 10 good men can be found in Sodom.
They didn't look.
They went into Sodom.
Went into Lots, place, found Lot.
Lot went to the two men that were betrothed to his daughters, which clearly weren't among the evil.
Then the angels fled and decided to let the town be destroyed.
They did not look for those 10 good men.
And Lot, freely offering up his daughters to be raped, is clearly not a good man.
So we have the 2 men betrothed to Lot's daughters (I wonder how they would have reacted had they heard Lot was offering up their future wives to be raped?) who were good, who are destroyed, all the innocent women and children are destroyed; while Lot, an abhorrent, sub-human piece of shit, gets to live?
But it makes sense coming from an evil POS, that decided to test his chosen psychopath by ordering him to murder his son and see if he would blindly obey.
Yes, because he tried to appease them to keep the peace.
Which is not an excuse.
It perfectly is a justification.
Not when an omnipotent god is doing it.
If an omnipotent god is doing it it either confines or waits until those it chose to save are outside the area effected.
She was murdered for disobedience.
They get a series of deadly plagues.
The "deadliness" of this varies.
But the point is, they weren't simply killed like you pretend.
Do you really think having tainted water is a quick and painless death?
No.
They were tormented by an evil POS to show off.
On the contrary, God did make them free.
That is not on the contrary at all.
Your God MADE them slaves. It was his plan.
He then made sure the pharaoh would not let them go until he was finished showing off.
That he broke his vow was what doomed his people.
So going back on a promise, rather than keeping slaves?
You tell me over and again, that God is a tyrannical POS. But you want God to behave like a dictator, surveilling and policing ever behavior.
Your god already acts like a dictator. Just like your preachers.
If he wasn't going to be a dic, then he would consult people to see what the rules should be.
Instead, he boldly proclaims the rules, and sentences people to death for violating them, or other horrible treatments.
Not acting to stop people doesn't make him less of a dic.
And it doesn't require policing every behaviour, just those which cause harm.
If you wanted a middle ground, you could even have it only respond when people ask for help. e.g. if someone is about to be brutally raped/murdered and they ask your evil POS for protection, then instead of watching and doing nothing, it could act.
Should God prevent all car accidents by making it physically impossible for humans to jaywalk?
This comes back to the previous issue. Why do humans need to be able to be hurt?
If humans can't get injured from a car accident (and even better if the car can't) then it really isn't an issue.
Men receiving advice from a book attributed to God.
IS NOT GOD coming down and putting an end to slavery.
We have tried to transplant Muslims into civilized countries.
Which is NOTHING like what I said.
That is taking someone who has grown up in one culture, and placing them in a different culture.
If you instead take a new born child from that culture, and place it into a different one, it grows up just like all the other children in that culture.
What was preventing your god from starting with the appropriate culture and raising people in that culture?
All total rubbish & blasphemous.
-
All total rubbish & blasphemous.
Which is why you were easily able to refute every single point. Oh wait, you weren't.
If you want someone to think it is rubbish, you should trying showing what is wrong with it.
Dismissing it as rubbish is the tactic of one who knows they can't refute it.
-
If you are an omnipotent god, you don't make rules for the treatment of slaves, unless you are fine with slavery.
Suppose I were to run a small nation called Bulmabriefsia.
In this fantasy of yours, are you an omnipotent god?
Bulmabriefsia is attacked on all sides, and being a tiny country, it goes poof. Slavery goes back to before.
So no. You aren't an omnipotent god.
Try it again with an omnipotent god.
Where your nation is attacked, and the attacks are repelled. They have no way to stop your country, because an omnipotent god is defending it.
Again, all you are saying there is that it wasn't a god deciding it. Instead it was a bunch of primitive men.
The amazing part (as kabool would say), is that I will wager money that you aren't anti-slavery.
You do like making up pure BS.
You just want to discredit religion, you don't care about being moral.
Quite the opposite. Your cult is not moral.
That is one reason why I oppose it.
Canonically, God was defeated by "chariots of iron".
Or rather, God's ability to act in this world is determined by strength of faith.
You who distrust God, cannot even be healed by him. Any prayers on your behalf would have contradictory result. Almost like in those video games where heal magic defeats undead. You have a demon.
Anyway, the point is, God occasionally helped the people out, but it was usually with the assistance of a strong prophet. Currently, Moses was old or dead at the time of this, so Israel was on its own. It was a tiny land by the sea with astonishingly poor defenses, and enemies on all sides. And a God who helps those who helps themselves. Yes, generations ago, Moses had sent ten plagues against their enemies. But any time that stopped worshipping God or took him for granted, God allowed their enemies to prosper against them. This is not to say active betrayal. You worship other gods, God shows you what life is actually like in the absence of God (I suspect this is the root of your animosity toward God, you have had to do everything yourself since some crackpot taught you God doesn't exist; how is that working out for you). Your nation falls without God like a stack of dominoes (a rally of dominoes?) so yes it's important to have systems that work because of laws and diplomacy, as at any point God can decide he is displeased.
Your morality is not moral. And that is why all civilized people should oppose it.
-
When it works or not for a bleivier
Its the will of God.
If nonbeliever, you didnt have enough faith.
The consisttent inconsistency is nonlogical.
-
Wrong. It's explicitly andwered or not, because you have or don't have enough faith.
Or because God didn't want to do the thing in the first place.
Think of faith as a currency, and God's miracles as a storehouse. What he sells, you can buy if you have the currency. But if your were to go to the store and ask to buy the merchant's wife, he might tell you, "that's not for sale." Some prayers are not for sale because they violate some rule God has set on his own behavior. For instance, me praying to God, "Make Jack Black or Themightykabool become a Christian" would likely not be answered.
Likewise, according to Garth Brooks, if you pray to marry the wrong woman for you, God will say no. ;)
Some things actually are possible, but the currency required is crazy high. Asking to cure cancer with a half-hearted belief is not gonna cut it, and while we're on that topic, if the person themselves is wanting to die, and you want them to live despite them begging and pleading to make it stop, nothing short of the total removal of their pain along with the disease is gonna cut it, because everything else constitutes torture.
So for prayer to work...
1. You need faith.
2. If there is a person prayed for, they need faith too.
3. God needs to want to do it, and be allowed to (no free will stuff, no zombies, no frivolous wishes like having a yacht appear our of thin air, or yes wishing your body will last forever). God kinda has veto power over these things, and it doesn't make him evil for not letting you get a war destruction machine for Christmas.
4. The phrasing of some prayers matters. For instance, "Help me to find the willpower/strength to manage my diabetes/cancer/heart disease" means that God helps, and I put in some work. Asking God to cure your disease, and not changing your habits means that you have a remission, and then five years later, you might get sick again. Blaming God because you phrase things wrong is not an excuse.
None of you seem to have much faith in God, so the only time I expect your prayers to work is when there is a desperate life or death situation. Does that make God not real? No, I owe my life to several prayers on my behalf, including one very strange incident where I stayed alive driving a snowstorm with terrible tires and somehow missed both smashing into a telephone pole and oncoming cars on like the worst intersection ever. I instead ended up completely unharmed in a ditch nearby.
It just makes you bad at praying for things.
-
so why do good things happen to atheists?
-
so why do good things happen to atheists?
Name one.
-
are you stupid?
by rough estimate it's 15-25% of the world pop who identify as some form of christian.
you think the other 75-85% nothing good has ever happened to a single one of them?
atheist get cured of cancer all the time
atheist win the lottery
atheist have happy marriages
atheists have saved people in war, health, in general
adam and eve ate the fruit fo good and evil.
so morality isn't inherently known/ possesed by only one group.
and niether is luck or good fortune bestowed on the faithful.
what a nonsense thing to ask
-
atheist get cured of cancer all the time
atheist win the lottery
atheist have happy marriages
atheists have saved people in war, health, in general
adam and eve ate the fruit fo good and evil.
so morality isn't inherently known/ possesed by only one group.
and niether is luck or good fortune bestowed on the faithful.
what a nonsense thing to ask
Huh. This seems to shoot the idea that God is a tyrannical POS right out of the water!
After all, it was Providence that protected Hitler from numerous assassination attempts. Hitler didn't accept Christianity, and wanted to stamp Judaism from existence, but he did accept that there was someone out there protecting him.
Muslims were able to be massively successful in their endeavors of conquest.
Did either of these succeed ultimately? No, but God gave them help, even though they were his enemies.
Whatever type of God this is, he very definitely is not a tyrant.
Nor, as is evidenced by his crazy rate of survival, is God nonexistent. There were 42+ plots to kill him. All of them failed. He lived long enough to see himself completely surrounded, then he shot himself, if I remember correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler
God is not a tyrant, as he allows even contrary efforts to succeed. God is not imaginary, as we have an avowed enemy of the Jews and the Christians recognizing that he would not have survived without help. So that really just leaves the question of "Is God evil?" And we appear to have zero for three.
Why do I say God is not evil? Well, because he not only grants the wishes of those who are evil, but also those who pray to him.
God is wholly good. This is because he blesses both the righteous and the wicked. If a man walked through your country, and he didn't hurt anything, not plants, not animals, not insects, not even predators like spiders/snakes/tigers, would you call him evil? Maybe you would, but I'd see someone totally committed to pacifism.
We humans are not killed by God. We humans die because we have an imperfect immune system, and we take poor care of ourselves.
-
no
it shoots the idea that - good things only happen because God grants them because you believe enough.
-
no
it shoots the idea that - good things only happen because God grants them because you believe enough.
Bad things happen too, It's not all good but this will never make me lose my faith & my love for Jesus.
-
Canonically, God was defeated by "chariots of iron".
Yes.
So much for an omnipotent god.
The Egyptians didn't believe, so how come they were effected?
It seems your god can act when it is convenient for your BS and then magically can't when you need it to not be able to.
You who distrust God, cannot even be healed by him. Any prayers on your behalf would have contradictory result.
Directly contradicting your prior BS where you said prayer would either make it better or do nothing.
Great job showing you are willing to spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to support your fantasy.
Anyway, the point is, God occasionally helped the people out, but it was usually with the assistance of a strong prophet.
So "God" was assisted by the magical prophet?
Sounds more like you had magical prophets that did things in the name of God, rather than God itself doing it.
But any time that stopped worshipping God or took him for granted, God allowed their enemies to prosper against them. This is not to say active betrayal.
Which is just further deflecting from the issues being discussed.
Your nation falls without God like a stack of dominoes
By other nations that don't have that God either. As if your god does nothing.
at any point God can decide he is displeased.
Like an abusive partner.
But this just further demonstrates God isn't good.
Your morality is not moral. And that is why all civilized people should oppose it.
Wrong again, YOUR morality is not moral.
You worship an evil tyrant and obey its commands.
That is obedience, not morality.
Wrong. It's explicitly andwered or not, because you have or don't have enough faith.
Or because God didn't want to do the thing in the first place.
As if God does nothing.
Think of faith as a currency, and God's miracles as a storehouse.
So God's miracles are magically limited by how much mana you have?
Why not cut out the BS of God.
You are a wizard, you have a limited amount of magic ("faith"). The more magic you have the more significant the acts you can perform.
Asking to cure cancer with a half-hearted belief is not gonna cut it
Yet people of all religions get cured.
Likewise plenty of devout believers don't get cured.
As if that is pure BS and your prayer does nothing.
So for prayer to work...
You need a god which actually exists to be able to act on them.
No, I owe my life to several prayers on my behalf
Do you?
Can you demonstrate that a god actually intervened.
I stayed alive driving a snowstorm with terrible tires and somehow missed both smashing into a telephone pole and oncoming cars on like the worst intersection ever. I instead ended up completely unharmed in a ditch nearby.
Which doesn't need a god at all.
Notice how even with this, you still failed, ending up in a ditch.
Why didn't God just get you to the other side?
Huh. This seems to shoot the idea that God is a tyrannical POS right out of the water!
No, it doesn't.
Firstly it would require God to exist.
But more importantly, no, it doesn't in the slightest. A tyrant allowing good things to happen to some people doesn't mean they aren't a tyrant.
Especially as it in no way addressed the multitude of things this evil tyrant would be responsible for if it did exist.
After all, it was Providence that protected Hitler from numerous assassination attempts. Hitler didn't accept Christianity, and wanted to stamp Judaism from existence, but he did accept that there was someone out there protecting him.
Yes, demonstrating he isn't an atheist like you claim.
But that doesn't mean there actually was some divine entity protecting him.
And it yet again shows you are willing to spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to try to prop up your fantasy without any regards for consistency.
Did either of these succeed ultimately?
Has Christianity? No.
No, but God gave them help, even though they were his enemies.
So you are literally saying that God helped Hitler.
Is that really the position you want to take?
Because a good God would not help Hitler.
There were 42+ plots to kill him. All of them failed.
And none of that required divine intervention.
God is not a tyrant, as he allows even contrary efforts to succeed.
God is a tyrant, due to his behaviour in the Bible.
God is not imaginary, as we have an avowed enemy of the Jews and the Christians recognizing that he would not have survived without help.
