DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on June 09, 2016, 10:17:03 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-swings-back-at-trump-on-twitter-%e2%80%98delete-your-account%e2%80%99/ar-AAgRMZN?li=BBnb7Kz
Trite answers trite, or...
Twits twit on twitter.
-
Trump started this crap. Trump is triteness personified.
He is a worthless sack of shit playing ego games.
-
Plane....Trump is greatness!
Take a look at this Obama ad he is now using against Crooked Hillary!
Using Obama's own words!
Hilarious!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741311272818475008?s=07
-
Keep in mind, C, that The Democrats have a plethora of video clips, by prominent Republicans, literally proclaiming how bad a person and unpresidential he is. This is why The GOP shot themselves in the foot, not holding onto Reagan's commandment of keeping party arguements at a policy level. Once that degraded into a bunch of name calling, this last primary cycle, the Dems had to be grinning ear to ear
(Trump better pick a VP candidate that has always been supportive, and never publically claimed how unfit for President he'd be)
-
Keep in mind, C, that The Democrats have a plethora of video clips, by prominent Republicans,
literally proclaiming how bad a person and unpresidential he is.
.
I KNEW IT
I KNEW ONE OF YOU NON-BELIEVERS WOULD BRING THAT UP....LOL
BUT NONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES ARE THE CURRENT SITTING PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE PARTY!
THOSE GUYS HAMMERING TRUMP ARE NOT REPUBLICANS
THEY ARE THE PROBLEM CORRUPT REPUBLICAN-WUSSIE CROWD
AMERICA-FIRST-PARTY!
-
"non-believers"? I don't follow? don't get me wrong, there's going to be plenty of Democrat speak about how unpresidential Clinton would be.....from Obama even himself. Just pointing out that there's going to be plenty of raw meat for the Democrats to use against Trump
-
"non-believers"? I don't follow? don't get me wrong, there's going to be plenty of Democrat speak about how unpresidential Clinton would be.....from Obama even himself. Just pointing out that there's going to be plenty of raw meat for the Democrats to use against Trump
ok
-
Trump still is not my favorite.
But better than Hillary Clinton he is .
That is just a really low bar to clear.
-
Trump still is not my favorite.
Who do you want Trump to choose as his VP
-
Someone who hasn't publically been negative thing about him is job 1. Otherwise, the subsequent anti-trump commercials will write themselves
Keep in mind that the VP pick isn't near as important as who's heading the ticket. That's who the people are electing as President, not who he picked for VP
More significant would be a short list of who his cabinet and judge nominations would be
-
Someone who hasn't publically been negative thing about him is job 1.
Not sure it is Job1....Elizabeth Warren/Bernie have been negative about Hillary
and Bush1 was negative about Reagan, LBJ was not huge fan of JFK.
but I sure hope Trump wouldn't pick some DemoPublican
that was negative and who is a member of the corrupt loser mentality RNC Country Club Republicans.
I really hope at some point Trump results in a new Party....the America First Party
and the Bill Kristols, Jeb Bush's, Mitch McConnell's, Lindsey Graham's can be told to go to hell.
-
I really hope at some point Trump results in a new Party....the America First Party
==================================================
This nativist party crap has been tried several times: the last was George Wallace's American Independent Party.
The most successful example was the Know Nothing Party. also called the American Party Their best year was 1855. In 1856, they nominated ex president Millard Fillmore and lost.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Know-Nothing-party
This explains the party and the name. It was originally a secret society.
-
Someone who hasn't publically been negative thing about him is job 1.
Not sure it is Job1....Elizabeth Warren/Bernie have been negative about Hillary
and Bush1 was negative about Reagan, LBJ was not huge fan of JFK.
The difference being of course, the level of negativity. As I said, its one thing to have a difference of opinion, from a policy standpoint. However, this primary season had a level of inner party vitriol, not seen since.....before Reagan. He best not pick someone like Cruz or Rubio, since the level of anger that barbed between Trump and them was practically tangible....and would make some of the juiciest of commercials for Clinton's team
-
I would say Rubio's political career is over.
