Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709640 Apr 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
IANS is very smart, so very much smarter than you, he even has a college degree.
He has pretty strong math skills too, it has nothing to do with google.
Thanks.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#709641 Apr 1, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Family structure has broken down??
2) a girl having a baby aborted at 13 is far from ideal. But she should and does have this right, correct?
3) Poverty is always up. There is always people without jobs, people going hungry
4) Can you really remember a youth that were focussed? You want to tell me the kids in the 80's, 70's and (hahaha) the 60's were more focussed?
Sure, they may have had much better music to listen to. But that's it
1. Yes, family structure has broken down. The notion of father/mother/children living in the same household is slowly diminishing from our society. When a show like 'modern family' hits the airwaves, and replaces shows like 'leave it to beaver', that's a reflection on society.

2. No, she should not have that right. She's not even old enough to consent to sex let alone an abortion.

3. That's a piss poor excuse.

4. Go back a little further in time, where families work on the family farm, or in the family business. I have cousins that as young as five years old were already shoveling pig shit. Kids used to be a lot more focused than they are now, and willing to work hard for a living.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#709642 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That I'm not sure of, I'll take your word for it.
Why is it called a cobra?
It looks like one. The older definition of "cobra" means "hooded snake". Problem with that is, most elapids (fixed front-fanged venomous snakes) do make a kind of "hood" (actually just flattening the ribs) to appear bigger, as part of their defensive display. The hood is never used while hunting. Cobras, false cobras, mambas, coral snakes, all make something that can be described as a "hood".

However, as we learnt more aboit the taxonomy of cobras, we find that some of the nost prominent hood makers are very similar: same behaviour, venom types, same scaling, same eye structure. Those we have grouped in the genus Naja (some language for "hooded serpent")

King Cobras have different scaling, plus the pupils of their eyes appear a bit flattened. Hence, they are not grouped under "Naja", but in a seperate Genus (some weird name that I keep forgetting, but its taxanomic name means "snake cannibal" or something to that effect).

So yeah, the King Cobra is not a cobra at all. Cool piece of trivia.

Other wannabe cobras?

Rinkhals - From SA, hooded, spitting snake, not a cobra

Gould's Tree Cobra - I know to little about this snake to comment, but it is huge and very deadly

False Water Cobra - South America. Mildly toxic. Big snake, not even an elapid. May be the biggest colubrid on earth

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#709643 Apr 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you called riverside?
I am not called Riverside, that's just a screen name.

I thought you knew.
Ghost Writer

Rome, NY

#709644 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're trying to force an inevitable conclusion that the serpent in Genesis was a snake.
No matter how you try, you cannot force that conclusion, Genesis specifically calls that animal a serpent, not a snake.
Also, I can't understand why such a minor detail in a book you believe is myth means so much to you.
I understand it perfectly RR. It's an agenda. They have a need to prove the Bible wrong. If they can do that, they feel justified in maintaining their atheism. That's why they disagree with me when I say that God's speaking wasn't the mechanism that flipped the cosmic light switch.
Genesis 1 states that God said "Let there be light." and then there was. A careful analysis demonstrates that God was declaring an intention, and then He accomplished the goal. It doesn't mean He uttered a cosmic rendition of "hocus pocus" and the light show started.

("Let there be light")------ unknown physical manifestation of energy ----("It is good")
God speaks intention to create ----- unknown process occurs ------ goal accomplished.

Now they have gone to the length of congratulating me for not interpreting it the way they feel the majority of Christians do interpret it. These congratulatory sentiments obviously indicate that both they and I recognize how silly it seems to believe the account in that way. But then they go and disagree with my interpretation and say it's a wrong interpretation!! Why? Because my interpretation removes the need to know ***how*** God created, and puts the focus back where it really belongs; which is ***why*** God created. This interpretation is logically coherent, and removes the empirical inquiry altogether. Remember that the atheist must maintain a naturalistic framework if they want to stay comfortable in that atheism. By correcting that misinterpretation in Genesis 1, the following is accomplished:

1) It puts a crack in the stereotype that we're ignorant of science.

