Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[Hollie]

I liken the trinity to body, mind and soul.

Folks who poo-poo the Trinity fail to understand that it answers the problem of an eternal being existing ontologically prior to all other existents, as well as the subject-object problem, the one-and-the-other problem. Of course God is an eternal Relationship of Agreement!

The vast majority of Christians do not grasp the Trinity, and they don t really have to. Faith in the Creator is enough.

But some of us are obsessive and some are even Autisticly obsessive and so we dive into waters that are dark and still and may harbor who knows what?

But nonChristians mostly just laugh at our semantic wrangling. Their loss, really.

Just another version of polytheism.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, once again, you have managed to waste your time with the usual juvenile banter you waste your time with, all in a desperate bid for my attention.

. . . Hollie lamely retorted.

 

[Hollie]

Well, once again, you have managed to waste your time with the usual juvenile banter you waste your time with, all in a desperate bid for my attention.

. . . Hollie lamely retorted.

... your obsession becoming creepier.

 

[ding]

As she said from the ultimate position of obsession... an atheist attempting to criticize and ridicule the religious beliefs of others.

 

[ding]

I don't know if you guys realize this or not but Hollie is Jewish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As she said from the ultimate position of obsession... an atheist attempting to criticize and ridicule the religious beliefs of others.

Which, of course, makes no sense, as ridiculing the stance of atheism is the entire point of this thread started by the religious fuknut in question.

Ding, your posts are mind-numbing. And I don't mean that in a good way.

 

[ding]

Well, once again, you have managed to waste your time with the usual juvenile banter you waste your time with, all in a desperate bid for my attention.

. . . Hollie lamely retorted.

I like your signature. Very true and very apt.

 

[ding]

As she said from the ultimate position of obsession... an atheist attempting to criticize and ridicule the religious beliefs of others.

Which, of course, makes no sense, as ridiculing the stance of atheism is the entire point of this thread started by the religious fuknut in question.

Ding, your posts are mind-numbing. And I don't mean that in a good way.

It was in response to her accusing ringtone of being obsessed.

I can't think of anyone more obsessed than an atheist criticizing and ridiculing the religious beliefs of others in a religious form.

I mean seriously, think about it.

Atheism gets elevated to a religion when it becomes more than not believing in a higher power than man. You are fucking obsessed with religion. And not just any religion, specifically Christianity.

The ax you are grinding is like the elephant in the room except everyone can see it but you.

 

[ding]

Ding, your posts are mind-numbing. And I don't mean that in a good way.

Your intellectual capacity is that of an 8th grader, so your overestimation of yourself and underestimation of me is to be expected.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, once again, you have managed to waste your time with the usual juvenile banter you waste your time with, all in a desperate bid for my attention.

. . . Hollie lamely retorted.

I like your signature. Very true and very apt.

I admire yours. It's original and I wish I'd written it! LOL.

 

[Hollie]

As she said from the ultimate position of obsession... an atheist attempting to criticize and ridicule the religious beliefs of others.

Which, of course, makes no sense, as ridiculing the stance of atheism is the entire point of this thread started by the religious fuknut in question.

Ding, your posts are mind-numbing. And I don't mean that in a good way.

I always find the hyper-religious to be rather naïve. They start a thread with the intention of ridiculing those who don't believe in their polytheistic gods and then take offense when others point out their inability to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

The really angry religionists never demonstrate either the intellectual or emotional maturity to participate in the threads they open.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and then take offense when others point out their inability to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

These jaded, strident chin waggers in this thread aren't actually taking offense. They are just acting. They are passive aggressive, sniveling conmen who can't win a debate without being allowed to say magic is real, which nobody but fellow religious folks will do. So the tools in their toolboxes are very limited. They are left with doublespeak; villainization; faux pearl clutching; bait and switch; Gish Gallop, and naysaying. All to recycle the dimestore philosophy of Aquinas to justify themselves to themselves. To them, you're just a prop in this exercise of self affirmation.

 

[BreezeWood]

If God is 100% outside the flow of time/space He could not ACT as that requires the flow of time/space.

This is where I see the Logos coming in, as the interface between an eternal Father who is outside of Time flow, and the Creation which is entirely within it.

"Through Him (the Logos) All things were made" makes complete sense in this view of the Trinity.

I'm not sure I agree with the emboldened, as I'm not sure what you mean by act. Remember, God existed from eternity, ontologically prior to the material world of space and time which he created. But we're on the same page with the rest it would seem.

The Father does not take an action that reflects a change in Him or His being. Being outside the flow of time He simply cannot make a change.

When we speak of the Creator/Father changing mood or deciding something, it is nothing more than a reaction determined through all eternity to do certain things in certain situations. Much like if we drive the same route to our jobs every morning for 30 years and we one morning have an obstacle and have to take a detour. We do not decide to take a detour, nor do we thin out the detour route to work. We have already done it many times and are simply responding to a change in circumstances.