There is a good chance that cartoon duck impersonator BusTED Cruz is finished as well.
-
They'll be fine. They made it to to a U.S. Senate level, despite your obsession with their looks and sounds. Cruz would make a damn good Supreme Court Justice, and Rubio could head any one of a number of cabinet positions....and would garner Trump some major voter support, if he did
-
Cruz is a religious nutcase.He claimed that De Lawd told him to run for Pres.
-
Yea.......and?. God tells me things every day
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-clinton-and-their-very-different-responses-to-the-orlando-shootings/ar-AAgXo6V?li=BBnbkly
Twittering more....
Trump calls for strong action , that probably won't help.
Hillary calls for strong actions , that have been tried and found ineffective before.
I am not happy with this choice.
-
It is, what it is :-[
-
?. God tells me things every day.
You are only hearing The Voices.
Plus, you are nucking futz.
-
Boy, you can be dense. It has nothing to do with voices. It has to do with scripture. God talks to us, thru scripture
-
Plus, you are nucking futz.
why the anger?
we believe - you don't
you don't believe - we do
why isn't that enough?
-
because......some people are nucking futz?
-
Believeing is one thing.
Hearing voices is nucking futz.
-
Putting aside that its perfectly rational for God to speak thru us, via scripture, just because he hasn't talked to you anytime lately, why couldn't he talk to someone else?? Just because you hold the opinion that God doesn't exist, doesn't refute that others can and do...which could absolutely include being talked to. We've had copious examples of just such talks, thru-out the bible
-
God does not "talk to you through scripture" , That is a process called "reading" followed by a process called 'imagination' or perhaps 'self delusion'.
I have never said that no God exists. I have said that the Bible is obviously not the word of the God if we assume that God is omniscient, benevolent, and actually gives a shit.
It is not possible to prove that God does not exist.
It is possible to prove that God as a creator was not necessary.
The Bible is a hodgepodge of all sorts of stuff, some if it true, some of it false, much of it imagined, and tons of bits that contradict other bits.
Any logical person can see this,
-
God does not "talk to you through scripture" , That is a process called "reading" followed by a process called 'imagination' or perhaps 'self delusion'.
Your opinon is duly noted....has been weighed, measured, and summarily discarded. What you have said is nothing more than Anti-Christian tripe, nothing more. No one is required to prove God's existance...not to you, not to anyone. You're free to believe or not. What you're not free to do, outside of this ongoing blather of an opinion, is claim how Christians can't be talked to by God, or how, or what the Bible is or isn't. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
-
Hell, Newton had to prove that GRAVITY exists. Galileo had to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa,
The burden of proof depends on the person making the statement.
Just as a scientist must prove that water exists and that it boils at 212ºF and freezes at 32ºF by experimentation, and is composed of two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen, you must prove that God exists and that his attributes are x, y, z.
Believing is not proving. Claiming that God exists because the Bible says so because the Bible is the Word of God is circular reasoning and will not cut it.
So far, no one has managed to prove by physical means that God exists. But the burden of proof depends on the person making the allegation.
The first Platypus was denounced as a taxidermist's fake when first exhibited in England. It was only when a live platypus was presented that zoologists began to believe in platypuses.
Next time God talks to you, turn on a recorder.
Now that nearly everyone has a cellphone with a camera, I am pretty sure that the number of miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary will drop from few to zero.
If they had had cellphones in antiquity, it would have been a hoot. We could illustrate the Bible with a photo of Jesus being tempted by Lucifer, Ezequiel would have taken a selfie with the Wheel, and Moses could show a selfie of himself with the Burning Bush. We could have audio of the thhhnake tempting Eve and seen the Handwriting On the Wall. Minnie, Minnie tickle a Parson.
-
Gravity is science.....GOD ISN'T. ONE MORE TIME, NO ONE HAS TO PROVE GOD TO YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE. SO IM NOT OBLIGATED TO RECORD HIM FOR OTHERS TO HEAR. ITS YOUR CHOICE TO BELIEVE OR NOT......PERIOD
-
Xavier...this article just came out last week.