2) It deprives them of a deliberate misrepresentation that they use to maintain their atheism.

3) It causes the honest skeptic to at least consider and reevaluate how the new interpretation ultimately makes more sense and supports the Christian (or Abrahamic theism) worldview.

I thank God for giving me the tools to use reason.:)

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#709645 Apr 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Number 5 is a bit dubious, ArrArr is a self confessed racist and sees black men (black children anyway) as animals
That is pure dishonesty and you know it. I called three black kids, drug dealers, that were beating the crap out of another kid for not buying the drugs, monkeys, because they were acting like animals. In no way have I ever said that I see black men or black children, as a whole, as animals. I haven't said that because I don't believe it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#709646 Apr 1, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like one. The older definition of "cobra" means "hooded snake". Problem with that is, most elapids (fixed front-fanged venomous snakes) do make a kind of "hood" (actually just flattening the ribs) to appear bigger, as part of their defensive display. The hood is never used while hunting. Cobras, false cobras, mambas, coral snakes, all make something that can be described as a "hood".
However, as we learnt more aboit the taxonomy of cobras, we find that some of the nost prominent hood makers are very similar: same behaviour, venom types, same scaling, same eye structure. Those we have grouped in the genus Naja (some language for "hooded serpent")
King Cobras have different scaling, plus the pupils of their eyes appear a bit flattened. Hence, they are not grouped under "Naja", but in a seperate Genus (some weird name that I keep forgetting, but its taxanomic name means "snake cannibal" or something to that effect).
So yeah, the King Cobra is not a cobra at all. Cool piece of trivia.
Other wannabe cobras?
Rinkhals - From SA, hooded, spitting snake, not a cobra
Gould's Tree Cobra - I know to little about this snake to comment, but it is huge and very deadly
False Water Cobra - South America. Mildly toxic. Big snake, not even an elapid. May be the biggest colubrid on earth
Thanks for the info. This appears to be an area you're well-versed at, so like I said I'll take your word for it.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#709647 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not called Riverside, that's just a screen name.
I thought you knew.
Why should you think I know what you are called? Egotestical (correct spelling) perhaps? All I have to go on is your screen name.

But OK. Perhaps I should have said “why are you known as…”

Or “why are you addressed on topix as …”

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#709648 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is pure dishonesty and you know it. I called three black kids, drug dealers, that were beating the crap out of another kid for not buying the drugs, monkeys, because they were acting like animals. In no way have I ever said that I see black men or black children, as a whole, as animals. I haven't said that because I don't believe it.
HaHa! would you mourn one of their passing as you would the Grizzly?
Ghost Writer

Rome, NY

#709649 Apr 1, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Baseball is not Double Fine's thing. We do cricket.
2) Cool story
3) Yeah, sound research can be the answer to understanding the chronology of events.
However,,, you did disqualify those researchers you named. If you feel you can refute their work, please do. But you would have to demonstrate their error.
Can you?
I believe I can, and have. Part of my skill set involves forensic statement analysis. Basically stated, studying the way people write specific details or accounts of events. Now I have to admit that Dr. Carrier has an advantage over me in the number of years he has in the Greek language. But my investigative reasoning can overcome that if I'm careful, honest, and very thorough. He is a sharp guy and likable in his public debates. I haven't met him in person yet.
The rest are amateurs.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#709650 Apr 1, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand it perfectly RR. It's an agenda. They have a need to prove the Bible wrong. If they can do that, they feel justified in maintaining their atheism. That's why they disagree with me when I say that God's speaking wasn't the mechanism that flipped the cosmic light switch.
Genesis 1 states that God said "Let there be light." and then there was. A careful analysis demonstrates that God was declaring an intention, and then He accomplished the goal. It doesn't mean He uttered a cosmic rendition of "hocus pocus" and the light show started.
("Let there be light")------ unknown physical manifestation of energy ----("It is good")
God speaks intention to create ----- unknown process occurs ------ goal accomplished.
Now they have gone to the length of congratulating me for not interpreting it the way they feel the majority of Christians do interpret it. These congratulatory sentiments obviously indicate that both they and I recognize how silly it seems to believe the account in that way. But then they go and disagree with my interpretation and say it's a wrong interpretation!! Why? Because my interpretation removes the need to know ***how*** God created, and puts the focus back where it really belongs; which is ***why*** God created. This interpretation is logically coherent, and removes the empirical inquiry altogether. Remember that the atheist must maintain a naturalistic framework if they want to stay comfortable in that atheism. By correcting that misinterpretation in Genesis 1, the following is accomplished:
1) It puts a crack in the stereotype that we're ignorant of science.
2) It deprives them of a deliberate misrepresentation that they use to maintain their atheism.
3) It causes the honest skeptic to at least consider and reevaluate how the new interpretation ultimately makes more sense and supports the Christian (or Abrahamic theism) worldview.
I thank God for giving me the tools to use reason.:)
I suppose you could be right, it could be an agenda. That makes perfect sense to me. That would explain the constant sky daddy, sky fairy, babble, cheezus, etc. remarks that they constantly use.

