Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

My definition of God

perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

I wonder if people think just because I don't believe in something I therefore haven't defined it. But isn't that the problem?
Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

This explains why you cannot define YOUR GOD to ME and are only capable of offering YOUR experience to recognize only what YOU can recognize, which is meaningless to me.

And for some strange reason, the believers experience is to trump MY experience as the ONLY way one can describe their GOD

This is the same personal experience one gets when looking at a painting, or listening to a singer, a song or watching a movie, walking through the forrest...EVERYONE gets something DIFFERENT from the same source...that is art.

God is YOU and there are many of YOU out there trying to prove YOU have the right definition of YOU as GOD...well of course you exist...YOU are GOD...
thusly ...
as an arrogant human being who is capable of recognizing arrogance i can recognize other arrogant human beings
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity. odd considering who you claim to be representing...but then again as I already explained you are just representing a part of you that of which i rejected..and your feewing were hoit...boo hoo hoo
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 6:40:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?

yes, it meets the criteria for what makes an apple an apple when experience eating an apple...and others with the same capacity of to see, taste smell and touch will recognize it as well

do you have a point?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.


I wonder if people think just because I don't believe in something I therefore haven't defined it. But isn't that the problem?
Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

This explains why you cannot define YOUR GOD to ME and are only capable of offering YOUR experience to recognize only what YOU can recognize, which is meaningless to me.

And for some strange reason, the believers experience is to trump MY experience as the ONLY way one can describe their GOD

This is the same personal experience one gets when looking at a painting, or listening to a singer, a song or watching a movie, walking through the forrest...EVERYONE gets something DIFFERENT from the same source...that is art.

God is YOU and there are many of YOU out there trying to prove YOU have the right definition of YOU as GOD...well of course you exist...YOU are GOD...
thusly ...
as an arrogant human being who is capable of recognizing arrogance i can recognize other arrogant human beings

I can recognize stupidity, even though my IQ says I'm not.
I can recognize someone who knows a lot about a subject, even if I don't.
I can recognize food, even though I am not food.
I can recognize poverty, even though my family is Upper-middle class.
I can recognize violence, even though I am not.
I can recognize insanity, oh wait, I am insane. My bad.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:31:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:40:45 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?

yes, it meets the criteria for what makes an apple an apple when experience eating an apple...and others with the same capacity of to see, taste smell and touch will recognize it as well

do you have a point?

I just found it funny that you switched up your style of syllogism for that answer.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:31:25 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:40:45 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?

yes, it meets the criteria for what makes an apple an apple when experience eating an apple...and others with the same capacity of to see, taste smell and touch will recognize it as well

do you have a point?

I just found it funny that you switched up your style of syllogism for that answer.
i just find it funny that your red herring failed...
there is a difference between the abstract and the concrete...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:42:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:35:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:31:25 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:40:45 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?

yes, it meets the criteria for what makes an apple an apple when experience eating an apple...and others with the same capacity of to see, taste smell and touch will recognize it as well

do you have a point?

I just found it funny that you switched up your style of syllogism for that answer.
i just find it funny that your red herring failed...
there is a difference between the abstract and the concrete...

Let's be serious now. To claim that in order for a Christian to recognize their God they would have to be, by definition, God, is plainly false and based on a misconception of the Christian theological principle of our epistemological limitations concerning the nature of God. Most Christians would argue that in order to know God, He is the one who reveals himself. Not that we have come to recognize or know him through the initiating actions of our own. In other words, some say, God is both the subject and object of our faith.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:42:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:35:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:31:25 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:40:45 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:24:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God

Can you recognize an apple?

yes, it meets the criteria for what makes an apple an apple when experience eating an apple...and others with the same capacity of to see, taste smell and touch will recognize it as well

do you have a point?

I just found it funny that you switched up your style of syllogism for that answer.
i just find it funny that your red herring failed...
there is a difference between the abstract and the concrete...