You mean believing.
That does not actually show a god exists.
Even if it did show A god exists, it doesn't demonstrate the Christian god exists?
So that really just leaves the question of "Is God evil?"
And based upon the actions in the Bible, the answer is a clear and obvious yes.
Based upon all the suffering in this world, if a god created it, the answer is a clear and obvious yes.
The only excuse your god has is if it is fictional.
If a man walked through your country, and he didn't hurt anything
So nothing like your evil tyrant?
Try telling that to Adam and Eve, or the Egyptians, or all the people murdered during the flood of Noah, or all the people murdered in Sodom.
Tell that to all the people that have had their genitals mutilated in its name.
Tell that to the people who lived in the lands that was given to the Jews, which were wiped out, or only the girls kept to be raped.
We humans are not killed by God. We humans die because we have an imperfect immune system, and we take poor care of ourselves.
Which you believe your god created.
So we die because of your god?
Again, the only excuse is non-existence.
-
Bad things happen too, It's not all good but this will never make me lose my faith & my love for Jesus.
Because you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.
-
If I were a battered woman, I'd be hard-pressed to produce any scars if my abuser never existed.
Either God is as you say, a tyrannical POS (or he's decent) or he doesn't exist. But the fact that I can have bad things happen to me, doesn't that prove there is a God? So then, what about good things? Can he be a tyrannical POS if there are good things that happen? Just because you are bitter about what God has done with your life, don't think the rest of us disagree. One day my parents will die, and I may be around even to pray they stay with me.
Does it mean God doesn't exist just because they don't stay alive forever? No, it means they aren't created that way. Get a grip.
-
no
it shoots the idea that - good things only happen because God grants them because you believe enough.
Bad things happen too, It's not all good but this will never make me lose my faith & my love for Jesus.
Thars the answer actually.
I can love God too but i can also say the comes and goes of good fortune do not require Him.
But your claim was God grants favours to the faithful.
Which is inherently against all known things.
So only now you change your story.
vs here where you challenged the notion goodandbaddoes not require God:
so why do good things happen to atheists?
Name one.
-
I can love God too but i can also say the comes and goes of good fortune do not require Him.
Correct.
"For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
We can say that God is fair to the point of being unjust.
But Jack Black is wrong. He most definitely exists. Without God, there would nobody to save Hitler's life, not once, not twice, but against the laws of probability, as many times as possible until he was completely beaten.
Congratulations, you may still be able to say God is a tyrannical POS. But I'm sorry, in order for that to be true, his existence is not in doubt. You can't have this both ways.
-
If I were a battered woman, I'd be hard-pressed to produce any scars if my abuser never existed.
Hence the abusive relationship with imagination.
But abuse doesn't need to be physical
Either God is as you say, a tyrannical POS (or he's decent) or he doesn't exist.
Again, that isn't the get out of jail free card you want to make it out to be.
The God of the bible, a fictional character, is an evil POS.
If God existed and made this universe and controls it, then it is an evil POS.
But the fact that I can have bad things happen to me, doesn't that prove there is a God?
No.
Good things and bad things can happen without a god.
But you seem to want to assign the good to God while not assigning the evil.
Can he be a tyrannical POS if there are good things that happen?
Yes.
An evil tyrant wont necessarily always do evil.
For example, it can happily "do good", dangling something in front of someone, only to take it away and make them suffer more.
But a good, omnipotent being will never do evil.
That is the difference.
That is why bad things can show any god that exists cannot be good and omnipotent; while good things happen cannot be used to show that a god that exists can't be evil.
But Jack Black is wrong. He most definitely exists.
Yet you cannot provide a single thing which demonstrates he does.
Without God, there would nobody to save Hitler's life, not once, not twice, but against the laws of probability, as many times as possible until he was completely beaten.
Prove it.
Prove a god was actually required for that.
Remember, this wasn't some random person who was just targeted for an unknown reason multiple times.
This was a head of state that knew he would be targeted.
The reference you appealed to provides a list of 23 attempts, one of which isn't even known if it was an assassination attempt or just bad food prep.
Plenty of people get food poisoning and get sick. That doesn't require divine intervention to not die.
Likewise, a poisoned letter being intercepted doesn't require divine intervention.
There is nothing on that list that does.
But again, look at what you are trying to claim?
A god is interfering with free will to foil assassination plans of an evil tyrant that is causing so much suffering.
If you truly believe your god did that, then there is no way you can honestly believe your god is good.
Only an evil POS would protect Hitler.
Congratulations, you may still be able to say God is a tyrannical POS. But I'm sorry, in order for that to be true, his existence is not in doubt. You can't have this both ways.
I can have it both ways, by pointing out the fictional character of the Bible is an evil POS, and that any god that does exist is one to or just doesn't give a damn about us.
The one who can't have it both ways is you.
You cannot have your god both exist and be good. Because this world is fundamentally incompatible with that.
-
Hence the abusive relationship with imagination.
But abuse doesn't need to be physical
That's absurd. You accuse God of being abusive.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-abuse-5212239
But an imaginary physical abuser leaves no wound.
But an imaginary sexual abuser leave you undefiled.
But an imaginary neglecter is... well, actually that's a bit of a paradox. Can someone who doesn't exist really leave you?
Workplace abuse and discrimination don't really apply here.
So that really leaves emotional/psychological abuse and stalking.
The only way a stalking charge works if God is real. Though the whole omniscience/omnipresence thing would be clear stalking if so.
As for emotional/psychological abuse, some church members do this, but it's somewhat more difficult to make such a charge stick with an imaginary attacker. Again.
If God exists as words on a page, then I'm afraid I'm just as healthy as before.
The only way you can claim God is an abuser is if you admit he is real. Now, if you are willing to do that, I could possibly agree that making a series of laws that are impossible to follow then punishing you if you fail could constitute emotional/psychological abuse. But you'd never be able to punish God so there's no point being outraged.
But feel free to say this. I'll laugh.
You: Help! I've been abused!
Police: Please describe your attacker.
You: Well, I didn't see him.
Police: (writes notes) Describe whatever you can.
You: Okay, well he's omnipotent. And omniscient. And omnipresent. And he's totally good. But honestly I don't believe he exists.
Police: (stops writing) So your attacker is imaginary? Also, it sounds like you're talking about God.
You: That's right, I've been horribly abused by religion since childhood, and I need you to arrest... where you going?!?
Police: Sorry, as a good Irish policeman I attend Mass every weekend. I'm not paid enough to go arrest your insecurities.
-
That's absurd. You accuse God of being abusive.
No, I say you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.
i.e. it isn't your god itself being abusive, it is your own imagination.
Following the hallmarks of it, never allowing the character of your imagination to be seen as bad, while accepting any evil it gives you.
-
Has anyone watched this video yet ? ;D
https://www.brighteon.com/f2e7653f-d115-47a1-9963-c16d714e5dbd
-
That's absurd. You accuse God of being abusive.
No, I say you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.
i.e. it isn't your god itself being abusive, it is your own imagination.
Following the hallmarks of it, never allowing the character of your imagination to be seen as bad, while accepting any evil it gives you.
I suspect you actually have been in an abusive relationship, which is why you hate religion. There have been psych studies on atheists, and more than half of them fall into one of three behavior patterns.
(1) Abusive home life. Using God as a surrogate for a messed up relationship for a parental figure.
(2) Dying relative that they couldn't cure. Fixation on news events as representing the entire state of the world.
(3) Perfectionism, particularly a sense of never being good enough for those people in church. Often coupled with the idea these people are hypocrites.
My home life was mostly healthy. While my parents will eventually die, God willing, I'll die first. And yes, I did have perfectionism, but Jesus helped me realize I don't need to work so hard to please others.
"Church is not a hotel for saints, but a hospital for sinners." If they seem like hypocrites, it's because they are ashamed of their sins. I wasn't brainwashed , abused, or tricked. I came to church because the Jews had rules of perfection, and if I thought life outside temples was free of rules, I was mistaken. It was when I understood the purpose of those rules was to teach us that we're gonna fail was the day I became Christian. Before that, I was a Jew, wanting to do things to earn my way into heaven.
-
I suspect you actually have been in an abusive relationship
You suspect all sorts of delusional BS.
Which is really just a pathetic attempt to deflect from your inability to justify your delusional BS.
I can demonstrate your relationship is abusive, in the way you always claim God is good, even if it does evil, like supporting Hitler.
That is a hallmark of an abusive relationship.
Here you are, trying to suggest I was abused, because you cannot defend your god.
An evil POS you decided to latch onto because you can't handle reality, and which you shifted the focus of this thread to, because you cannot refute the mountains of evidence that shows Earth is round.
-
I can love God too but i can also say the comes and goes of good fortune do not require Him.
Correct.
"For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
We can say that God is fair to the point of being unjust.
But Jack Black is wrong. He most definitely exists. Without God, there would nobody to save Hitler's life, not once, not twice, but against the laws of probability, as many times as possible until he was completely beaten.
Congratulations, you may still be able to say God is a tyrannical POS. But I'm sorry, in order for that to be true, his existence is not in doubt. You can't have this both ways.
Then there is no discernable way to tell if good came to you because of your faith or pure luck
You are dumber than a mouse.
There was an experiment where green ligh red light were turndd on at random.
The mouse had to guess which light would turn on, and if correct caused food to come out.
Completely random but 80green 20red.
Mouse would just hit thevsame button and get 80/20.
The human though wod try to guess thevsystem and scored less than 60/40.
Skipto 10:22
-
I suspect you actually have been in an abusive relationship
You suspect all sorts of delusional BS.
Which is really just a pathetic attempt to deflect from your inability to justify your delusional BS.
I can demonstrate your relationship is abusive, in the way you always claim God is good, even if it does evil, like supporting Hitler.
That is a hallmark of an abusive relationship.
Here you are, trying to suggest I was abused, because you cannot defend your god.
An evil POS you decided to latch onto because you can't handle reality, and which you shifted the focus of this thread to, because you cannot refute the mountains of evidence that shows Earth is round.
Jack, everybody has a spiritual side. Some people feed it by going to church and believing in God, while others like yourself feed it by choosing to believe God does not exist. You still hold a spiritual belief, Sunshine, as atheist as you are. You can't get away from it.
Like most people, when you think of God which you choose not to believe in, you think of a male figure seated on a throne, am I right? May I suggest you make a concerted effort to think of that throned figure instead as sexless. That would be closer to the reality of that which you don't believe in, being real, wouldn't it?
-
Jack, everybody has a spiritual side.
That entirely depends on what you mean by "spiritual side".
You can pervert it into pure dishonest BS and claim anyone does.
choosing to believe God does not exist. You still hold a spiritual belief, Sunshine, as atheist as you are. You can't get away from it.
And that is the kind of dishonest BS I'm talking about.
I didn't choose to believe god doesn't exist.
There is simply no reason to think a god does.
This is NOT holding a spiritual belief.
It is a lack of one.
Your dishonest BS makes as much sense as saying asexual beings have a sex.
May I suggest you make a concerted effort to think of that throned figure instead as sexless.
Why would it matter how I view that fictional entity.
It doesn't address any of the issues at all.
Just what is the point?
-
I can demonstrate your relationship is abusive, in the way you always claim God is good, even if it does evil, like supporting Hitler.
That is a hallmark of an abusive relationship.
How's that?
You have probably done terrible things in your life that you don't even know about. Any people, for example, that you might have dissuaded from religion, now feeling abject sense of hopelessness and went ahead and killed themselves, each of their lives you are responsible for. That may be two people (who you've personally convinced) or 2,000 (who have happened to read or posts online).
The point being if you were responsible for the evil you have done without intention all of us would be mass murderers, though not on par with Hitler. Hitler probably never directly killed anyone, he motivated his buddies, he organized a chain of command, and they did it on his orders.
And should I not forgive you for being insufferable and maybe causing 2,000 wavering Christians to lose all hope through your stunning debate points? How much more will God forgive Hitler, who didn't even do most of the murders himself? Human beings don't know what goodness is. They confuse eye for an eye retaliation of evil actions for good. But actual goodness is not trying to prevent evil from happening somehow. When you read the Bible instead of filtering it through a 21st century postmodern lens, you find that when evil does happen, God produces good from it.
The family tree of Jesus is about 20 or so books of the world's longest genealogical setup all to get to a punchline about a man who would die for our sins.
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[a] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
This is an entire line of imperfect people, who God nonetheless made a perfect testament.
-
I can demonstrate your relationship is abusive, in the way you always claim God is good, even if it does evil, like supporting Hitler.
That is a hallmark of an abusive relationship.
How's that?
Exactly as described.
A hallmark of an abusive relationship is that the abuser can do know wrong, that any perceived wrong is actually good and often the fault of the abused, or someone other than the abuser.
That matches your relationship with your imagination, where you excuse anything God (a character of your imagination) does as good, while blaming man or yourself for anything bad that happens.
You have probably done terrible things in your life that you don't even know about.