Top scientist claims proof that God exists,
says humans live in a "world made by rules created by an intelligence"
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/top.scientist.finds.proof.that.god.exists.says.humans.live.in.a.world.made.by.rules.created.by.an.intelligence/87994.htm
-
You can expect a response to be along the lines that every individual Chrisitian must prove God's existance themselves, or........... the folks demanding the proof will have their heads explode I guess
-
Hell, Newton had to prove that GRAVITY exists. Galileo had to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa,
What keeps you from agreement with DeCart who found the preponderance of evidence in favor of Gods existence, or Pascal who finds all the risk of the question to be on the "anti" side?
Do you have to prove that Newton exists?
-
What keeps you from agreement with DeCart who found the preponderance of evidence in favor of Gods existence, or Pascal who finds all the risk of the question to be on the "anti" side?
Descartes said that God exists because he had a sense within him that God exists. That is a fucking cop out. He may not have believed it himself.
Of course, Descartes knew that if he claimed that God did not exist, and the word got out that he has written this, he would have been seriously tortured by the Holy Office. As it was, he arranged for his Research on the Method to be published. AFTER his death. Read up on Descartes.
Pascal was a mathematician and said that one should believe because if one was correct, one would be rewarded, whereas if one believed and God did not exist, then there would be no penalty.
Of course, Pascal postulated that if there was a God it was the one he had been indoctrinated with as a child, and that God punished nonbelievers with Hellfire and Damnation.
Of course, if your entire belief structure is predicated on a lie, then the penalty is that you cannot be taken seriously.
He also assumes that believing is a conscious choice. To be a believer, all one has to do is to force oneself to believe and to reject all logical indications that point to disbelief. It does not work that way. One cannot force oneself to believe. At best one only gets a neurosis that way.
No matter how hard I try, whiskey tastes just awful to me. Scotch, Bourbon, makes no difference. I can accept that others like the taste, but I cannot. In the same way, I cannot see Christian theism as anything but a poorly constructed hodgepodge. I cannot bring myself to believe that Pigs are capable of independent flight, either, and for the same reasons.
One thing is belief in a God, another is to believe that said God fits certain perimeters and has various attributes. Christian Theism has a whole bunch of illogical features: Original Sin, which states that Adam and Eve's snack has doomed every descendant forever. We no longer punish people for the sins of their fathers in civilized society. We would not execute John Wayne Gacey, Jr for his father's crimes. Svetlana Stalin came to the US and no one suggested that she be held accountable for what her father Josef did. We are smart enough to understand this. But we think God is not.
The Bible has God declaring, I thy God am a JEALOUS God, Jealous of what? Zeus? Baal? The Great Spirit? His Noodliness the FSM? How fucking omniscient is jealousy?
The entire doctrine of the Trinity is nonsensical, unless you see it for what it is: a fusion of Christianity with several popular mystery religions, done to win converts.
-
That's one opinion. I suggest you chose not to believe. There, that should set your mind at ease now.
-
I do not choose to believe or disbelieve. I simply state that if there is a God, there is no logical way he/she/it could be either of the entities described in the Bible.
Nor the genocidal jealous creature described in the OT or the God of Love described in parts of the NT.
And the concept of the Trinity is just dumb.
-
Actually you do....there is no middle. You either believe there's a God.....or you don't. Your ongoing OPINIONS not withstanding, its apparent you're of the non-believer category. I'll keep you in my prayers, come judgement day
-
What keeps you from agreement with DeCart who found the preponderance of evidence in favor of Gods existence, or Pascal who finds all the risk of the question to be on the "anti" side?
Descartes said that God exists because he had a sense within him .........................
Hahaha!
This is a great post!
I am not prepared to answer in kind right now , this argument deserves more thought than I have preloaded.
-
You either believe there's a God.....or you don't.
That is simply not true.
I have insufficient evidence to conclude that there is or is not a God.
I have insufficient information about the nature of such a being as well.
I cannot determine whether a Ford is better than a Chevy, either.
I could probably answer that by trying one or each. Theology is harder to deal with.