Let's be serious now. To claim that in order for a Christian to recognize their God they would have to be, by definition, God, is plainly false and based on a misconception of the Christian theological principle of our epistemological limitations concerning the nature of God.

not at all. you know why, because the concept of God cannot be separated from the individuals concept of God...being indoctrinated does not in and of it self prove god...
God would have to speak for itself...and there is no way you can prove the bible is speaking for God...
it's very telling that when someone rejects the christians god, the christian takes it personally...why? because it is THEIR interpretation of their god that was rejected...it's a part of them that was rejected, and it perfectly understandable why someone would feel hurt when they are rejected...thusly if i reject your god i reject you.

Most Christians would argue that in order to know God, He is the one who reveals himself.
everyone is capable of wishful thinking...so what?

Not that we have come to recognize or know him through the initiating actions of our own. In other words, some say, God is both the subject and object of our faith.
an illogical conclusion for me...and i also find that ideology very dangerous...people have justified they should fly into buildings for their faith.

the point is, the believers positions only affects the believer...

i smell a smelly smell that smells smelly...
DOMA, Women's reproductive rights, euthanasia?

as an observer, i only see the side affects of delusional thinking...i don't see the actual thing the believers believe in...believers are still holding an empty bag...and i understand why they are really sensitive about it.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:18:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.


I wonder if people think just because I don't believe in something I therefore haven't defined it. But isn't that the problem?
Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...

But..... These are emotions and behavior hardwired into your brain based on culture, value system and experience. Experiences that are as valid as the next persons.

as a person, i cannot recognize God...

Perhaps you do not believe because A) You have been conditioned not to believe or B) You simply choose not to believe for your own perfectly valid reasons. Neither of which, I take any issue with by the way.


so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God


To me, this is the smartest observation made in this thread and the reason I decided to respond. This statement alone is not only profound - but has huge implications! Some believers live a life of dedicated faith and never reach this understanding because of the static information the choose to dwell in. Even Jude -Christian scripture reinforces exactly what you are saying here. Exodus 3:14, when Moses asked God his name, He responded "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh" or "I am that, I am" or simply "I Am" aka Yahweh. In some circles, when a person fully understands this form a spiritual consciousness or faith based perspective - they are said to have a "Christ conscience." This is when a person can see themselves through God's eyes. I imagine it is in this moment you would recognize we are all one. That God is the collection or source of all experiences and existence.

This explains why you cannot define YOUR GOD to ME and are only capable of offering YOUR experience to recognize only what YOU can recognize, which is meaningless to me.


...as you pointed out, theology is conjecture - so is this last statement but I get the point you are trying to make.

And for some strange reason, the believers experience is to trump MY experience as the ONLY way one can describe their GOD


This is because people have been taught to defend their position or belief system in order to bring validity to it. We live in a performance based society. This is done all the time in other areas of competing interests such as politics as well as debate to name a few. It is how society operates, right, wrong or indifferent... Would you expect anything less of a person of passion and conviction in what they believe? Of course not, to except such a premise would require you to back away from your own assertion and belief.

This is the same personal experience one gets when looking at a painting, or listening to a singer, a song or watching a movie, walking through the forrest...EVERYONE gets something DIFFERENT from the same source...that is art.

Excellent point! It affirms we are all different and there is no right or wrong answer. The reflection of the "same source", (your words, not mine) is an internal understanding. In this sense, it might suggest the whole, is greater than the sum of these experiences.

God is YOU and there are many of YOU out there trying to prove YOU have the right definition of YOU as GOD...well of course you exist...YOU are GOD...
thusly ...
as an arrogant human being who is capable of recognizing arrogance i can recognize other arrogant human beings

True - we all have ego and exhibit arrogance. However; believers of God do not have a market share on this human emotion.

All in all, for an atheist, I personally believe you have a pretty mature handle on the nature of God and you defined God really well and it does not require debate. :-) I wish more people understood God he way you perceive God.

Cheers
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 9:06:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 12:18:31 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.


I wonder if people think just because I don't believe in something I therefore haven't defined it. But isn't that the problem?
Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...