As opposed to what you think of God, where it intentionally does things, knowing the outcome.
When you read the Bible instead of filtering it through a 21st century postmodern lens, you find that when evil does happen, God produces good from it.
You mean when you view it through a lens of God being good.
When viewed through a rational, honest lens, we see there is no need for that evil.
An omnipotent wouldn't need it. It would be able to just do good.
This is an entire line of imperfect people, who God nonetheless made a perfect testament.
And it entirely fails, because Jesus wasn't mean to be Joseph's biological son.
If you follow the fairy tale, God instead implanted himself into Mary.
-
I actually know history. History major, religion minor (used to be a horticulture minor, until I bailed at organic chemistry).
We humans have a history of bloody wars and conquests. Yet God is also part of our history. Note the quote in my signature. This is an agnostic historian wit no axe to grind for Christians. In fact, he attacks Christianity often. What he admits (because he is a credible historian) is that Jesus, despite not according to his beliefs being any kind of miraculous being, was born, lived and had ministry, and was crucified.
God died on the cross for our sins. This is a historic fact.
Yes, we are responsible for a number of bloody events over the years. The Civil War was a meat-grinder conflict that horribly killed bucket loads of people.
There's a difference from making excuses for someone, and acknowledging your part. I've seen abusive relationships. I've also seen ones where there isn't a clear cut abuser or wrongdoer.
If you want to blame God, first (again) you have to accept his existence, or I refer you to that absolute crazy exchange above, calling the cops on a nonexistent abuser. And second, you probably need to realize that historically humanity's role in matters has been much like a bf who pushes his gf down the stairs, and when he says, "Oh honey, I didn't mean it!" she takes a frypan and whacks him across the head with it. Then they continue with this back and forth until they both get frisky and start having sex on the kitchen table.
Only God is at fault? Bullshit! All of us are at fault!
Yes, knowing the outcome, God knows that planting us here Big O style with modern society 40 years ago either involves a shit ton of false memories, or setting things in motion naturally to play out. For real progress, we need the latter. Everything good in this world is the result of long-term effort.
The difference is you won't have that make-up sex. You just act like you're the only one abused. Quit being self-righteous and you might actually learn that there's blame to go around.
Also, did you notice whose family line this is? It's Mary's not Joseph's. This is Luke's genealogy, and they include Joseph only because it is customary to include fathers. But this disguises the fact that we are actually dealing with Mary's biological history. They trace it back to God, because that's who is the actual father.
-
We humans have a history of bloody wars and conquests.
And if we were created by your god, then your god is to blame for it.
Why would a loving god create people to wage wars and conquests?
God died on the cross for our sins. This is a historic fact.
No, it isn't.
Even if we accept your claim that Jesus lived and was crucified, that is not God, and not dying for our sins.
There's a difference from making excuses for someone, and acknowledging your part.
And what you are doing is making excuses.
Only God is at fault? Bullshit! All of us are at fault!
Notice the key part? ALL. That includes God.
I have never said humans are not to blame, with the exception of when your god interferes with free will.
But you try to twist that to pretend God is not to blame.
If God exists and made this world, it is to blame for so much evil it isn't funny.
-
And if we were created by your god, then your god is to blame for it.
So if I, a boat maker, make a canoe to sell at a boat shop for recreation... and the guy who buys it from me tricks it out with a ballista and makes it a war canoe,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_canoe
and sails it towards someone's how with intent to murder, how exactly does that have anything to do with what I created?
War is an invention of mankind. There is no evidence that God ever intended it. God allows war, but makes it increasingly awful with each passing war, in hopes that one day we will see sense.
As for crusades, you mean the jihads. The crusades lasted 90 years total. The Muslim jihads have been going on for around 12 centuries or more.
Even if we accept your claim that Jesus lived and was crucified, that is not God, and not dying for our sins.
Jesus is God.
(https://stainedglassinc.com/glass/full/12754.jpg)
The Father, Son, and Spirit are not each other, but all of these are God. You obviously never got a proper religious education. Whether you believe Jesus died for or sins or no, that's up to you. But Jesus did die for our sins.
To understand how that is, you have to understand the blood sacrifices of Judaism, how they replaced the human sacrifices of the pagans, and how they in turn were replaced by a single sacrifice. You have to understand the entire Old Testament as a lead-up to this, including as far back as Genesis and Exodus. Peter explains that anyone who hangs on a tree overnight is cursed, and that Christ became a curse by hanging on the wood of the cross. He took the curse of your sins, and paid its price. You may not accept this, you may hate it, but it was done on your behalf and mine.
You can blame God if you wish. But I do not. And to be honest, your hatred of God is misplaced and childish. It's similar to be living in a town of thieves and liars, and blaming the original architect of the town for how the citizens are. When Washington, DC was built, the founders had high ideals. Then a bunch of liberal snots decided to paint them as old white men who owned slaves. Sorry, but those same people want to renew slavery, and are very much not into government by the people, for the people, and of the people.
The architects of something cannot be blamed for how it turned out. God could make us all fall into line, yes, but it would involve actual tyranny. He could make you be a conservative, make you worship him, and make you love him. Is the reason he doesn't do so a reflection on his power?
No. It's a reflection on his mercy. You wouldn't like yourself if he made you like this.
-
So if I, a boat maker, make a canoe to sell at a boat shop for recreation... and the guy who buys it from me tricks it out with a ballista and makes it a war canoe,
That is nothing like what is being discussed.
This is more like you building a bomb, and then detonating it to kill a bunch of people, then trying to blame the bomb for the murders and saying it wasn't you.
War is an invention of mankind.
According to you, mankind is an invention of God.
In the Bible, God orders warfare.
Sure seems like it would be from God as well.
As you said ALL are to blame.
Why try to excuse God?
As for crusades, you mean
No. I didn't bring up crusades.
Jesus is God.
According TO YOU.
Is that a historical fact? NO!
So claiming it is a historical fact that God died is pure BS.
But Jesus did die for our sins.
No, he didn't.
As already explained, the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is actually Satan fighting against and saving us from God.
Is that what you want to believe?
Otherwise, it makes much more sense as propaganda.
You can blame God if you wish. But I do not. And to be honest, your hatred of God is misplaced and childish.
I don't hate God, I just recognise your imaginary fiend is an evil POS that decent human being would worship except out of fear, cowardice, stupidity or brainwashing.
The God of the Bible is not good.
Any omnipotent being that exists and created this world is not good.
It's similar to be living in a town of thieves and liars, and blaming the original architect of the town
Except for this comparison to hold, the original architect also created each of those thieves are liars.
-
That is nothing like what is being discussed.
This is more like you building a bomb, and then detonating it to kill a bunch of people, then trying to blame the bomb for the murders and saying it wasn't you.
Actually, it's exactly like what is being discussed.
God created the heavens and Earth. There is nothing to suggest it was intended from the start to be a death trap. It's a natural world filled with living plants and animals. They live their lives to experience things. Hardly a bomb!
What this more akin to is building a town, and having an official on the town planning say that whatever happens, we don't want gambling in our town (listing reasons why it's horrible), then sneak a pamphlet to the news media bringing public attention to the idea of gambling to see if they like the idea. The other town officials can in fact veto this idea. The townspeople themselves can protest. Or everyone can agree that it is a wonderful idea, ad like Vegas and Atlantic City, they can realize that it's a terrible idea.
Corrupt as hell? Yes. Evil? No. Especially, if the official actually gave all the drawbacks and people chose anyway.
You knew the risks of life when you agreed to be born in this world. You knew you would die. You just don't remember that you came from a world before this one, and the agreement you made is fair. Nobody really dies forever.
Atheists walk around with pretend amnesia while they do evil to convince others that the world is evil. No, you are evil. And not even that evil. Nothing bad enough you can do that you couldn't be forgiven. You know how Jesus said there is one unforgivable sin, "blaspheming the Holy Spirit"? This is how it works. As long as you say, "God can't forgive me," you are stuck in a delusion.
That's it.
Every issue is forgivable. There is light at the end of the dark tunnel.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1211453464240984144/image.png?ex=65ee40f5&is=65dbcbf5&hm=10cb67f7c8247b989dcea2ab5ad42dec980128e9ae26833ef24f50e4581de6c3&)
-
As already explained, the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is actually Satan fighting against and saving us from God.
Is that what you want to believe?
While Jack is admittedly knowledgeable on a number of things in spite of his argument style and his misguided worldview, his grasp on religion troubles and amuses me.
-
Actually, it's exactly like what is being discussed.
So you are saying your god did not create man?
What this more akin to is building a town, and having an official on the town planning say
No. It is akin to that official who built the town also creating the people there to do what they wont.
You knew the risks of life when you agreed to be born in this world.
I didn't agree to be born.
No, you are evil.
Yet atheists are typically more moral than theists.
But notice how yet again you are fleeing from your god.
Consider any evil person.
According to your fantasy, who made them? YOUR GOD!
-
As already explained, the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is actually Satan fighting against and saving us from God.
Is that what you want to believe?
While Jack is admittedly knowledgeable on a number of things in spite of his argument style and his misguided worldview, his grasp on religion troubles and amuses me.
Why?
Jesus being Satan, claiming to be God so people would follow him, as he leads them away from the commandments of the OT; with Christians even using him as an excuse for they don't need to follow the ridiculous commands of the OT.
And then the ultimate sacrifice, where he dies to save mankind from God.
That actually makes sense.
What doesn't make sense, is God coming down to sacrifice himself to himself so he can decide to not send people to hell.
If he didn't want to send people to hell, he could just choose not to.
Killing Jesus does nothing for that.
But it does look good as propaganda.
Look at John 3:16. None of it makes sense except as propaganda.
-
As already explained, the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is actually Satan fighting against and saving us from God.
Is that what you want to believe?
While Jack is admittedly knowledgeable on a number of things in spite of his argument style and his misguided worldview, his grasp on religion troubles and amuses me.
Jack is a Satanist. As proven by this.
No, Jack. But the thing is, you assume manmade laws supposedly written by God are God's work. God made the heaven and the Earth. That is really his extent of involvement, besides weather. Rebelling vs God doesn't make your life easier though. In the absence of (supposedly) God-made laws, we instead have manmade laws. There is no escaping law and retibution if you break it. There is only redemption from the law. The Bible when talking about God is really describing three things,which is why we have a doctrine of Trinity.
1. Cosmic/Natural (Father) - You witness this aspect of God create and run the universe. Strictly speaking, if you were to be worshiping God the Father, you might as well be worshiping Allah or Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma or Brahmin). The big sweeping natural events are attributed to God the Father. You can't really understand or connect with this sort of God. You cannot see the face of God (the Father) and live, as this is akin to staring at the sun or looking at an active volcano. Ask Lot's wife how that went. Of course, similar to Ta Fiti in Moana, this has a softer side. But this version of God is described as numinous, the word meaning basically set apart, beyond the natural world. This God is above us.
2. Personal (Son) - If the word of the day for the other was numinous, this one if immanent. This God is among us. Whenever God interacts with people on a personal level, we are usually talking about Jesus. Wrestling with Jacob, the man leading the two angels in the judgement of Sodom, these encounters with God on a personal level are called theophany.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany
Rather than waiting to see Jesus's face on a piece of toast or in the sky, the Bible gives us a far simpler method. The Body of Christ. That is, Jesus can be seen through the people who speak to us. Of course, if you're not sure how to listen, you'll wind up very confused when trying to listen to multiple potentially contradictory bits of advice.
3. Internal (Spirit) - The Holy Spirit is our souls as a collective. When you pray, your soul connects to the Holy Spirit. When you hear about stuff like Elijah or Elisha doing miracles, and they don't directly discuss God's answering of prayers this is the Holy Spirit. This is what Jesus means by faith making you well. Internal spiritual energy empowers us humans to do things that are outside our normal ability. Aside from faith, this also empowers prophecy, healing, and inspiration (the Bible and other such books are not written by God but inspired by God... and that is why they are not infallible with regard to things that are based on human understanding). The point being that these laws that are supposed to demand God's punishment are inspired law. This is not to put them with laws that people just made up, but c'mon do you think God actually cares about blended fabrics? God does have real laws, but they are about the way we treat each other.
The Trinity was set up a certain way to prevent modalism, the idea that God only be in one type or mode at a time. Nor should this be seen (as the Muslims do) as a sort of polytheism. This is all God at once. In Sodom, both God the Father and Son were there.
-
Jack is a Satanist. As proven by this.
No, I'm not.
Pointing out your cult makes no sense doesn't make me a Satanist.
But the thing is, you assume manmade laws supposedly written by God are God's work.
No, I don't.
I assume your god is a fictional being that has done nothing in reailty.
But in the fictional work of the Bible, they are meant to have the laws of God.
In the absence of (supposedly) God-made laws, we instead have manmade laws.
Which while still flawed, are vastly superior to your "God-made" laws.
You witness this aspect of God create and run the universe.
No, I don't.
\
Jesus can be seen through the people who speak to us.
You mean you are desperate to see Jesus so you pretend to.
