|
Post by Shiv on Dec 8, 2009 0:16:30 GMT -5
Thing is, you can still be totally logical about things based in faith, but it doesn't make it REAL And REALITY is what we're after here, not logic or reason Example or gtfo You can use logic to come to conclusions like predestination, but that doesn't make them true
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 8, 2009 0:22:57 GMT -5
My God you have to be trolling Feverstone. Everytime you've posted in this section I've facepalmed. Every. time.
Nice man, compare Jesus' resurrection to the Holocaust. Nice. You're a f**king joke. On an absolutely BASIC level, we have photographs showing Jews in camps and all that s**t. That is EVIDENCE. There is no evidence that I'm aware of besides hearsay saying Jesus rose from the dead. This coming from the same age where they thought spit could heal wounds. My god.
Jesus is Santa Claus for adults. Deal with it. You can think its logical personally, go ahead and jump to conclusions, I really don't care about your beliefs. You've shown time and time again that you have no idea what you're talking about, you love to use and support traditional arguments which have been crushed for thousands of years (prime example: watchmaker, many others which I don't care to look up right now)
Good god, I'm not even going to respond to this. Wiki "faith" or something.
I have finals to study for too, this is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Dec 8, 2009 0:28:46 GMT -5
You say "classic arguments" have been crushed, and you claim that you can crush them...but you've never done or proven so. Just sayin'. Might be something for you to look into.
And this debate is crap due to your own making as well. I've raised points that you've ignored until I brought them to your attention again. Then you give a dumb answer just for the heck of it. Or you say "cool storeh bro." You give me absolutely nothing to work with as far as debating in general goes.
I look at these as casual conversations, but you make it difficult to do even that. :/
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Dec 8, 2009 0:30:07 GMT -5
THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING, NO POINT IN DEBATING, AND NO POINT IN TRYING TO CONVINCE ONE ANOTHER OF THE IRREFUTABLE PURPOSE IN ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER AS THEIR PERSONAL WAY OF DEDUCTION OF WHAT IS TRUE.
SHUT THE f**k UP.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 8, 2009 0:30:30 GMT -5
You can use logic to come to conclusions like predestination, but that doesn't make them true Agreed. Reality is what I care about. Is it realistic that there's a creator to the universe? Yeah sure, why not Whether or not I should care is another story. There is no difference between a god whose existence cannot be verified, and no god at all.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 8, 2009 0:32:12 GMT -5
this thread has become:
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 8, 2009 0:35:37 GMT -5
I agree with Landon.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 8, 2009 0:35:43 GMT -5
nothing to work with as far as debating in general goes. I look at these as casual conversations, but you make it difficult to do even that. :/ That's your problem, not mine. Maybe if you did some research and had a little more understanding of what you're saying then you wouldn't fail so hard time and time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Dec 8, 2009 0:39:29 GMT -5
Nice trolling.
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Dec 8, 2009 0:41:54 GMT -5
What he said = not trolling.
Trolling = not what he said.
What I've said = trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 8, 2009 0:42:07 GMT -5
ITT: Everyone is wrong.
EDIT: except Landon, he's always right.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Dec 8, 2009 0:45:01 GMT -5
"Failing time and time again" when I've only debated in this section twice is kind of trolling. After all, I didn't exactly "fail" the last time Brent and I crossed swords.
You weren't trolling. So far, you're the only one who makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 8, 2009 0:46:13 GMT -5
YEWZ TRRROLLIN
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Dec 8, 2009 1:41:43 GMT -5
Thread locked by request of the OP's author.
|
|