Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-14-2019, 04:21 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,785 posts, read 4,992,682 times
Reputation: 2121

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You figured that out long ago A.A.. You know what's up.
It is because they must "deny everything" at all costs...to support their belief statements. They get all bolloxed-up otherwise.
You understand where I'm coming from because you work off of logic, reason...and "how things are & how things work". There is no better assessment than that.
So that is what is meant by friendly fire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2019, 04:29 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,785 posts, read 4,992,682 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Jackpot! I can always predict with almost complete certainty, that those that present the most childish arguments will stay true to form within the argument by noting things like rubber ducks, poop (human & dog), toilets, dildos, etc.
It almost never fails...and is indicative of their true mentality. Which would explain the puerile level of their arguments.
Pointing out you used the composition fallacy (which logically entails the universe being a rubber duck) is hardly childish.

Your need to misrepresent this (and the universe) is indicative of your true mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 05:28 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,865,041 times
Reputation: 2881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Where is the hand clap emoji when you need one?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 11:47 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 6,070,548 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Jackpot! I can always predict with almost complete certainty, that those that present the most childish arguments will stay true to form within the argument by noting things like rubber ducks, poop (human & dog), toilets, dildos, etc.
It almost never fails...and is indicative of their true mentality. Which would explain the puerile level of their arguments.
Why would I censor myself for you? How old are you?
I wish your idea didn't lead to that nasty implication, but it DOES.

If such false gods are "All" then they are good, evil, gross stuff, clean stuff, and perhaps even "nothing" in some mystical way, etc.

Do you deny it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,785 posts, read 4,992,682 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
What specifically are these "meanings and definition of 'G-O-D'" provided by an "expert? Provide the expert and spell them out and I will address them.
Where your logic will be ignored, and the same old tune of one note will be played.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 02:04 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,591,051 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
No, his composition fallacy means the universe must also be a rubber duck.
harry, you can do what you want. But the fact that you have to change what he is saying isn't his fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,265,083 times
Reputation: 7528
I find it remarkable that we see over and over in the religious threads the misuse of common words.

A Fundamentalist is the following:
  1. a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
    "religious fundamentalists"
  2. a person who adheres strictly to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.
    "a free-market fundamentalist"

An atheist is simply:
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

Being a committed atheist does not = fundamentalist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 05:21 PM
 
6,222 posts, read 4,014,117 times
Reputation: 733
What is an example of a fundamentalist?
noun. Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to some belief or ideology, especially in a religious context, or a form of Christianity where the Bible is taken literally and obeyed in full. When a person follows every possible rule of the Bible, both literal and implied, this is an example of fundamentalism.


https://www.yourdictionary.com/fundamentalism


Fundamentalism is not limited to religion as some would like to portray it; it can apply to any system of beliefs and/or ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,265,083 times
Reputation: 7528
I already covered that in my post. Not sure why you felt the need for redundancy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 05:30 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,351,362 times
Reputation: 1293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
If I may, it goes something like this. can you list the things that are alive in you and not alive in you?

if a motor protein in you said, I believe we are in "alive". would it be its imagination?
Motor proteins are the molecules that convert chemical energy into mechanical motion. Muscle contractions, for example. Motor proteins, having no apparent ability for sentient thought, are unlikely to "believe" much of anything. Although it is certainly possible to imagine that they do, if someone should find that notion appealing. Motor proteins DO have physical existence however and as a result can and are capable of being studied and quantified. They do not qualify as imaginary. If we consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the other hand, as a possible example, any detailed description that is provided is necessarily derived entirely from someone's imagination, since no such creature (Being?) can be produced. There is a vast difference between things which exist physically, and things which have been conjured up entirely by the imagination
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top