I see people.
Different people with different views and different opinions.
Not your imaginary friend.
Internal spiritual energy empowers us humans to do things that are outside our normal ability.
Yet no one can actually demonstrate that.
Instead, we just have things which appear to be entirely within our normal ability.
-
Pointing out your cult makes no sense doesn't make me a Satanist.
That wasn't what made you a Satanist.
Explicitly accepting Satan as your savior did.
For the record, Satanism comprises sects of atheist freethinkers as well as weird robed cultists.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/living/5-things-satanists/index.html
Surprisingly, most card-carrying satanists do not worship Satan or any other form of the devil – they are actually atheists.
Or rather, many atheists are Satanists. Satan is defined as an "adversary/accuser" in Hebrew, that is, one who is against God or accuses God. Do you find yourself accusing God of being evil? Do you hold more sympathy with Satan than with God or Jesus? If the answer to both of these is a hard yes, then yes, this does mean you are a Satanist.
-
Pointing out your cult makes no sense doesn't make me a Satanist.
That wasn't what made you a Satanist.
Explicitly accepting Satan as your savior did.
Yet I did no such thing.
I did not accept Satan as my saviour, as there is no reason to think Satan exists.
Instead, I merely pointed out Christianity makes far more sense with Jesus as Satan than as God.
Surprisingly, most card-carrying satanists do not worship Satan or any other form of the devil – they are actually atheists.
i.e. they aren't actually Satanists. It is just a pathetic attempt by Christians to vilify people who aren't in their cult.
Satanists need to believe in and worship Satan; not just merely reject the BS of Christianity.
-
i.e. they aren't actually Satanists. It is just a pathetic attempt by Christians to vilify people who aren't in their cult.
Satanists need to believe in and worship Satan; not just merely reject the BS of Christianity.
Satan exists just as Jesus does & when he comes back he ain't coming back all meek and mild, he's coming back to kick arse.
-
Satan exists just as Jesus does
So in the minds of believers?
With no evidence of either currently existing in reality?
-
Satan exists just as Jesus does
So in the minds of believers?
With no evidence of either currently existing in reality?
Read your Bible, you may learn something.
-
Satan exists just as Jesus does & when he comes back he ain't coming back all meek and mild, he's coming back to kick arse.
Read other passages against Revelation. You'll see that Revelation contradicts several key points of Gospels (especially John itself), and thus fails the basic test of Galatians against passages against the Bible being under a curse.
(Jesus coming again to judge the Earth)
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
(The third temple being built by the Antichrist)
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
(Mark of the Beast preventing people from being saved)
What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.
And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(The passages about the righteous going to a new heaven and Earth, while the wicked get tossed into a lake of fire)
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
Revelation is a lie. It was made up by Judaizers and Ebionites. It was spread by corrupt Catholic leaders. It is against what Christ taught. And it's time for humans to stop believing in it.
-
Read your Bible, you may learn something.
That it is a crappy book, full of BS?
What would you want me to read after that? Harry Potter?
Should I accept Harry Potter as my saviour? Someone who died to save us all?
Revelation is a lie. It was made up by Judaizers and Ebionites. It was spread by corrupt Catholic leaders. It is against what Christ taught. And it's time for humans to stop believing in it.
As opposed to the rest of the Bible?
-
Read your Bible, you may learn something.
That it is a crappy book, full of BS?
What would you want me to read after that? Harry Potter?
Should I accept Harry Potter as my saviour? Someone who died to save us all?
Pure Atheism at it's best.
-
Pure Atheism at it's best.
You mean rational thought and having beliefs trying to match reality; rather than delusional BS where you reject reality to pretend a fairy tale is true?
Again, if you want to show Earth is flat, you need to deal with the overwhelming evidence that shows it is round.
Appealing to the Bible is just showing the Bible is wrong.
-
Same shit, different day.
You claim over and over again that there's overwhelming evidence, when in fact there isn't. What there is an overwhelming amount of is paid shills and useful idiots who don't want to argue with experts because they think they might be embarrassed if they challenged those in the know. These useful idiots often try to talk people out of legitimate questions, fearing embarrassing confrontation. Meanwhile, the shills act like what is actually only a small handful of scientists exerting undue influence (let's see, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Hawking...) because media gushes over them and calls them genius.
There are an overwhelming number of shills.
There is not overwhelming evidence, there never has been, and there never will be. We stand upright and do not stumble. On an actual sphere, even our ability to walk would be hindered by the curve, which btw is more than this supposed 8 inches because of basic rules of geometry.
-
Same shit, different day.
Thanks for summing up your post.
You claim over and over again that there's overwhelming evidence, when in fact there isn't.
Then why are you unable to deal with what has already been presented in this thread?
Why can you only lie and dodge trying to explain?
It sure seems like you know there is overwhelming evidence and just dodge at all costs.
We stand upright and do not stumble. On an actual sphere, even our ability to walk would be hindered by the curve, which btw is more than this supposed 8 inches because of basic rules of geometry.
You keep spouting this BS, even after that 8 inch BS has been refuted countless times, and you cannot explain what magic would hinder our ability to walk, etc.
You just act like a curve is magic and will destroy everything.
-
You haven't presented anything. You've spent most of the time here arguing with me about the existence or goodness of God, as though that wasn't the same question. Listen, your primary excuse for not believing in God is "But look at the evil in the world. If God were there, he should swoop in and save us." So look, within the next five years, I could die of diabetes or its inverse (low blood sugar). Or I could live to see both die, then drink myself to death/find a hill to throw myself off of/just otherwise kill myself. Or I could live long enough be homeless, as I don't really have a drive to speak of. Or I could live in an increasingly lonely, increasingly secular world that worsens all of its problems instead of solving them. I could keep alive just to keep alive in a world that doesn't want me.
The Buddhists call this the Desire Realm. If you're wondering why this is, it's because every evil and evil good in this world is the result of desire. We humans make things with our desires. Dogs used to be types of wolves. We made them docile, we bred them until they were funny looking and called them poodles. Watermelons used to be smal with huge seeds, oily, and not very sweet. God gave us perfect power to change our surroundings. Because of this and ownership rules of land, any idiot can call the police, and you can be arrested for sleeping on land. This means this Earth is 100% a prison. You are punished if you are homeless, if you are too poor to manage to earn rent. Desperate to escape the crowded homeless shelters intended to help them, some people take on jobs at Amazon, earning enough to be caught in a vicious cycle of having enough to not be homeless, leaving the homeless shelter, and winding up back there.
If God were to be judged on the state of the world, it is completely horrible. ...Or is it? What we are actually seeing is a paving over. I challenge you to take a drive and look at the countryside. First, look at all the drones, electric lines, pavement, electrical towers. All these things are Big State infrastructure. When I tried to run away from home, I got from Virginia to about Kansas before traffic slowed to a crawl. It turned out I was a missing person, and it was a welfare check (this later came back to bite them when I almost got jailed for being in a near accident coming home, and they decided I stole the car, I avoided it only by calling my folks and getting them to help). If this much surveillance can be done for one person, then yes we have an awful tradeoff for your 5G.
But there is another way to look at this world. This time ignore all the tacked on stuff and look at the farms and forests and so on. This world ought to be a dead thing, but it's very much alive. There are rows and rows of trees, flowers, grasses, animals, all in a Sunday trip. Is our gift of life misused for enslavement of each other? Damn right it is! But God offers you perfect freedom, even to do that. God is no tyrant, you are. You call him a tyrannical POS, but it is our choices, our desires that led things to this. What is it that want? God will grant it to you. The desires are in fact the problem. We are under spiritual slavery to our own desires. Jesus came not to save us from Caesar, the ruling power of state, but to save us from this "power of positive thinking." Earth is supposed to suck. We can try to make it better, but that's not what Jesus saved people from. It was from our distorted mindset. We cannot permanently change this world into paradise, nor totally into a hellhole. It's a mix of good and bad.
So you've argued with me about this simple fact, that God exists and that he is good (God is good, but this world isn't designed as good or bad). Then out of nowhere you declare that there's a mountain evidence that has never been addressed. Bullshit, I usually deal with your hill in one post.
-
You haven't presented anything.
Go back and read the thread. Preferably from before you decided it would be good to derail it with your imaginary fiend because you think you can defend that, and either way it would hide your inability to defend your fantasy of a flat Earth.
Also notice how I didn't say I presented it. I said it was presented in this thread.
Key things that have been presented in this thread are the angle of elevation of Polaris, the existence of the south celestial pole, and the behaviour of the sun.
Three things flat Earthers cannot explain.
Look at how even now, with complaining that I have allegedly not presented anything, you still deflect to your evil POS?
Listen, your primary excuse for not believing in God is "But look at the evil in the world. If God were there, he should swoop in and save us."
No, that is not my reasoning at all, and demonstrating a fundamental problem with people like you.
You treat believing in a fairy tale as the default.
The default is not believing something.
You shouldn't be asking why people don't believe, you should be asking why people do.
The primary reason I don't believe in your imaginary fiend is that there is absolutely no reason to.
The claimed evidence is pathetic.
Pascal's wager entirely fails.
And any omnipotent god which exists clearly doesn't care about us, or is actively trying to harm us.
God gave us perfect power to change our surroundings.
Pure BS.
There is no reason to think your god gave us anything.
And we don't have perfect power to change our surroundings.
We only developed fruits through a very long process of selective breeding.
And they still aren't perfect.
You are punished if you are homeless, if you are too poor to manage to earn rent. Desperate to escape the crowded homeless shelters intended to help them, some people take on jobs at Amazon, earning enough to be caught in a vicious cycle of having enough to not be homeless, leaving the homeless shelter, and winding up back there.
If only a loving God actually gave a damn.
I challenge you to take a drive and look at the countryside.
Where we see the harsh reality of nature. Where animals kill each other to survive.
Where even plants try to kill each to survive.
Look at the bees, which kill themselves to defend the nest.
Yes, what a great world your "loving" god made.
This time ignore all the tacked on stuff and look at the farms and forests and so on.
Why look at farms? They are also man made.
This world ought to be a dead thing
Why? Because you say so?
Yet again you just assert pure BS to pretend your god is good.
And even when you do so, you cherry pick things you like while ignoring all the bad.
What is it that want? God will grant it to you.
Tell that to all the poor homeless people, see how they react.
So you've argued with me about this simple fact, that God exists and that he is good
That is not a fact.
That is your baseless claim, which you cannot justify at all.
Attempting to justify it requires you to blatantly lie, or just entirely ignore issues.
Then out of nowhere you declare that there's a mountain evidence that has never been addressed. Bullshit, I usually deal with your hill in one post.
No, not out of nowhere.
If anything, out of confusion of the same kind of BS being repeated in multiple different threads, where I confused this thread for the one where they were claiming Earth is flat because the Bible says so, to counter the mountains of evidence showing it isn't.
You also rarely deal with my post in any honest way.
Instead you ignore the facts you don't like and repeat the same refuted BS.
-
In other words, if you want the cause of evil, you as an atheist ought to blame God only after you have exhausted all human causes. That you aren't doing that tells me you are something other than an atheist.
-
In other words, if you want the cause of evil, you as an atheist ought to blame God only after you have exhausted all human causes. That you aren't doing that tells me you are something other than an atheist.
No, in other words, you as a theist in an abusive relationship with their imagination, will make any excuse possible to pretend God is good.
While anyone honestly looking at the world would see that it is fundamentally incompatible with a loving, omnipotent god.
I don't blame god.
I just recognise the fact that if a god did make the world, it is to blame for these things.
You on the other hand wish to overlook this and do anything you can to pretend it is humans for anything bad, and try your hardest to just ignore anything which you can't blame on humans.
And there is a very simple reason why.
The entire reason you have fled to this religion is because you cannot handle reality.
You cannot handle the universe being vast and you ultimately being inconsequential.
You are desperate for a higher being that loves you.
So accepting that any such higher being doesn't love you entirely defeats the point of you believing in one in the first place.
So in your desperation, of course you will believe it is good.
Also, I notice you still didn't deal with the mountains of evidence.
Is it because you know you stand no chance but hope you do stand a chance with your religious BS because it is more mainstream?
-
don't blame god.
I just recognise the fact that if a god did make the world, it is to blame for these things.
So, lemme clarify and/or revise something I said before.
There are five types of faith.
Good faith. You/someone else prays, and circumstances work out for the better.
Mixed faith. You pray and things work out okay. Not perfect, but alright. It is sufficiently open-ended, that you could theoretically complain about something if you wanted.
Bad faith. You think about the worst possible thing and it happens. Typically, this is not formally prayed for except occasionally, "Please God, my life has been so painful. Just let me die" or something petty like "Punish that man."
Contradictory faith. You pray for one thing and the oppose happens.
No faith. This is what would happen if there were no God, or if God ad no power. It is actually in some way worse than bad faith, as it invites entropy. Effectively, if you have no faith, everything falls apart. This is what happens to you if your doubts harden to unbelief.