Why do atheists have the need to try and disprove the Bible or Christianity to uphold their atheism? That's the part I don't understand. I don't have the need to prove atheists wrong so I can uphold my Christianity.
Major Marshall

Athens, AL

#709651 Apr 1, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I just did you fucktard.
I can tell you are an atheist with that ugly response you just made.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709652 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexually immorality in the Bible is found outside of Leviticus too, you know.
Where is homosexuality mentioned besides Leviticus ?
Major Marshall

Athens, AL

#709653 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you could be right, it could be an agenda. That makes perfect sense to me. That would explain the constant sky daddy, sky fairy, babble, cheezus, etc. remarks that they constantly use.
Why do atheists have the need to try and disprove the Bible or Christianity to uphold their atheism? That's the part I don't understand. I don't have the need to prove atheists wrong so I can uphold my Christianity.
They are heavily burdened to do that because they know that the chances of them being wrong are exceedingly high. It explains the vile outbursts made by atheists.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709654 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Order Carnivora.
(same as the Grizzly)
<quoted text>
No Ben, humans are not of the order Carnivora.
Bears are order Carnivora.
Humans are order Primates.
You are not university trained, obviously.
I said I erred.

GFY

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709655 Apr 1, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>But who would be lame enough to mourn the passing of grizzlies?
Why do you hate Grizzlies ?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#709656 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is pure dishonesty and you know it. I called three black kids, drug dealers, that were beating the crap out of another kid for not buying the drugs, monkeys, because they were acting like animals. In no way have I ever said that I see black men or black children, as a whole, as animals. I haven't said that because I don't believe it.
And the fact remains that you called black kids monkeys

Kind of stereotypical of a racist slur – do you agree?

Tell me would you call a group of whit christian kids fighting monkeys?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#709657 Apr 1, 2014
That’s “white” before you go into raptures about an error

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709658 Apr 1, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a detail that you defend with your life, sir.
Yes. Genesis calls said animal a "serpent". Important to note: Not "person". Not "fallen angel". Not "demon". But "Wild animal".
So, do you agree, in Genesis 3, we have a wild animal talking to Adam and Eve in such a specific manner that it tempted Eve to eat from the forbidden tree?
Do you agree that "serpent" when applied to animals (as is the literal interpretation of the word) is a snake?
"I say so ! Thus it is so ! " RiversidePope

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709659 Apr 1, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
.... The levels of temptation are different in people.......
Agreed.

I have never been even tempted to beat a baby like you did.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TRUMP OBAMA BUSH - Next Stage in a Big Con Game 5 min Johnny 8
Does anyone else hate being around white women? 9 min Doctor REALITY 31
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 16 min NotSoDivineMzM 36,986
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Seentheotherside 688,733
The American Dream is DEAD DEAD DEAD. 3 hr Johnny 6
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 hr Tony 6,547
Poll Do you think older men like to be with teen girls? (Sep '09) 5 hr UnderstandPeople 274
More from around the web