I had some woman tell me that I WANTED to believe, but I don't I don't want to disbelieve, either. I think I rather enjoy the mental exercise of finding the many defects in the features of all points of view.
Jesus said "let the young children come to me" or so they say. This is because if you indoctrinate some children when they a0re too young to reason, then belief in not just God but the entire religion is wired in their brains to bypass the logic circuits. I don't think they are CAPABLE of questioning this stuff. Mohammad certainly managed to keep his flock from drifting away by requiring prayer FIVE TIMES A DAY on a set schedule. That is serious self-indoctrination. That is why there are fanatics.
-
You either believe there's a God.....or you don't.
That is simply not true.
Sure it is. If someone has 2 options, you chose one. You have made it abundantly clear your disbelief of God. Fine. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to believe or even read a bible verse. Why this obsession with those who do choose to believe is truly a measure of irrational behavior
-
You have made it abundantly clear your disbelief of God.
================================================
I have done no such thing, I have merely presented the foolish aspects of the Christian description of God.
I have not presented where I disagree with absolute atheists because there are none here to debate.
My position is that the existence of any Supreme Being is neither provable nor disprovable.
The silliness and illogic of nonsensical crap like thew Original Sin, the Book of Job, the "Great Flood" and the Holy Trinity are quite evident to me.
-
Yes, you have. Your insidious demeaning and dispecting of any and every Christian, for their "imagined" walk with God is #1 in the clear mode of disbelief. NOT ONE CHRISTIAN is on record at trying to offer DNA-like proof of God. Its a faith/belief. It requires no proving to anyone. You either believe......or in your case, you don't. Period
-
Your God cannot exist because it is logically impossible. You seem to waste a lot of time talking to yourself thinking you are communicating with an Impossible Entity.
Again A god is possible. The one mentioned in the Bible, no.
You can also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, a Guardian Angle and a Fairy Godmother.
-
Your God cannot exist because it is logically impossible.
LOL....SEE.....you don't believe. Fine. That's your choice. oy vey
-
There are more than two options here.
(1) No God exists, anywhere. The Universe just happened. viruses and bacteria capable is reproduction appeared in a natural process, and may have appeared on Earth or have arrived on Earth via a comet or some other object.
(2) The Biblical God exists, and In the Beginning, yammer yammer yammer, etc.
(3) A God exists other than the Biblical God that is responsible for Creation
(4) A God exists other than the Biblical God that is not a creator but is a part of Creation.
(5) There is insufficient information to determine whether any God exists or not.
(6) There is insufficient information to determine whether a God exists, but there IS sufficient information to indicate that the Biblical God is a creation of some tribe of humans, just as other tribes invented Osiris, Zeus, Thor, Ganesh and so on.
(7) A multiplicity of Gods exist in the Universe. which is quite immense.
And I pick choice (6)
-
No, there are 2 options. God exists....or he doesn't. Any other "manifestation" is not God now, is it. and as you keep demonstrating, and making abundantly clear, he doesn't exist. Bravo on your choice. I'll keep you in my prayers, anyways
-
Descartes said that God exists because he had a sense within him that God exists. That is a fucking cop out. He may not have believed it himself.
I think this is actually a reasonable assertion , though I don't think it can be positively proven. There are very few human societies that do not worship some sort of God , indeed as if we were built for it. It is ubiquitous and this indicates it is a part of human nature as Descartes asserted. (BTW thanks for the spelling spellcheck was no help.) Of course, Descartes knew that if he claimed that God did not exist, and the word got out that he has written this, he would have been seriously tortured by the Holy Office. As it was, he arranged for his Research on the Method to be published. AFTER his death. Read up on Descartes.
How did he know when he would die? This is a good point though , the first amendment is valuable to us not only to protect religious observance , it also prevents religious observance from being mandatory and therefore less than genuine.
Pascal was a mathematician and said that one should believe because if one was correct, one would be rewarded, whereas if one believed and God did not exist, then there would be no penalty.
Yep
Of course, Pascal postulated that if there was a God it was the one he had been indoctrinated with as a child, and that God punished nonbelievers with Hellfire and Damnation.