If you are an atheist, the last three consciously happen, because you inherently believe in a godless uncaring world. If something different happens, it's because God is at work despite you. If you're a theist, the last two shouldn't happen, though of course sometimes they do.
In other words, because you blame God, you invite evil upon yourself.
God is not punishing you. The nature of this world is to invite good and evil. This is what Adam and Eve ate.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785264927174295553/1215147347231907870/KnowledgeOfGoodAndEvil.png?ex=65fbb127&is=65e93c27&hm=85d1be02f5d33708b8ff233da37f9531fe35ddd28481f88a35af1001b410b5e5&)
Whatever good you ask for, you attract. Whatever evil you ask for, you also attract. This is how prayer works.
Now, how I'd prefer prayer to work, is a lot more mixed prayers, and a great deal less even of the good prayers. If like attracts like, it is far too easy for some people to seem to get all the breaks, while others are stuck in a spiral of bad attitude and depression.
If you do not believe in God, you ought to at least read A Course In Miracles and/or The Secret. These are about the power of good/bad thoughts and how they shape our reality. Real life example. You apply to a job expecting not to be hired. You are surly to the interviewer. You are surly to the secretary and some of the employees you pass by. Your bad attitude (attitude, without any talk of faith) makes coworkers not want to hire you. In the same way, during a hurricane, you can either sink into despair after water leaks or you can think about what you can do (actions, without any talk of faith). One of these sits in a corner sulking while water sits around in a pool, the other moves items to another floor and manages to minimize the damage.
-
So, lemme clarify and/or revise something I said before.
You mean make up more nonsense?
It is actually in some way worse than bad faith
But not worse than contradictory faith, where God is actively out to harm you.
Effectively, if you have no faith, everything falls apart.
No it doesn't.
If you are an atheist, the last three consciously happen, because you inherently believe in a godless uncaring world. If something different happens, it's because God is at work despite you. If you're a theist, the last two shouldn't happen, though of course sometimes they do.
And more nonsense.
It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or not. It either exists or it doesn't.
So if a god doesn't exist, then the last one happens, regardless of if you are a theist or not.
If a god does exist, the last one cannot happen.
This also shows a massive problem with your fantasy.
You leave out the option of no faith with a god existing.
The only way in which that would be reasonable is if you claim god is just a figment of your imagination and only manifests in your imagination.
In other words, because you blame God, you invite evil upon yourself.
Again, I don't blame god.
Instead I recognise that the god of the Bible is an evil tyrant; and that a good, omnipotent god is fundamentally incompatible with this world.
These are about the power of good/bad thoughts and how they shape our reality.
Which in no way needs a god.
People who think they will fail are more likely to do so.
People who think they will succeed are more likely to be convincing and con people into going along with pure BS.
This has nothing to do with a god.
-
No faith means not even faith in your own actions. If you sit around doing nothing, nothing will happen. If I were to eat and sleep but never exercise, I could expect to probably develop diabetes and/or bed sores and/or some kind of fungal infection from the same dirty clothing and bedding. No faith means doing nothing. Faith is not simply our wishes but our attitudes and actions.
God is an evil tyrant
I have heard this before.
Islam basically asserts that Allah does whatever he wills, even if it's to cause harm. In the book Nomad, the author describes what this mentality is like.
She talks about how the apartment had had cracks in it, and puddles formed. She had malaria twice, and suggested they maybe dry these puddles so it wouldn't make mosquito breeding grounds. Instead, they kinda did nothing. Mosquitoes kinda swarmed around.
A fatalist or God-hating attitude keeps people from making practical steps to improve their life. "God is an evil tyrant," but if you expect the worst instead of doing your best, then you ought to expect what happens to you. God didn't give her family malaria. They relied on a worthless system that didn't practice common sense hygiene and instead called it God's will that they are sick. If you never water a garden, is it God's will that it turns into a desert? Or is it your lack of action?
Good things happen despite you doing nothing. They never happen because of you doing nothing.
-
No faith means not even faith in your own actions.
So entirely inconsistent with what you said; and nothing at all to do with a god.
If you want to play that game, then atheists can be at any point.
That includes believing in themselves and having good things happen.
God is an evil tyrant
I have heard this before.
And yet you cannot refute it.
A fatalist or God-hating attitude keeps people from making practical steps to improve their life.
Again, I don't hate your imaginary friend.
I recognise it is evil.
There is a big difference.
God didn't give her family malaria.
According to your fantasy, who created malaria? Your god.
Why?
Why would a loving god ever create malaria?
There is no excuse.
Yet again, you make up whatever excuse you can to blame man, never allowing any blame to fall onto the being you believe is responsible for everything.
Again, this is a classic sign of an abusive relationship.
-
If you want to play that game, then atheists can be at any point. That includes believing in themselves and having good things happen.
Faith is not belief. Faith comes from the word root for fidelity. That is, it's sticking to your guns. You are entirely okay with being an atheist, a theist, a pantheist, a polytheist, or even an anti-theist. God does care. He even says so through his prophets!
But if you refuse to serve the LORD, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live?
Faith is about your words, your actions, everything you are being committed. You can even be agnostic. What doesn't work is saying one thing where you are basically lying about your own position. That is...
What you cannot do, and have your faith work, is tell me you don't believe in God (atheism) and then tell me God is a tyrannical POS (anti-theism) and then tell me that despite you not having faith, things work out for you.
Make up your mind!
And yet you cannot refute it.
Sure I can. Despite being out of profitable work for about two or three years, God has given me food and shelter this whole time, through numerous funnel systems (my parents, helping in food bank charity, helping out with growing a garden, etc). I who if I worked on my own quickly found it extremely difficult to make ends meet, have managed not only not to starve but do extremely well.
If good things happening to you are a sign of God's favor, I have plenty happening me. But lest you think that prosperity gospel is my thing, hardship is also a blessing. Because God is not a tyrant, he allows pain and suffering. You see, boredom is actually closely linked with severe depression, and I have things to worry about and do to keep me from killing myself off (the balance is tilted more toward boredom tho).
I don't hate your imaginary friend. I recognize it as evil.
Once again, contradiction plagues your intellectual faith.
If you accept something is evil, you regard it with either hate or fear. That is, If I were to say "climate change is evil", I am calling it anathema to me. It is something I either want to avoid (fear) or want to rid the world of (hatred). Only if you want to be left to your own beliefs would I say you can say God is evil without hating him. If you want to rid the world of believers in God by talking them out of their beliefs, then you hate God.
Then you contradict yourself again (on a roll here ;D ) by claiming God is evil imaginary. For purposes of argument, I hold an imaginary ball in my hand. I has no traits other than being imaginary. I can't hate it, I can't love it, I can't call it good or evil. Something imaginary doesn't exist, and thus cannot be a target of any morals you could assign to it. I isn't there for you to be angry at, to fear, or even to ignore.
Malaria incubates because of mosquitoes ability to take blood. That is, the mosquito is actually sick from a parasite, and it spreads this to humans. It also takes this parasite from sick humans. Do you see the problem? Where does this disease come from? If you don't believe in God, then you have a tautology paradox where the thing is there because it's there.
-
Faith is not belief.
Yes it is.
Especially with how you have described it.
And especially regarding belief in things of which there is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.
Again, with the BS you have provided, you don't need a god for faith.
Your position is so pathetic you need to keep contradicting yourself because you can't mount a rational defence.
How about you stop just spouting whatever BS comes to your mind, take a break to think, write down what you think, make sure it is consistent, and then come back.
Faith comes from the word root for fidelity.
To present this honestly, you would say they both come from the same root.
Looking it up, it appears fidelity was derived from faith, not the other way around.
And they basically both come from meaning trust.
God does care.
As if it is an evil POS.
A loving god wouldn't care if you believed in it or not.
What doesn't work is saying one thing where you are basically lying about your own position.
So nothing like what I am doing.
Again, I don't need to believe your evil POS exists, to be able to describe the fictional character of the bible as an evil tyrant; nor do I need to believe it exists to point out the fact that a loving, all powerful god is incompatible with this universe.
God has given me food and shelter this whole time, through numerous funnel systems
i.e. God didn't give it to you, other people did.
If good things happening to you are a sign of God's favor
And more of the standard abusive relationship BS.
You see anything good as the work of God, while place all the blame for anything bad on humanity.
Why can't humanity be the source of that good?
How could humanity be the source of so many things that would be pure evil if created by a god, like countless diseases and natural disasters?
Because God is not a tyrant
If he cares about you believing in him and worshipping him and will make or allow you to suffer if you don't, while protecting those who do, then it is an evil tyrant.
If it threatens you with eternal torment if you don't obey, then it is a tyrant.
Once again, contradiction plagues your intellectual faith.
Once again, you fail to understand simple English and blatantly lie about me.
Once again, there is no contradiction.
If you accept something is evil, you regard it with either hate or fear.
No, you don't, not always.
Recognising something is evil does not require you to hate it or fear it.
It doesn't require you to want to avoid it or rid the world of it.
Why would I fear something I don't believe exists?
Why would I try to rid the world of something that doesn't exist?
Do you want to rid the world of Hitler? If so, you are too late and can't.
Do you want to avoid Hitler? If so, what is there to avoid given he is already dead?
So I will assume no for both of those.
Does that mean you don't think Hitler was evil?
The only way you could even attempt to justify your position is if you have hate basically just mean you don't like it. At which point there is nothing wrong with not liking an imaginary thing. There is no contradiction.
Again, I don't need to believe your evil POS exists, to recognise that it is an evil POS.
I don't need to think Voldemort exists to recognise Voldemort is evil.
I don't need to think Palpatine exists to recognise Palpatine is evil.
I don't need to think Hitler is still alive to recognise Hitler is evil.
You are inventing a contradiction where none exists; and focusing so heavily on it, because you can't defend your evil POS.
on a roll here ;D
A roll of lies from you most certainly.
Do you see the problem? Where does this disease come from?
According to your fantasy, your god.
That makes your god evil, and malaria an act of evil.
This is one of the many reasons why the universe is incompatible with a loving, all powerful god.
you have a tautology paradox where the thing is there because it's there.
As opposed to your god, which you believe is there because it's there.
-
Yes it is.
Especially with how you have described it.
And especially regarding belief in things of which there is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.
Consider these passages.
Hope is as hollow as fear.
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don’t see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?
Stop thinking, and end all your problems.
It's not from the Bible. It's from the Tao te Ching. No, the latter, doesn't mean become stupid. It means, taken with the other passage, that at all times we use faith, not simply when we kneel down and clasp out hands. Every stray expectation we have affects how events play out. Because how we react to things and people (the world) determines end result. Again, if you walk into a room expecting to be beaten up, and you are rude to everyone in the room, you can expect to be beaten up. If you expectations are unrealistic, good or bad, you wind up with a skewed version of reality.
Now let's compare.
See the world as your self. Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self; then you can care for all things.
Love your neighbor as yourself
Same difference.
To present this honestly, you would say they both come from the same root.
Looking it up, it appears fidelity was derived from faith, not the other way around.
And they basically both come from meaning trust.
To trust, yes. To be able to accept things and remain firm in your ideals, come what may. Being stuck in a rainstorm, still believing God intends good for you? That's faith. Having miracle after miracle happen all around you, and still not believing in God? Also faith. Saying God isn't real, then saying he's evil? That's contradiction, not faith.
You can believe is you will, but being logically inconsistent is a way to make yourself nuts. Trust me. ;)
A loving god wouldn't care if you believed in it or not.
That's an apathetic God. To some extent, God forgives you for not bowing and scraping. Because... God is not a tyrant. Because God loves you more than you love him. Not caring is something else entirely.
Tyrants demand adoration and attention, they thrive on control. When was the last time you personally witnessed a fire and brimstone event? Now, when was the last time you saw crops being helped out by rain? Did you care that the crops/grass etc are healthy? No, you're not the type. Is God gonna rain down hellfire on you for not praising him? No.
So nothing like what I am doing.
So totally what you are doing.
"God doesn't exist."
"God is an evil POS."
"I don't hate God."
One of these must be true. The other two are lies. Again, pick one, and stick with it.
God didn't give it to you, other people did.
Hold up, there buddy.
"God created those mosquitoes"
"God didn't give it to you, other people did."
Both of these must be true. Either God made neither and is to blame for neither, or God made both. Or God made both, but evil is from our choices and perceptions. Mosquitoes choose to bite humans (because we are tasty), and that's why we get malaria. They could stick to an all-beef diet instead. Instead of bemoaning it, o cold be flattered that you are so delicious.
I believe in choices, so that last one for me. God makes both, it's up to us to deal with things.
You see anything good as the work of God, while place all the blame for anything bad on humanity.
If you actually understood my position, you wouldn't dispute this.
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
Hear, O Israel: God is our Lord, God is one
Good and evil are delusions. God creates events for our growth or amusement, but we defined them as good or evil.
Is this memory joyful? Or sad? It's both.
How we define these events affects our future reactions.
-
It means, taken with the other passage, that at all times we use faith, not simply when we kneel down and clasp out hands.
