The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[JimBowie1958]

A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.

Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.

 

[alang1216]

Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do? Saying you do is not convincing at all.

I wouldnt say that Christians know more than you do, but I would say that the accumulated wisdom of the church is more impressive, steady and helpful than any person as an individual.

All that knowledge purportedly came from a single individual (God) yet is rife with contradictions. I'd like to see some independent verification.

 

[alang1216]

A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.

Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.

again a difference of degree not of kind

 

[alang1216]

You've just documented that you don't understand "God."

I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God. Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right. It means I prefer rationality to faith.

" I think I understand God just fine,"

Actually....we've proven that you don't.

The attributes of God are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.

Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.

Now...as far as
" I think I understand God just fine,".....
"Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?

What is it that God cannot do?

Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do? Saying you do is not convincing at all.

As for what God cannot do: laugh.

Because you're not entitled to make up your own definitions for commonly accepted terms.

Even a dunce like you should understand that.

What I do understand is this semantic loop you're in. God is great because he says he is great so therefore he is great.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've just documented that you don't understand "God."

I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God. Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right. It means I prefer rationality to faith.

" I think I understand God just fine,"

Actually....we've proven that you don't.

The attributes of God are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.

Clearly, a number of those terms are beyond your ken.

Now...as far as
" I think I understand God just fine,".....
"Think" is a mighty strong way of putting what you do, isn't it?

What is it that God cannot do?

Why would I accept that Christians know any more about God than I do? Saying you do is not convincing at all.

As for what God cannot do: laugh.

Because you're not entitled to make up your own definitions for commonly accepted terms.

Even a dunce like you should understand that.

What I do understand is this semantic loop you're in. God is great because he says he is great so therefore he is great.

I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.

Of course, I won't allow it.

The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.

I gave the only correct answer.

And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.


Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?

You need not respond.

 

[rightwinger]

All it takes is a jump from chemistry to biochemistry

 

[alang1216]

I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.

Of course, I won't allow it.

The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.

I gave the only correct answer.

And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.


Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?

You need not respond.

Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand....out of embarrassment, you'd like to alter the issue.

Of course, I won't allow it.

The question was 'what is the colloquial meaning of 'God,' and what God can do.

I gave the only correct answer.

And, dunce, when you refer to God, 'he' is capitalized.


Haven't you exhibited enough ignorance?

You need not respond.

Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.

Why are you back?

I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.

You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.


Now....why are you back?

 

[alang1216]

Why are you back?

I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.

You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.


Now....why are you back?

Like the concept of God, saying I'm a buffoon does not make me a buffoon and you obviously think way more of your intellect than I do. Every time you feel the need to insult me I feel I've had a little victory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are you back?

I've given you the definitive lesson on the meaning of "God"....and here you are demanding that your ignorance be memorialized.

You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.


Now....why are you back?

Like the concept of God, saying I'm a buffoon does not make me a buffoon and you obviously think way more of your intellect than I do. Every time you feel the need to insult me I feel I've had a little victory.

I didn't just SAY you're a buffoon.....we worked together to PROVE you to be a buffoon.

I gave the accepted definition of God....and you've continued to claim the right to make up a pretend definition.
Both five year olds, and mental five year olds claim that 'right.'

QED....you're a buffoon.

Any questions?




Oh....and don't forget....Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Jew in Spain being burned at the stake by the Inquisition and a Jew in Russia being starved by Stalin would have had trouble discerning the difference.

Perhaps if they were submitting to their own particular subjective view of it.

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.


a. Before the Russian Revolution, the number of execution by the czarist government came to seventeen (17) per year, according to Solzhenitsyn. He pointed out that, in comparison, the Spanish Inquisition, at its height, destroyed 10 people per month.

But, during the revolutionary years 1918-1919, Lenin's Cheka executed, without trial, more than one thousand (1,000) people a month.
At the height of Stalin's terror, 1937-1938, tens of thousands of people were shot per month. Solzhenitsyn, "Warning To The West."


b. From Solzhenitsyn's "Warning To The West,"... "Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1 ,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy ofthe world — England, France, the United States, Canada, and other small countries — from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is this to be explained? How can we understand it? " Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"

 

[alang1216]

Oh....and don't forget....Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.

Thank you, I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed middle school.

 

[alang1216]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

What???

You demand yet another lesson????

Well....as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal....OK>

"rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement."

Astounding how many errors a buffoon like you can squeeze into a single sentence.





1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.

a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
Challenge me on that.

b. As an example...
Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'




2. Liberals, Socialists, Communists....and Nazis are peas in the same pod.

a. "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?



b. "American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.

again a difference of degree not of kind

You see mo difference between a legal process that actually cleared many accused in Spain, vrs a bunch of show trials and most of the starv3ed were never charged. They were simply refused food till they died.

You see no difference?

Methinks your anti-Catholic bigotry is eating you up, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.

Of course every religion can define theological terms to suit their own theology.

Why is this a point of contention?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is a joke thread?

Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well. How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??

 

[alang1216]

Jews had a better chance of being cleared in Spains court system than Kulaks had in Stalins.

again a difference of degree not of kind

You see mo difference between a legal process that actually cleared many accused in Spain, vrs a bunch of show trials and most of the starv3ed were never charged. They were simply refused food till they died.

You see no difference?

Methinks your anti-Catholic bigotry is eating you up, dude.

If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal. Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD. The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....