But..... These are emotions and behavior hardwired into your brain based on culture, value system and experience. Experiences that are as valid as the next persons.
as we all experience these emotions empirically...thusly as a person i cannot recognize god

as a person, i cannot recognize God...

Perhaps you do not believe because A) You have been conditioned not to believe or B) You simply choose not to believe for your own perfectly valid reasons. Neither of which, I take any issue with by the way.
a) i was indoctrinated
b) i began to question everything

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God


To me, this is the smartest observation made in this thread and the reason I decided to respond. This statement alone is not only profound - but has huge implications! Some believers live a life of dedicated faith and never reach this understanding because of the static information the choose to dwell in. Even Jude -Christian scripture reinforces exactly what you are saying here. Exodus 3:14, when Moses asked God his name, He responded "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh" or "I am that, I am" or simply "I Am" aka Yahweh. In some circles, when a person fully understands this form a spiritual consciousness or faith based perspective - they are said to have a "Christ conscience." This is when a person can see themselves through God's eyes. I imagine it is in this moment you would recognize we are all one. That God is the collection or source of all experiences and existence.

This explains why you cannot define YOUR GOD to ME and are only capable of offering YOUR experience to recognize only what YOU can recognize, which is meaningless to me.


...as you pointed out, theology is conjecture - so is this last statement but I get the point you are trying to make.

And for some strange reason, the believers experience is to trump MY experience as the ONLY way one can describe their GOD


This is because people have been taught to defend their position or belief system in order to bring validity to it. We live in a performance based society. This is done all the time in other areas of competing interests such as politics as well as debate to name a few. It is how society operates, right, wrong or indifferent... Would you expect anything less of a person of passion and conviction in what they believe? Of course not, to except such a premise would require you to back away from your own assertion and belief
indoctrination....

This is the same personal experience one gets when looking at a painting, or listening to a singer, a song or watching a movie, walking through the forrest...EVERYONE gets something DIFFERENT from the same source...that is art.

Excellent point! It affirms we are all different and there is no right or wrong answer. The reflection of the "same source", (your words, not mine) is an internal understanding. In this sense, it might suggest the whole, is greater than the sum of these experiences.
to clarify the source is the idea.

God is YOU and there are many of YOU out there trying to prove YOU have the right definition of YOU as GOD...well of course you exist...YOU are GOD...
thusly ...
as an arrogant human being who is capable of recognizing arrogance i can recognize other arrogant human beings

True - we all have ego and exhibit arrogance. However; believers of God do not have a market share on this human emotion.

never said they did.

All in all, for an atheist, I personally believe you have a pretty mature handle on the nature of God and you defined God really well and it does not require debate. :-) I wish more people understood God he way you perceive God.

Cheers

thank you.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

odd considering who you claim to be representing...

Aaaahh yes. You're the type of militant who thinks she should be able to insult Christians without consequence. Because Christians are supposed to be niiiiice. lol, You will have a bumpy ride with me.

..but then again as I already explained you are just representing a part of you that of which i rejected..and your feewing were hoit...boo hoo hoo

Yeah. I'm so hurt I can't stop laughing.

Inorder to define anything one must first recognize it.
as an insecure person, i can recognize insecurity
as a weak person, i can recognize a weakness
as a person who speaks spanish, i can recognize spanish
as a mother, i can recognize a nurture...therefore I can define all these things.
BUT...
as a person, i cannot recognize God...

so if you the believer are capable of recognizing your God, then YOU must be your definition of God.

Can you recognize an apple?

LOL!!

Whooooooosh!!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?
so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:30:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself, are you not capable of understanding that or do you choose not to?

you realize willful ignorance is another thing entirely
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:30:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less. I addressed a comment you made about why no one asked you what your definition of God was. I told you it was because you came off as arrogant and ignorant.

Contrary to what you think, Christian aren't stupid. We can see an arrogant, ignorant atheist coming from a mile away. Our experience on the board tells us that we will not get rational responses from you, and that you aren't interested in useful discourse.

...are you not capable of understanding that or do you choose not to?