Which is just further refuting your previous BS.
This is further demonstrating how atheists can have have, that you don't need a god for it.
Saying God isn't real, then saying he's evil? That's contradiction, not faith.
No, it's neither.
Just like saying Voldemort is an evil fictional character.
You can believe is you will, but being logically inconsistent is a way to make yourself nuts.
So stop being inconsistent.
Stop contradicting yourself
Stop trying to have anything good be from god but anything bad be from man.
That's an apathetic God.
No, an apathetic god would also not care, but that doesn't mean a loving god would care if you loved it or not.
If you need a comparison, a loving parent isn't going to let their kid die just because their kid doesn't love them or worship them.
To some extent, God forgives you for not bowing and scraping.
The fact that it is only some extent shows that that god you are talking about is not loving.
The fact that you frame it for needing forgiveness shows it is an evil tyrant.
A loving god wouldn't hold it against you and would say you need forgiveness for it.
Tyrants demand adoration and attention, they thrive on control.
Just like the Biblical God.
when was the last time you saw crops being helped out by rain
Again, if you want to try giving your god credit for good things, then it is only fair to also blame it for every bad thing. Like every person who suffers from a disease.
So totally what you are doing.
No. Nothing like what I am doing.
You saying it, and repeatedly mischaracterising my position doesn't magically make your BS true.
Try actually addressing what I have said, rather than repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.
Hold up, there buddy.
Yes, hold up there.
Stop fabricating quotes.
Again, this shows your hypocrisy. It demonstrates how you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.
Anything bad, you make excuses, anything good, even when directly coming from other people, you say is God.
A loving god wouldn't have made malaria.
If you actually understood my position, you wouldn't dispute this.
I do understand your position.
You are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.
Good and evil are delusions.
Then stop saying God is good.
Stop talking about good things happening.
-
What I'm saying is th at you're not an atheist.
You waffle in your speech between assertions of atheism and anti-theism. An actual atheist says "I don't believe God exists" and nothing you can say makes them care about religion. You say, "God doesn't exist and he's evil/tyrannical POS." ??? ??? ??? That's an indefensible argument.
I am friends with someone closer to actually being an atheist, he doesn't take that position that I remember. Muslim background, so he may be pretending but personally I don't care so long as his internal logic is consistent. He's not keen on people telling him about religion, but that's different. Deciding that people are stupid or mean or whatever for believing in God is a defensible position. My online forum is not theologically monolithic. I don't need (or want) everyone to believe the same as me. But you don't even believe the same as yourself!
Atheists usually do run afoul of actually needing a God in their equation of how things work, but that's a minor point when compared to what you've said repeatedly.
If something is imaginary, you can't label it with any attributes, not just good and evil. "This nonexistent onion is so stinky", "This nonexistent dog is so cute", or "This imaginary God is evil." If you said any of these, I can rightly ask you, "Are you high? How can you say one moment that something exists and the next call this a tyrant?!?"
Mmmm, handlebar mustache.
The point being, as much as possible, having a consistent outlook means you have consistent expectations. Just ask me, and I will tell you that there are two places in my life where I am not at all consistent. One is that I have only a vague notion about afterlife, waffling between several concepts without a good resolution (that's to be expected, as this is a great unknown). The second is that I'm shaky about my happiness, because I don't know what I want out of life. I won't tell you that I know how to be happy but I do know how you can be hapy, by not repeating my mistakes!
Fictional and imaginary are two different things. A fictional character objectively exists within the pages of that universe. You don't doubt that Voldemort exists as part of that book, and you are apathetic to him outside it. That's not what's happening here. There's no sense of suspension of disbelief, but a much more active notion that I am wrong for believing as I do. Outside of a Potterverse forum, nobody would get strong bent out of shape about Voldemort. Everywhere "atheists" exist, they rant and rave about how bad it is that God does things.
So stop being inconsistent.
Stop contradicting yourself
Stop trying to have anything good be from god but anything bad be from man.
Says the guy who tells me that cancer and mosquitoes must be created by God, but when I attribute blessings that people bestowed on me to God (which is Biblical, as the people of the Church doing things for Jesus are called the Body of Christ), you say that's no God or that he's evil.
I'm not being contradictory. Both are made of God but I don't blame God for them, because I know it's a human failing (our knowledge of good and evil) that makes us see this as harmful.
You have never stopped being contradictory:
1. Hating on someone who is not only fictional but according to you nonexistent or imaginary.
2. Telling me you don't hate God when you actually use the words "evil"," tyrant ", and "POS."
3. Telling me that I am contradicting myself for believing everything bad comes from humans and everything good comes from God, then all too obviously having the exact opposite position.
4. Yes that's right, you tell me "who created cancer or who created mosquitoes" despite your first position that God is supposed not to exist.
5. But you also don't allow for the belief that goodness can happen through humans. I never said humans weren't capable of goodness, only that God as I know him is a being where our definitions of good and evil don't even apply. Only humans do evil, because humans actively decide to react to good or evil.
Everything bad comes from humans because they have perceptions, reactions, and attitudes. They do evil (but they also do good, I'm not assigning blame here).
This position is logically defensible, because it is taking the stance that all things are created by God directly (through creation itself) or indirectly (by humans who are in turn created by God). Free will itself is neither good nor evil, but contains good and evil decisions. The reason the reverse isn't true is that God's creations are neutral. Think about mosquitoes. Now, you label them as evil, and proof that God is evil. But mosquitoes can be made to spread anything carried by the blood (including antibodies). There are actual benefits of mosquitoes.
https://endmosquitoes.com/10-benefits-of-mosquitoes-how-are-they-helpful-to-humans/
Even cancer cells have an important benefit to medicine in field of regeneration and stem cells (if we can use them safely). But I'm sure you tell me now that I said that, that it's only thanks to humans! Who made our minds? Didn't you yourself tell me that if we do evil, it has to be blamed on God? But medicine, oho, that's a different story huh?
Good exists, and God is Good. True Goodness is existence itself, whereas knowledge of good and evil judges things as "good" or "evil". But these are not actual things, they are labels. Goodness (capital) is something that isn't labeled, but something balanced.
If it seems like I change my position, it's because I'm trying to get you to understand. You've contradicted yourself about three to five times just in the last post.
-
What I'm saying is th at you're not an atheist.
And what I am saying is that you are a liar who is in an abusive relationship with their imagination, who cannot handle reality so clings to a fantasy.
An actual atheist says "I don't believe God exists" and nothing you can say makes them care about religion.
Wrong again.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.
That is all.
No extra BS needs to be added on.
Atheists can care about religion, due to all the harm it is causing.
Atheists can rightly point out that the god of the Bible is an evil POS, a childish evil tyrant, that no decent human being would ever worship except out of stupidity, cowardice or brainwashing.
Atheists can rightly point out that this world is fundamentally incompatible with a loving, all powerful god.
None of that requires them to believe in a god, so none of that means they can't be an atheist.
This is an incredibly simple thing to understand; but because you can't mount a rational defence you just keep spouting the same refuted BS.
You are yet to show an actual contradiction between what I have said.
Instead, you just make up quotes, and repeatedly lie about me and repeatedly pretend there is a contradiction.
How about you forget your god for a second, and we discuss Voldemort.
Is Voldemort an evil tyrant?
i.e. in the fictional world of Harry Potter, is Voldemort an evil tyrant?
Can you answer that question without a bunch of convoluted BS?
Again, as I have repeatedly explained, fictional characters can be evil.
Calling those fictional characters evil does not mean you believe they exist in reality.
Atheists usually do run afoul of actually needing a God in their equation of how things work
No, they don't.
As explained, your god solves nothing.
It is not needed at all.
If something is imaginary, you can't label it with any attributes
Yes, you can.
Something does not need to exist in reality to be able to be described.
Fictional characters are given all sorts of attributes.
Why don't you go find every single author of a fictional work, including games, books, movies, artwork, and so on; and go off at them for giving attributes to these imaginary things?
This just demonstrates how pathetic and desperate your position is.
You know you cannot defend your imaginary abuser, so you try to claim that the only way anyone can criticise it is if they believe it exists.
Truly pathetic.
The point being, as much as possible, having a consistent outlook means you have consistent expectations.
And I do.
I am remaining consistent.
I am not repeatedly going back and forth like you are.
Just ask me, and I will tell you that there are two places in my life where I am not at all consistent.
Your abusive relationship with your imagination?
And your dishonest, delusional defence of a flat Earth?
Because they show massive inconsistencies with what you say.
Fictional and imaginary are two different things.
Are they though?
Are fictional beings imaginary?
Are imaginary beings fictional?
Here is a definition of fiction:
"literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people."
If a being is fictional, it is imaginary.
Another option:
"something that is invented or untrue."
Fiction and imaginary are quite synonymous.
And they are literally synonyms.
You don't doubt that Voldemort exists as part of that book, and you are apathetic to him outside it. That's not what's happening here.
The distinction is that there are not a bunch of people going around telling people Voldemort is real and good and you will burn in hell if you don't worship him and beg for forgiveness for being human; with these people further using Voldemort to justify their own hatred of others and try to deprive them of their rights.
Again, your imaginary god existing isn't why people oppose religion, it is that religion existing and causing so much harm.
Everywhere "atheists" exist, they rant and rave about how bad it is that God does things.
Have you noticed that I have only done so in direct response to people like you spouting delusional BS about their imaginary fiend?
Says the guy who tells me that cancer and mosquitoes must be created by God
No, I don't.
I say that if your god exists and created this world, they were.
That according to your fantasy, they were.
I am not saying they must have been.
Conversely, you are saying people helping you, actual people, is really god helping you.
You do this as an attempt to prove God exists and prove God is good.
I'm not being contradictory.
You are being contradictory, you credit good things to God to pretend God is good, while trying to assign the blame for all bad things to man or something else other than god.
That is a contradiction.
If you want to be consistent you either credit/blame God for both, or credit/blame God for neither, or take that which is caused by a direct wilful action of a sentient being (such as a human helping you) as from them, while things not covered by that, such as natural disasters, and the general of a this allegedly all powerful all loving god allowing so much suffering get blamed on God.
Atheists don't credit or blame god for either.
But they can still point out the incredibly dishonesty of theists like you, being completely inconsistent.
You have never stopped being contradictory
Yet like always you just lie and can't justify your lie at all.
Instead, you just spout more lies.
1. Hating on someone who is not only fictional but according to you nonexistent or imaginary.
Objecting to your dishonest, delusional BS is not "hating on" your imaginary fiend.
There is nothing contradictory or inconsistent about that.
2. Telling me you don't hate God when you actually use the words "evil"," tyrant ", and "POS."
Just like I don't hate Voldemort, but can call it evil, tyrant, or describe it as a POS.
There is nothing contradictory or inconsistent about that.
3. Telling me that I am contradicting myself for believing everything bad comes from humans and everything good comes from God, then all too obviously having the exact opposite position.
Except I'm not having the exact opposite position.
I don't think your imaginary fiend is responsible for either, as it doesn't exist so can't be.
I am pointing your hypocrisy, your contradictions, and showing that this world is not compatible with the existence of a loving, all powerful god.
5. But you also don't allow for the belief that goodness can happen through humans.
No, I point out the dishonesty of pretending your god exists and is good, because other humans have done good things.
-
I never said humans weren't capable of goodness
No, you just falsely attribute it to your imaginary fiend, while refusing to attribute any evil humans do to it.
God as I know him is a being where our definitions of good and evil don't even apply.
Which is just a pathetic cop out to avoid admitting your god is evil.
But that doesn't stop you from pretending your god is good. Yet another contradiction from you.
Only humans do evil, because humans actively decide to react to good or evil.
And in your fantasy, does your god react to good or evil?
If so, that means your god can do evil.
Everything bad comes from humans because they have perceptions, reactions, and attitudes.
And if humans come from God, and you want to say good that humans do come from God, that means that evil comes from God.
And if you are saying that your god created this universe, with all the suffering, then because of that, there is plenty of evil that doesn't come from humans.
And even without a god, nature can still cause bad things, it just lacks the intent so can't be evil.
The only way in which all evil can be blamed on man, is if you take god out of the equation entirely, i.e. you stop pretending it exists, you stop pretending it created the universe and has control over it.
Instead, that is just mindless nature, so anything bad which happens as a result of nature, such as diseases or natural disasters, is just bad, without any evil intent.
Think about mosquitoes. Now, you label them as evil, and proof that God is evil. But mosquitoes can be made to spread anything carried by the blood (including antibodies). There are actual benefits of mosquitoes.
I didn't.
That was your mischaracterisation of my position.
Instead, I pointed to malaria (not mosquitos), to show that this world is incompatible with a loving, all powerful god.
Instead of honestly focusing on malaria, you dishonestly chose to focus on the mosquitos.
Even now you are doing this to claim mosquitos can have benefits.
But you claimed a benefit that your reference doesn't even have.
You claim it transports antibodies, but what are they for? Fighting off diseases, things a loving god wouldn't have made or allow to exist.