So Pascal actually is arguing more against Agnosticism than against Atheism or other religions?
Of course, if your entire belief structure is predicated on a lie, then the penalty is that you cannot be taken seriously.
He also assumes that believing is a conscious choice. To be a believer, all one has to do is to force oneself to believe and to reject all logical indications that point to disbelief. It does not work that way. One cannot force oneself to believe. At best one only gets a neurosis that way.
If belief is not a conscious choice , what is it? Do you choose to believe your favorite politician, or used car salesman?
No matter how hard I try, whiskey tastes just awful to me. Scotch, Bourbon, makes no difference. I can accept that others like the taste, but I cannot. In the same way, I cannot see Christian theism as anything but a poorly constructed hodgepodge. I cannot bring myself to believe that Pigs are capable of independent flight, either, and for the same reasons.
I don't think these are as tightly connected as you are positing. The people who love Gin don't look for that flavor in nonalcoholic drinks.
One thing is belief in a God, another is to believe that said God fits certain perimeters and has various attributes. Christian Theism has a whole bunch of illogical features: Original Sin, which states that Adam and Eve's snack has doomed every descendant forever. We no longer punish people for the sins of their fathers in civilized society. We would not execute John Wayne Gacey, Jr for his father's crimes. Svetlana Stalin came to the US and no one suggested that she be held accountable for what her father Josef did. We are smart enough to understand this. But we think God is not.
As a Son of the Confederacy , I am glad to see you have a good attitude about these things and do not think racism and unfairness to be congenital.
The Bible has God declaring, I thy God am a JEALOUS God, Jealous of what? Zeus? Baal? The Great Spirit? His Noodliness the FSM? How fucking omniscient is jealousy?
yes also any other thing that costs him his proper place in your life, Golf TV Facebook etc..
The entire doctrine of the Trinity is nonsensical, unless you see it for what it is: a fusion of Christianity with several popular mystery religions, done to win converts.
I don't want to defend the Trinity, I don't see it in the scriptures .
-
God is .
And the instinctive agreement with the existence of God is one of those indications that not only does God exist as our creator , but that we are created with a need for him.
All of nature operates as neatly as a self winding watch. Which strikes one as a violation of the laws of entropy , especially the operation of life which is extremely complicated and full of systems that are interdependent . That this whole thing does not need a guide to come into being seems so counterintuitive that arguments against the existence of God need to discount or attack the need for a creator .
Indeed if the universe is infinite , it must contain everything that can exist. Does this mean everything that God does not forbid to exist?
If there is a God and human beings are created for his use and pleasure , the explanation of human nature is simplified . The existence of all things whether understandable by us or not makes some sense and seems to have some purpose.
-
Also
https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
This one applies https://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo
-
If belief is not a conscious choice , what is it? Do you choose to believe your favorite politician, or used car salesman?
I do not see belief as a choice I can force myself to make. I cannot force myself to enjoy the taste of anchovies. I cannot force myself to love a woman, I cannot force myself not to be attracted to a woman I like. The best I can do if she is uninterested in me is simply reorient myself to some other pursuit.
I cannot force myself to believe in God. I cannot force myself to disbelieve in something that seems logical. I cannot force myself to believe that 11+78 is not 89. Both logic and emotion seem to have a role in this.
I agree that the Trinity is not to be found mentioned as such in the Bible. Paul, however does mention, in separate passages, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and there is somewhere in which he insists that disbelief in the Holy Spirit is the worst sort of wrong.
I have not memorized chapters and verses, though. Perhaps you have seen this. So I assume that at the Council of Nicea, they decided that 1+1+1=the Holy Trinity. It is all tied up with crossing oneself. and such.
-
And the instinctive agreement with the existence of God is one of those indications that not only does God exist as our creator , but that we are created with a need for him.
==============================================================
I do not feel for a need for any divine being. Upon occasion, I simply wish that there was a way of forcing things to come out correctly, or someone to punch in the nose when they do not.
I think we are all born with an instinct to ask Mommy and Daddy for help, and still have that instinct even after they have left the scene. I would call this a survival instinct, and as such it makes sense to me.