Reality doesn't reside between your ears. Just because you think it, doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

you realize willful ignorance is another thing entirely.

If yours isn't willful then it will be with you for a long time. But something tells me that you are quite comfortable in it.

Enjoy!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:59:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:52:10 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:30:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:59:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:52:10 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:30:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 4:59:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:59:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:52:10 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:30:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:24:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:17:00 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:42:47 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/3/2014 6:20:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:17:59 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:25:49 AM, perplexed wrote:
It's interesting to note that NO ONE debating me on the other thread

"God isn't the problem, it's your definition"

asked me what my definition of God is. No one.

The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.

why do lie? catch up sparky....read the title of the thread... that may give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you came in here telling me what my definition of something that is understood subjectively should be..cause we all know your definition is the only one everyone should have...
i suppose you are overcompensating for something really small and itty bitty

hahhahhahha
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 10:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:55:03 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:42:45 PM, stubs wrote:
Let's be serious now. To claim that in order for a Christian to recognize their God they would have to be, by definition, God, is plainly false and based on a misconception of the Christian theological principle of our epistemological limitations concerning the nature of God.

not at all. you know why, because the concept of God cannot be separated from the individuals concept of God...

I agree

being indoctrinated does not in and of it self prove god...
God would have to speak for itself...and there is no way you can prove the bible is speaking for God...

I agree

it's very telling that when someone rejects the christians god, the christian takes it personally...why? because it is THEIR interpretation of their god that was rejected..

I don't take it personally.

it's a part of them that was rejected, and it perfectly understandable why someone would feel hurt when they are rejected...thusly if i reject your god i reject you.

I don't feel hurt or rejected by you.

Most Christians would argue that in order to know God, He is the one who reveals himself.
everyone is capable of wishful thinking...so what?

I agree

Not that we have come to recognize or know him through the initiating actions of our own. In other words, some say, God is both the subject and object of our faith.
an illogical conclusion for me...and i also find that ideology very dangerous...people have justified they should fly into buildings for their faith.

I agree.

the point is, the believers positions only affects the believer...

i smell a smelly smell that smells smelly...
DOMA, Women's reproductive rights, euthanasia?

as an observer, i only see the side affects of delusional thinking...i don't see the actual thing the believers believe in...believers are still holding an empty bag...and i understand why they are really sensitive about it.

I would say the reason why some would be sensitive about it is that they see the eternal impact that decisions in this world can determine.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 10:30:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 10:17:27 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:55:03 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:42:45 PM, stubs wrote:
Let's be serious now. To claim that in order for a Christian to recognize their God they would have to be, by definition, God, is plainly false and based on a misconception of the Christian theological principle of our epistemological limitations concerning the nature of God.

not at all. you know why, because the concept of God cannot be separated from the individuals concept of God...

I agree

being indoctrinated does not in and of it self prove god...
God would have to speak for itself...and there is no way you can prove the bible is speaking for God...

I agree

it's very telling that when someone rejects the christians god, the christian takes it personally...why? because it is THEIR interpretation of their god that was rejected..

: I don't take it personally.


never said you did...do you understand what i meant as i used the word "when"?

it's a part of them that was rejected, and it perfectly understandable why someone would feel hurt when they are rejected...thusly if i reject your god i reject you.

: I don't feel hurt or rejected by you.

never said you did...do you understand what i meant as i used the word "when"?

Most Christians would argue that in order to know God, He is the one who reveals himself.
everyone is capable of wishful thinking...so what?

I agree

Not that we have come to recognize or know him through the initiating actions of our own. In other words, some say, God is both the subject and object of our faith.
an illogical conclusion for me...and i also find that ideology very dangerous...people have justified they should fly into buildings for their faith.

I agree.

the point is, the believers positions only affects the believer...

i smell a smelly smell that smells smelly...
DOMA, Women's reproductive rights, euthanasia?

as an observer, i only see the side affects of delusional thinking...i don't see the actual thing the believers believe in...believers are still holding an empty bag...and i understand why they are really sensitive about it.