The reference you cite is quite poor for actual benefits of these blood suckers.
2 of the points are the same, as food. Of which there are plenty of other sources, not just mosquitoes.
Likewise, one is about making compost, of which they aren't needed at all.
One is about the industry trying to eradicate them, which is not a benefit.
2 then appeal to species of mosquitoes that aren't blood suckers, which in no demonstrates a benefit of mosquitos themselves.
The only actual benefit listed is one which only makes sense if you don't believe in a loving, all powerful god, that of studying their anatomy for the purpose of desigining a painless needle and anti-clotting medication. These wouldn't be needed if a loving god existed.
But now that I have dealt with your dishonest deflection how about focusing on what I actually said?
What are the benefits of malaria?
While we are at it, what about other diseases?
What are the benefits of HIV?
What are the benefits of cancer?
What are the benefits of COVID?
What are the benefits or herpes?
Even cancer cells have an important benefit to medicine in field of regeneration and stem cells
You mean another thing we wouldn't need if a loving, all powerful god existed?
Good exists, and God is Good.
Firstly, pure BS.
As already shown, the god of the Bible is evil. There is no doubt about that.
And as also already shown, this world is fundamentally incompatible with all powerful, loving God.
So you can't have all three.
Either your god doesn't exist, it isn't good, or it isn't all powerful, i.e. it doesn't control this universe.
But more importantly, there you go contradicting yourself yet again.
Again, if you want to say good and evil only apply to us, and not your evil POS, then stop calling your evil POS good.
It is not good. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Goodness (capital)
Is a pathetic deflection.
If it seems like I change my position, it's because I'm trying to get you to understand.
No, it isn't.
It is because you are desperate for your delusional BS to be true, so you will happily spout any BS you think could help with that, even if it directly contradicts your previous BS.
This is because you don't give a damn about the truth at all.
Just like in your pathetic lies about the RE model, where you happily contradict yourself to say whatever BS you can think of to pretend the model must be wrong, without any concern for what you have previously said.
All you care about is pretending your BS is true.
You've contradicted yourself about three to five times just in the last post.
Yet you cannot demonstrate a single instance where I have and instead just need to repeatedly lie and ignore the refutation of those lies.
I have been entirely consistent.
1 - There is absolutely no honest reason to think a god exists. There is no evidence for the existence of a god, especially considering all the problems dishonest theists claim it solves, it suffers from. i.e. a god solves nothing, it just pushes the problem back.
2 - The fictional character known as "God" in the Bible is evil. Its actions demonstrate that it is a childish evil tyrant. It is not a good being. It is not a loving being. It is an evil tyrant, and evil POS.
3 - This universe, with all the unneeded suffering is fundamentally incompatible with a loving, all powerful god. So either gods don't exist, they are not all powerful, or they are not loving. In this sense, the god of the deist makes far more sense, as this god is apathetic. It doesn't care about us, it leaves the universe to itself. It would be akin to scientists creating a virtual universe to see how it progresses, without interfering. Likewise, the religions which have pantheons, of multiple gods which will sometimes fight with each other makes much more sense than a monotheistic religion of a loving god. With these pantheons, the gods are not all powerful. If Hades wants to screw around with the world, Zeus can't just magically stop him. Likewise, if Loki wants to play a game, Odin can't just magically stop him.
4 - If this universe was created and controlled by an all powerful being, then it is responsible for all suffering in this universe. This makes it evil, and no amount of good will undo that. Notice how I don't need to focus on good actions being done? The suffering is what makes it evil. Appealing to acts of good to ignore all this suffering is like saying "Well Hitler helped an old lady cross the street, so Hitler must be good". The minor good acts do not stop the massive amounts of suffering, suffering it could easily stop yet does nothing about or actively causes.
5 - You are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, giving it credit for every good thing which happens to try to prove it exists and prove it is good; while assigning the blame to anything bad to something else.
Again, there is no contradiction here.
I do not need to believe your god exists to say those things.
-
You are a walking mass of contradictions.
Maybe one day you'll realize that more you pretend to be perfect, the more silly you look.
Being honest about one's failings is the only way not to contradict yourself.
But then, I don't expect to see it. People like you like to swarm public fields, people too fixated on image, who see others admitting their faults (usually Christians, but some Taoists and Jews do this too) as some sort of weakness. No, it's self-awareness. Narcissism is not a trait that does anything for me.
There is not one of us perfect, not one. So why pretend so much?
No, there are plenty of contradictions. I've already addressed them, and you've probably made more with your latest post. Which I haven't bothered reading most of, because it looks like excuses that Columbo suspects would use.
-
You are a walking mass of contradictions.
Maybe one day you'll realize that more you pretend to be perfect, the more silly you look.
Being honest about one's failings is the only way not to contradict yourself.
Yet here you are, still lying to everyone and refusing to be honest about your failings.
When you are repeatedly refuted, you just flee and bring up the same refuted BS again later.
Even now you cling to the BS idea that I have contradicted myself, merely for recognising a fictional character is evil when I don't believe that fiction character exists.
There is not one of us perfect, not one. So why pretend so much?
I'm not.
Yet again, you can't refute what I said, so you just lie.
No, there are plenty of contradictions.
Yet you can't demonstrate a single one on my part.
Instead you just keep repeating the same pathetic BS.
I have explained why your claims are BS, why I'm not contradicting myself.
I have also explained why you are.
-
I'm not.
Oh, I almost was gonna praise you for being honest for once.
But you were saying "I'm not" to the accusation of pretending.
12If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
19And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever practices the truth comes into the Light, so that it may be seen clearly that what he has done has been accomplished in God.”
You have only to say one honest thing, that you aren't perfect, to admit that your life has contradictions. This is part of being human. My life has contradictions, so does my dad, so does the Pope, or the president, or the head of the UN. People out of touch with this simple fact aren't able to be honest about anything. You have to be honest about yourself with yourself, even if nothing else you say is right.
But you can't bring yourself to do something as simple as this.
And so, just as Jesus said, you are already condemned. I shall now hand out your epithet. You are a poser. You are so worried what other people might think of you that you cannot be bothered to tell one true thing about yourself.
Yet again, you can't refute what I said, so you just lie.
I named five things wrong with your ideas.
1. Hating on someone who is not only fictional but according to you nonexistent or imaginary.
2. Telling me you don't hate God when you actually use the words "evil"," tyrant ", and "POS."
3. Telling me that I am contradicting myself for believing everything bad comes from humans and everything good comes from God, then all too obviously having the exact opposite position.
4. Yes that's right, you tell me "who created cancer or who created mosquitoes" despite your first position that God is supposed not to exist.
5. But you also don't allow for the belief that goodness can happen through humans. I never said humans weren't capable of goodness, only that God as I know him is a being where our definitions of good and evil don't even apply. Only humans do evil, because humans actively decide to react to good or evil.
Everything you just said here was self-contradictory. The fact that it is, is the refutation, in the same way that a witness on court saying the victim dodged left when the door is on the opposite side of the room calls into question their argument. When there isn't any internal consistency about what you say, and you can't even say "my bad, I guess I was just mixed up" when caught in a contradiction means nothing you say can be taken seriously.
I found not one, not two, but ten good points about mosquitoes. If we are to blame God (who you say doesn't exist, between calling him a POS) for mosquitoes killing people for malaria, but when I say they have good points, I'm sure you're all like "Oh no, God can't be responsible for that, he doesn't exist."
Even a tiny bit of honesty not only makes me respect your more, but increases your credibility.
-
Oh, I almost was gonna praise you for being honest for once.
Why would you do that when that would require you to admit to be dishonest this whole time?
Are you going to try being honest for once?
Who am I kidding. Of course you wont, you are far too attached to your fantasy.
But you were saying "I'm not" to the accusation of pretending.
Your FALSE accusations. That shouldn't be surprising.
You have only to say one honest thing, that you aren't perfect
I have never claimed to be perfect.
Yet that doesn't stop you being incredibly dishonest and implying I have.
What I have said is that your lies about these alleged contradictions are just that, lies.
And so, just as Jesus said, you are already condemned.
Condemned for not worshipping your evil POS?
Hitler said the Jews were condemned. Does that mean the Jews should have begged for forgiveness and everyone should have let him kill them all?
I shall now hand out your epithet.
You mean you will continue to flee from the refutation of your BS and throw out more pathetic insults.
I named five things wrong with your ideas.
No, you have listed 5 lies.
I have explained the fault with each of them.
You then proceeded to ignore that.
Repeating them here will not help you.
Go to the previous post where I refuted each one and defend your lies.
I pointed out the fault with each of your lies, and what was your response:
No, there are plenty of contradictions. I've already addressed them, and you've probably made more with your latest post. Which I haven't bothered reading most of, because it looks like excuses that Columbo suspects would use.
Just more lies and pathetic dismissal.
You can happily lie making your pathetic claims repeatedly, but you can't defend them. Once they are refuted, you either just repeat the same lies or you flee.
Because that is the kind of dishonest person you are.
Everything you just said here was self-contradictory.
YOU said those things, not me.
As already explained, I have refuted each of those lies.
You ignored that refutation.
So you are still yet to point out any contradiction.
When there isn't any internal consistency
Yet what I have said remains consistent.
Conversely, what you say is not consistent.
you can't even say "my bad, I guess I was just mixed up" when caught in a contradiction means nothing you say can be taken seriously.
But that is not the case.
You are trying to get me to lie to say I contradicted myself when I didn't.
I found not one, not two, but ten good points about mosquitoes.
And I explained why for the most part they are BS, and the only actual advantages for blood sucking mosquitoes are ones which wouldn't be needed if a loving god existed.
I also pointed out how you dishonestly ignored what I actually said about malaria and instead chose to focus on the mosquitoes.
If we are to blame God (who you say doesn't exist, between calling him a POS) for mosquitoes killing people for malaria, but when I say they have good points, I'm sure you're all like "Oh no, God can't be responsible for that, he doesn't exist."
Again, I'm not blaming god for this.
I am pointing the contradiction in your fantasy.
If you want to give God credit for the good which happens in this world, even when you cannot show any action from God causing it; then that means it is also responsible for all the bad. And all that bad far outweighs the good, making your god evil; making any omnipotent god that exists evil at worst, apathetic at best.
Again, appealing to that good is like saying Hitler helped an old lady cross the street so he is good, even with all the evil he committed or caused.
You are trying to ignore all that bad, or place the blame for it on humans or things other than your god, and then using those same humans you say are responsible for evil, or that same nature you wont blame god for to pretend God is good.
That is a massive contradiction on your part.
And yet you even contradict that by saying your god causes evil/suffering.
You try to avoid that by saying good and evil only apply to humans, not God; yet the reason you give would allow it to apply to a god; and then still try claiming God is good.
Even a tiny bit of honesty not only makes me respect your more, but increases your credibility.
Which is why you have no credibility at all, and no one should respect you. Because you continue to lie with every post you make.
-
5 lies? No, these are five things you told on yourself.
I could probably even tell you my failings. It doesn't bother in the least.
But you yourself created these contradictions. They were based on your own statements.
You tell me my God is nonexistent. Then you tell me he's a POS, tyrannical, and evil. I can find exact quotes of these statements peppered throughout your posts. Then I say that you hate God, as this is the truth of anyone who calls God stuff like this. You can't even be honest about that. You claim you don't hate God while you continue simultaneously telling me God doesn't exist and he's awful. Then you tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying God is good (even though I also said he is responsible for evil, citing Isaiah 45:7 and other passages) but humans are evil. Okay but when I turn that statement around, you are guilty of the exact same thing! And more egregiously, while I'll admit this is a way that I think (I clarify it as evil being the result of turning from God, but yes), you just called what amounts to your own statements five lies.
And I explained why for the most part they are BS, and the only actual advantages for blood sucking mosquitoes are ones which wouldn't be needed if a loving god existed.
Except that this is isn't some fundie website trying to defend God's creation of insects. It's one of those scientific journal things that you love so much until what it says is inconvenient. Because that would admit that you are trying hard to do the opposite (hate God and say things created by God have to be evil), you have to rule this out as bullshit.
Are you capable of any honesty?
-
5 lies? No, these are five things you told on yourself.
No, they are 5 lies you constructed for yourself.
5 lies that were refuted.
With you unable to deal with the refutation.
I could probably even tell you my failings. It doesn't bother in the least.
You mean you will say some to avoid the bigger ones.
But you yourself created these contradictions.
No, I didn't.
You created them in your mind. You cannot show an actual contradiction.
Again, all have been refuted.
You tell me my God is nonexistent. Then you tell me he's a POS, tyrannical, and evil.
In the exact same way I can say Voldemort doesn't exist, yet still tell you it is a tyrannical evil POS.
Just like I can say those things about Voldemort without hating it.
Again, THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION HERE!!!
But because you can't refute what I have actually said, you just resort to these pathetic lies.
Then you tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying God is good (even though I also said he is responsible for evil
And there you go contradicting yourself yet again.