The same goes for the Father. Where God acts it is through His Son, the Logos, who exists within the flow of time and outside of it as well. Like surface tension in water, it touches both the air and the water and thereby behaves differently from the rest of the water not exposed to the air. The Father is Transcendent, the Holy Spirit is immanent and the Son is a bit of both which allows Him to redeem mankind.

.

The Father is Transcendent, the Holy Spirit is immanent and the Son is a bit of both which allows Him to redeem mankind.

your a joke, roman ...

 

[Ringtone]

They . . . take offense when others point out their inability to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

So you're suggesting you have a coherent counterargument for the existence of actual infinities or the absurdity of existence arising from nonexistence after all, a counterargument that presumably overthrows the most basic proof of God's existence that was in fact given . . . more than once.

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead. Spot is ready. Be sure to begin by defining God.

 

[Hollie]

They . . . take offense when others point out their inability to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

So you're suggesting you have a coherent counterargument for the existence of actual infinities or the absurdity of existence arising from nonexistence after all, a counterargument that presumably overthrows the most basic proof of God's existence that was in fact given . . . more than once.

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead. Spot is ready. Be sure to begin by defining God.

I found it stereotypical of the religious extremist to allege that he has offered proof, “more than once” for his polytheistic gods when no “pwoofs” were ever offered.

It seems those with the intellectual capacity limited to “see Spot run” complexity will insist that “...because I say so”, serves as a valid argument.

As you are the one alleging a collection of supernatural entities you call “the gods”, it falls to you to support your gods.

So, let’s start with you defining your gods. I can help if you need assistance with terms, definitions and sentence structure. You do need help with those elements.

Let’s begin with your first attempt at a rational, supportable argument for the supernatural entities you allege.

Your usual stuttering and mumbling will begin........<———- here.

 

[ding]

They . . . take offense when others point out their inability to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

So you're suggesting you have a coherent counterargument for the existence of actual infinities or the absurdity of existence arising from nonexistence after all, a counterargument that presumably overthrows the most basic proof of God's existence that was in fact given . . . more than once.

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead. Spot is ready. Be sure to begin by defining God.

I found it stereotypical of the religious extremist to allege that he has offered proof, “more than once” for his polytheistic gods when no “pwoofs” were ever offered.

It seems those with the intellectual capacity limited to “see Spot run” complexity will insist that “...because I say so”, serves as a valid argument.

As you are the one alleging a collection of supernatural entities you call “the gods”, it falls to you to support your gods.

So, let’s start with you defining your gods. I can help if you need assistance with terms, definitions and sentence structure. You do need help with those elements.

Let’s begin with your first attempt at a rational, supportable argument for the supernatural entities you allege.

Your usual stuttering and mumbling will begin........<———- here.

You have no realistic perception of God. You see God as a fairytale so everything you see is skewed to that.

The evidence for God is all around and in you. You just choose to not see it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

The evidence for God is all around and in you. You just choose to not see it.

neither the christian god nor their religion.

what evidence have you, your 10000 page christian bible has any relevance to the physical evidence you see around you than an initial claim, fairytale without foundation associated to their deity to acquire an authenticity they seek without merit.

and in you -

the fallacy of christianity ...

 

[ding]

.

The evidence for God is all around and in you. You just choose to not see it.

neither the christian god nor their religion.

what evidence have you, your 10000 page christian bible has any relevance to the physical evidence you see around you than an initial claim, fairytale without foundation associated to their deity to acquire an authenticity they seek without merit.

and in you -

the fallacy of christianity ...

You mean besides the 24,000 written manuscripts and the practices of early Christians?

I’ve tested it for myself.

 

[Ringtone]

.

The evidence for God is all around and in you. You just choose to not see it.

neither the christian god nor their religion.

what evidence have you, your 10000 page christian bible has any relevance to the physical evidence you see around you than an initial claim, fairytale without foundation associated to their deity to acquire an authenticity they seek without merit.

and in you -

the fallacy of christianity ...

You mean besides the 24,000 written manuscripts and the practices of early Christians?

I’ve tested it for myself.

Thought I'd try a different approach. Maybe some will want to discuss the theological implications of the anthropic principle.

See post: Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

 

[BreezeWood]

.

The evidence for God is all around and in you. You just choose to not see it.

neither the christian god nor their religion.

what evidence have you, your 10000 page christian bible has any relevance to the physical evidence you see around you than an initial claim, fairytale without foundation associated to their deity to acquire an authenticity they seek without merit.

and in you -

the fallacy of christianity ...

You mean besides the 24,000 written manuscripts and the practices of early Christians?

I’ve tested it for myself.

Thought I'd try a different approach. Maybe some will want to discuss the theological implications of the anthropic principle.

See post: Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

.

See post: Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

from what you claim he appears slightly older than you ... surly a clash of personality titans.