I would say the reason why some would be sensitive about it is that they see the eternal impact that decisions in this world can determine.
i don't see how they could, unless they are god....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 7:35:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 4:59:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM, ethang5 wrote:


The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.

why do lie? catch up sparky....read the title of the thread... that may give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you came in here telling me what my definition of something that is understood subjectively should be..cause we all know your definition is the only one everyone should have...
i suppose you are overcompensating for something really small and itty bitty

hahhahhahha

Bully, is this you? Are you posting as a woman under a differenc siggy?

How likely is it that two different people would continually make posts thinking that "hahahahahah" is a valid logical response to arguments?

Bully, we know you've changed your profile before. Did you go female this time? ....and really low on the intellect?

just wondering.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:24:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 7:35:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 4:59:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM, ethang5 wrote:


The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.

why do lie? catch up sparky....read the title of the thread... that may give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you came in here telling me what my definition of something that is understood subjectively should be..cause we all know your definition is the only one everyone should have...
i suppose you are overcompensating for something really small and itty bitty

hahhahhahha

Bully, is this you? Are you posting as a woman under a differenc siggy?

How likely is it that two different people would continually make posts thinking that "hahahahahah" is a valid logical response to arguments?

Bully, we know you've changed your profile before. Did you go female this time? ....and really low on the intellect?

just wondering.

You really need to have a talk to mummy, she needs to take you to one of those special doctors. Just tell her I said so.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 7:35:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 4:59:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM, ethang5 wrote:


The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.

why do lie? catch up sparky....read the title of the thread... that may give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you came in here telling me what my definition of something that is understood subjectively should be..cause we all know your definition is the only one everyone should have...
i suppose you are overcompensating for something really small and itty bitty

hahhahhahha

Bully, is this you? Are you posting as a woman under a differenc siggy?

How likely is it that two different people would continually make posts thinking that "hahahahahah" is a valid logical response to arguments?

Bully, we know you've changed your profile before. Did you go female this time? ....and really low on the intellect?

just wondering.

feeling uneasy....good.
makes me happy
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:41:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 8:24:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 7:35:17 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 4:59:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 2:29:44 PM, ethang5 wrote:


The reason why is in the very post of yours above. I will isolate it for you.

as an arrogant human being .....

You come across as arrogant AND ignorant. You will have to ditch one or the other if you ever want to have meaningful discussions here.

I myself vote that you ditch ignorance. Just my 2 cents.

hahhah...at least I'm honest about myself.

hahhah...I am too.

psssst, your unnecessary ad hominem only betrays your insecurity.

: really? You called yourself arrogant. I agreed you were. How is that ad hom?

you called me ignorant, did you not?

Ah, so you admit to arrogance but not ignorance? Your posts contradict you.

so yes you do appear to be very insecure about your arrogance...
understandably so.

Insecure about my arrogance? I bet you're secure about yours huh? Trust me, you can be secure about your ignorance also. It's pretty sturdy.

i admit to being ignorant...but your response was to undermine what i define for myself,

No. I did not address what your definition of God is. I couldn't care less.

and i could care less about yours...glad you finally caught up sparky

So you were hi when you claimed that my response was to undermine what you define for yourself ? Confused? Well, your moniker is perplexed. Apt.

You are aware that the entire convo is up in black and white for all to see right? A flippant attitude doesn't hide your lack of logic.

Lulz.

why do lie? catch up sparky....read the title of the thread... that may give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you came in here telling me what my definition of something that is understood subjectively should be..cause we all know your definition is the only one everyone should have...
i suppose you are overcompensating for something really small and itty bitty

hahhahhahha

Bully, is this you? Are you posting as a woman under a differenc siggy?

How likely is it that two different people would continually make posts thinking that "hahahahahah" is a valid logical response to arguments?

Bully, we know you've changed your profile before. Did you go female this time? ....and really low on the intellect?

just wondering.

You really need to have a talk to mummy, she needs to take you to one of those special doctors. Just tell her I said so.

Which of your alter egos should I use to tell her? Perplexed or Bulproof?