What makes the bible true

[mstng86]

Yea, show tits!!

[CWO]

show tits

[mstng86]

I have no idea what is going on in here. I just think it is funny the King found someone who can banter back and forth just as much.

Ying and Yang up in here.

[The King]

This thread was started for entertainment purposes, didn't you realize that?

It's only one of many......


e.g., see the responses below, LOL

[Parasite Eva]

Why would you expect it to devolve into that? No one is going to change their opinions/beliefs based simply on intenet forum "discussions", and this is only a redux of many past threads anyway in which no such emo shenanigans ever occurred.

Simmer down, darling. The statement was made for entertainment purposes only. Unfortunately, I've got my own creation story to attend to(seriously, I've got to make a shit-ton of bacon cheddar muffins), so you boys continue to play and I'll be back with my two cents soon.

[forbes]

i think both of you are really missing the facts.
the fact is neither one of you can prove your statements with fact. Human nature (not to be misrepresented by fact) is to believe in something. you either believe there is a higher power (god etc) or you believe there is not. bottom line is you both believe.. just in different ideas, philosophies etc.
on a different note, if ya'll are just trying to keep this going to see who is the most eloquent debater (which it seems you are) continue on. I enjoy the debate

[The King]

Didn't overlook a thing. What your doing is called false equivocation. You don't even have similar characteristics to the god you claim exists. So, what is of consequence to it, is irrelevant.

Sorry to have to correct you again, but the Bible refutes your statement above. And, since I accept the Bible as true, your statement to me is false.

Also what is irrelevant to you is only that, irrelevant to you, with no bearing on anyone else.

[The King]

Good lord. I expect this, at any minute, to devolve into wrist-flinging girly slaps and hair pulling. Which, by the way, if it was a proven effective method of attack, we women wouldn’t have developed our emotionally manipulative form of warfare.

Why would you expect it to devolve into that? No one is going to change their opinions/beliefs based simply on intenet forum "discussions", and this is only a redux of many past threads anyway in which no such emo shenanigans ever occurred.

[Maddhattter]

Incorrect. Re-read the "if" qualification of my statement which you quoted.

Read and acknowledged you "if". Still wrong, and my, and most other atheists in America, stance on Theism is evidence to that.

Your overlooking the obvious, repeatedly, with respect to Christianity. Your past is of no consequence to God when you accept Him into your life. If your past is of no consequence to Him, why would/should it be to me?

Didn't overlook a thing. What your doing is called false equivocation. You don't even have similar characteristics to the god you claim exists. So, what is of consequence to it, is irrelevant.

Just to play your game, however...

If your god exists and is the trifecta of Omni's, as you claim, there is nothing that is of consequence to it. So, it becomes an all or none proposition. Either something is of consequence to you, and your human, or nothing is of consequence to you, and only then could the above statement be accurate.

[The King]

Except that I am, as well as most other atheists, a living example of the falsehood of your statement.

Incorrect. Re-read the "if" qualification of my statement which you quoted.

Someone's past history and path shape and mold who they are today, so it is of consequence to the scenario, and by extension, the individual.

Can't you city folk get nuthin' right?

Your overlooking the obvious, repeatedly, with respect to Christianity. Your past is of no consequence to God when you accept Him into your life. If your past is of no consequence to Him, why would/should it be to me?

[Maddhattter]

Once the Word of God becomes an important part of one's life, there is no subsequent renouncement of that importance if the person seriously accepted it as the Truth to begin with.

Except that I am, as well as most other atheists, a living example of the falsehood of your statement.

Someone's past history or path is not of consequence to me or anyone other than that individual. It needn't be to them either unless they choose it to be.

Someone's past history and path shape and mold who they are today, so it is of consequence to the scenario, and by extension, the individual.

Can't you city folk get nuthin' right?

[The King]

Once the Word of God becomes an important part of one's life, there is no subsequent renouncement of that importance if the person seriously accepted it as the Truth to begin with. Someone's past history or path is not of consequence to me or anyone other than that individual. It needn't be to them either unless they choose it to be.

[Parasite Eva]

Good lord. I expect this, at any minute, to devolve into wrist-flinging girly slaps and hair pulling. Which, by the way, if it was a proven effective method of attack, we women wouldn’t have developed our emotionally manipulative form of warfare.

The King – If “where he ends up” matters so much, then why in the world are you using “nuh uhhhhhhh” argument tactics that are, apparently, easily deflected by a simple dictionary?

Where Maddhattter, or Racrguy, or hell, ANY atheist in this thread began their journey should be important.

According to Maddhattter, his path actually started with your key to salvation. The Word of God had been a part of his life, and he did read the full text. How is this not important, especially when it comes to the salvation of his soul? Something clearly should have gone wrong, if your argument over this whole Truth bit is correct. Why is this not as crucial as where he ends up?

[Maddhattter]

My entire post (#423) is true, whether or not you choose to quote or address it in it's entirety.

Except, of course, that it's demonstrably false. I didn't realize that I have to teach elementary school definitions.

No, if I ignore it, it is of some importance that I choose to disregard. It is of no importance to me, so there is nothing to ignore.

ig·nore verb \ig-ˈnȯr\
ig·noredig·nor·ing
Definition of IGNORE

transitive verb
1: to refuse to take notice of
2: to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignore

No where in the definition does it require anyone giving anything some importance. It is not a criteria, regardless of what you ignorantly assert. Therefore, I used the word as it is defined. Just like I told you. See? Your assertion was handled and shown to be incorrect, i.e. handled, in the post you claim does not address it.

I will concede that I did not quote it. You did get at least one thing right. Considering that explaining how the quoted part is incorrect demonstrated how your assertion was wrong, I didn't have to. It was addressed, regardless of it not being quoted.

I can keep repeating the same words in slightly different configurations as long as I choose until you grasp their relevance and meaning, which you clearly have not. I am certainly in no hurry.

As shown by the evidence above,

While the above statement is true technically, you have failed to say anything with any relevance. I've used the word as it was defined, you are attempting to inject a useless condition into the definition. So, you can "keep repeating the same words in slightly different configurations", however, in this case, you would just continue to be demonstrably and veritably wrong.

[The King]

While the above statement is true technically, you have failed to say anything with any relevance. I've used the word as it was defined, you are attempting to inject a useless condition into the definition. So, you can "keep repeating the same words in slightly different configurations", however, in this case, you would just continue to be demonstrably and veritably wrong.

My entire post (#423) is true, whether or not you choose to quote or address it in it's entirety.