If your god was good, it wouldn't be creating evil, it wouldn't be responsible for evil.
Notice how this is a direct contradiction?
Okay but when I turn that statement around, you are guilty of the exact same thing!
No, I'm not.
There are 2 fundamental distinctions.
First, I'm not using actions of reality to say your god is evil. I'm using it to show your hypocrisy and that this universe is incompatible with a loving, all powerful god.
But more importantly, a good being wouldn't do evil unless that was a necessary evil to achieve a greater good, which does not apply to an omnipotent being; but an evil being can still do good.
Again, what you are doing is like saying Hitler helped an old lady cross the street so he must be good.
And more egregiously, while I'll admit this is a way that I think
Yet you don't admit you directly contradict yourself, nor that you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, nor that your god is evil.
you just called what amounts to your own statements five lies.
No, they are not my own statements. They are your lies about what I said.
Big difference.
Except that this is isn't some fundie website trying to defend God's creation of insects.
And there is the big difference.
It doesn't say they were made by a god.
They are not saying they are benefits for why a god created it.
Instead, they are appealing to benefits for a godless universe, where we don't have a loving, all powerful creator that cares about us.
That just further shows it is entirely useless to your argument.
Again, the only benefit of the blood sucking mosquitoes are in fields like medicine which wouldn't be needed if a loving, all powerful god existed.
And that still isn't providing a benefit for MALARIA, which I actually brought up.
Are you capable of any honesty?
Yes. I have been honest throughout.
Are you capable of any honesty?
Are you going to honestly respond to what I said, or will you continue to ignore it to repeat the same pathetic lies?
-
I don't but this guy does.
There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.
And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.
So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.
And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxTsnQKB/a-manned.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not exactly going up straight is it ?
What? Something debated and explained by several people?
One. The rocket didn’t hit any physical object.
Two. The arc to place something or itself into orbit in space around the earth. Care to provide the launch date and the mission? What is the vehicle and context of the image?
Three. This was provided by stash for a poster that wanted a rocket that went straight up into space. This fulfills that requirement
UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight
Four. Why is the firmament being brought up in this thread. I can demonstrate spherical earth and space. But why can’t there be a spherical earth with a “dome”? If you want to think outside the “box”? A dome doesn’t prove FE.
Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.
GoFast - Rocket hits the sky firmament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin
you can see it falling off moments after supposed impact. People messaged person who launched rocked and he confirmed it.
-
AWESOME EXPOSE MARTIN & SANTOS....EXCELLENCE AT ITS FINEST
-
In response to BB's faith post;
Faith is the abdication of responsibility to a higher force that, other than some dusty books, there is no evidence for.
Some years ago, I worked for an environmental group in Leicester, a very multi-cultural city.
We ran an initiative called “Faith in Nature.” An attempt to further environmental issues through whatever deity/s people had faith in, they/it being the originators of the beauty of nature.
We had a very mixed response, the Catholics and Muslim leaders we met were of the opinion that yes god had put beauty in our hands but there was little to do as it was all in the plan, the Buddhists too thought we were going about this in the wrong way, become a Buddhist, learn the way and all would be okay.
The Jains, that predate Christianity by about a 1,000 years and are a trans-theistic religion and believe to harm any life is a sin, agreed that a nature area for the contemplation of beauty in a city was a good idea, so did the Sikhs who when we turned up to transform a waste area behind one of their gurdwaras provided us with one of the best vegetarian buffets I have ever tasted.
The Church of England gave us a wild area of an old church to transform, but obviously didn’t tell the grounds keeper as I checked it a month later and it had been mown down to the roots.
I didn’t have anything to do with the Hindu’s so I can’t comment.
But the overriding vibe was that (insert divine being) would sort this out, all we needed to do was have faith, well after 1,000’s of years of faith the Earth is dying and none of these myths have turned up, when is blind faith indistinguishable from burying ones head in the sand?
-
Faith is the abdication of responsibility to a higher force that,
Being called to love your neighbor as yourself, being called to be a good steward, being called to care for the poor, sick, and hungry is abdicating responsibility?
20The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
https://biblehub.com/esv/matthew/19.htm
I dint think Jesus wants people to be destitute. But Jesus called out the young man for putting all his eggs and care into riches and following the law with no compassion. No concern for his neighbors.
It’s a strange thought I’ve had at four way stops of late. Even serial killers for the most part take their turn at four way stops like the rest of us.
Anyway.
Example. If the world economy crashes, I still have my God and my Church Family. Those that trust in only themselves, wealth, and have friendships based on their wealth will have what?
Faith isn’t about getting out of work or getting out of serving. It’s about having more faith in spiritual maters than wealth.
This is directed at capable individuals.
Warning Against Idleness
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203&version=NIV
How much of our society is sick from idleness and wanting to live like rockstars off the dole?
My ex didn’t want to work. We got divorced. They got their disability/social security. Now they make and sale crafts at craft fairs and hide the income.
I’ve been in bars where people bragged about getting their EBT cards.
The new American dream. Sit and drink all day while on the dole and bragging about it.
I’ve made a few people mad when they state there is more to life than work. My reply is you need to provide for yourself and your family.
I’m blessed and thankful that I strive for spiritual happiness over wealth happiness. Doesn’t mean I don’t struggle with issues. And I still need to provide for my kid and myself. And need to help out the community with actual sweat. But faith gives me strength, endurance, and focus.
But. Ultimately it’s to each individual and their freewill. But remember, even serial killer obey traffic laws like the rest of us. Whatever that means.
-
But the overriding vibe was that (insert divine being) would sort this out, all we needed to do was have faith, well after 1,000’s of years of faith the Earth is dying and none of these myths have turned up, when is blind faith indistinguishable from burying ones head in the sand?
King James Bible
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,…
-
But the overriding vibe was that (insert divine being) would sort this out, all we needed to do was have faith, well after 1,000’s of years of faith the Earth is dying and none of these myths have turned up, when is blind faith indistinguishable from burying ones head in the sand?
King James Bible
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,…
The Bible used poetry and figurative speech throughout its entirety.
I think it’s just an over simplification of the “ocean” of spinning material in the void of space that formed our solar system.
I don’t care if you believe in God, Nature, or creation. All evidence points to the heliocentric model and there is no physical dome around earth. Just atmosphere giving way to the expanse of space.
-
All evidence points to the heliocentric model and there is no physical dome around earth. Just atmosphere giving way to the expanse of space.
So what separates us from the vacuum of space ?
-
All evidence points to the heliocentric model and there is no physical dome around earth. Just atmosphere giving way to the expanse of space.
So what separates us from the vacu
Attachments and other options
Notify me of replies. Return to this topic. Don't use smileys.um of space ?
Nothing, other than distance. The pressure at any given altitude depends on the weight of the air above. This creates a logarithmic taper to the air pressure with distance away from a planet. It never truly goes to zero. Pick a pressure and call that the beginning of "space".
-
But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,…
That isn't a fact.
That is a claim.
One for which there is no more evidence than the claim itself.
More so, you have 2 contradictory claims, with 2 different contradictory creation accounts.
The Bible used poetry and figurative speech throughout its entirety.
Except there is no reason at all to think it is meant to be figurative.
The only people try to claim that is to have their delusional fantasy match reality.
In what world is Genesis 4 and 5 figurative?
This serves no purpose at all other than providing an allegedly histortical family tree.
So what separates us from the vacuum of space ?
You are asking the wrong question.
The question is what is causing air pressure?
We know that air pressure pushes air outwards.
So something needs to be creating that pressure.
And that something is gravity (or whatever delusional BS you want to substitute for it).
Gravity is pulling the air down, compressing the air below.
This naturally creates a pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient is measurable, with the air pressure lower as you get higher.
You can also test it out with water.
It is this pressure gradient which separates the air at sea level from the atmosphere of space.
There is no need for any solid container.
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
You mean the atmosphere and a few fancy phenomenon.
No evidence of a firmament there.
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
You mean the atmosphere and a few fancy phenomenon
No evidence of a firmament there.
The sprites confirm the firmament.
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
You mean the atmosphere and a few fancy phenomenon
No evidence of a firmament there.
The sprites confirm the firmament.
Sprites don't actually exist. They are a fantasy, promoted by NOAA. NASA is not the only government agency lying to us!
-
The sprites confirm the firmament.
How?
Stop with the baseless claims and clearly explain your position.
Tell us just what part of this video, i.e. what we are seeing in it, shows the firmament exists, and how it shows that.
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
Interesting. How were the sprites filmed from above the firmament? At around the 50 second or so mark, the sprites are clearly visible from above.
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
Interesting. How were the sprites filmed from above the firmament? At around the 50 second or so mark, the sprites are clearly visible from above.
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
-
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
When? At what time?
How do you know they are hitting a firmament?
-
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
When? At what time?
How do you know they are hitting a firmament?
What else could they be hitting ?
-
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
When? At what time?
How do you know they are hitting a firmament?
What else could they be hitting ?
Spoken like a truth seeker! Sprites are not well understood. They are a form of lightning. Their altitude limitation is because they only happen in air, specifically the mesosphere. But then, I guess that's a globe earth thing, so you won't accept that, right?
Here is some reading you might enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)
And a video with some nice images.
Notice there is no mention of the firmament.
-
What else could they be hitting ?
Are they really hitting anything.
Looks different in this guys video..
(https://i.imgur.com/XDpzTsY.jpeg)
Example of plasm, which are what sprites are believed to be, hitting glass.
(https://i.imgur.com/R481Unj.jpeg)
-
The Firmament in all it's glory 8)
Interesting. How were the sprites filmed from above the firmament? At around the 50 second or so mark, the sprites are clearly visible from above.
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
Perhaps, but the video is showing them from above.
-
What else could they be hitting ?
Are they really hitting anything.
Looks different in this guys video..
(https://i.imgur.com/XDpzTsY.jpeg)
Example of plasm, which are what sprites are believed to be, hitting glass.
(https://i.imgur.com/R481Unj.jpeg)
The first plasma ball was invented by Nikola Tesla in 1894. The design called 'Electric light source' looked like a lamp with a glass bulb and one electrode.
Quote from Tesla;
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRpb417Q/image-2024-06-27-222039239.png) (https://postimages.org/)
A group of researchers headed by Prof Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics has discovered a nearly impenetrable barrier some 11,500 km above our planet that blocks so-called ‘killer electrons,’ which can fry satellites and degrade space systems during intense solar storms.
“It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space. Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon,” said Prof Baker, who is the first author of the paper published in the journal Nature
-
Neither, the sprites are filmed hitting the firmament from under neath.
When? At what time?
How do you know they are hitting a firmament?
What else could they be hitting ?
I notice you still don't give a time.
The first question is are these actually sprites or somethign else?
The second question is are they actually hitting anything?
Then if they are hitting anything, is this just part of the atmosphere? Perhaps a cloud?
We can often see lightning, or electricity sparks, which stop mid air. Is that hitting aything?
e.g. This is a tesla coil:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mbEOLUejKq0
Are those sparks hitting anything?
A group of researchers headed by Prof Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics has discovered a nearly impenetrable barrier some 11,500 km above our planet that blocks so-called ‘killer electrons,’ which can fry satellites and degrade space systems during intense solar storms.
“It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space. Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon,” said Prof Baker, who is the first author of the paper published in the journal Nature
An incredibly dishonest quote mine. And nothing at all to do with your sprites.
So if you accept this, you also accept that the previous footage of yours does not show sprites, and that the fimament would have to be in space, not below it. That would also mean objects could go to space.
And notice that this is nearly inpenetrable to high energy electrons, not normal uncharged matter.
A lump of steel can easily pass through.
-
The first plasma ball was invented by Nikola Tesla in 1894.
Which has what to do with evidence in this video of “sprites”
Are they really hitting anything.
Looks different in this guys video..
(https://i.imgur.com/XDpzTsY.jpeg)
Example of plasm, which are what sprites are believed to be, hitting glass.
(https://i.imgur.com/R481Unj.jpeg)
-
[
What else could they be hitting ?
Real sprite
(https://i.imgur.com/XDpzTsY.jpeg)
vs your sprite?
(https://i.imgur.com/KVy8VpH.gif)
From your video. Space and stars above the “dome”?
(https://i.imgur.com/bou7mXg.jpeg)
-
The first plasma ball was invented by Nikola Tesla in 1894.
Which has what to do with evidence in this video of “sprites”
Are they really hitting anything.
Looks different in this guys video..
(https://i.imgur.com/XDpzTsY.jpeg)
Example of plasm, which are what sprites are believed to be, hitting glass.
(https://i.imgur.com/R481Unj.jpeg)
You did mention plasma balls did you not ?
-
You did mention plasma balls did you not ?
Hello. McFly.
Sprites are a cold plasma from lighting strikes and I showed an example of what happens when plasma hits glass. Do plasma balls with plasma acting similar to plasma sprites have plasma hitting a glass “dome”.
Did you not mention dome and sprites? With sprites supposedly hitting a dome.