There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Good to see your lack of education shining through again. Polytheism and monotheism are subcategories of theism.

Lack of education, how ironic from someone who's knowledge can be found on Wiki. Why are you going on about theism for? All it does is demonstrate how intellectually redundant you are with a lacking ability for reading for comprehension

"Theism, in the field of comparative religions is the belief that at least one deity exists. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism."

So clearly you are using the laymen's term not the term in the field. Your point becomes moot since you are not using the word in context to religion itself rather than the appeal to the population ignorant views.

Your need to be vitriolic disguises the irrelevant point you are trying to make.

Which is still a form of theism just not monotheism. Your survey means nothing to me since it just a poll outside of religious studies.

It is not my survey. It was introduced by Minx. Read the argument instead of being preoccupied in finding the most venomous and crass insults to post.

If it means nothing to you then why are you making comment on it.

A poll by non-experts using flawed terminology polling people just as ignorant as yourself. If you want to use words in their proper context stop using a dictionary and start looking at the terminology in the field itself.. Such surveys become meaningless due to flawed terminology.

Is the poll by non-experts. How have you come to that conclusion?

You are using the terminology not me. I was giving a definition of the word "theism" simply to support my objections to the claim that there are more theist in science then atheists. You are just making argumentative remarks because I have exposed you in your ignorance.

Yes it is some what a waste of time dealing with someone as ignorant as yourself that you can not even use words in the proper context in which these words are formed and applied. I do hope that you will absorb something of what I post but do not worry my expectations are low.

Your puerile ad hominem is like water off a ducks back to me. They do not penetrative the surface and only serve to demonstrate the lack of moral accountability atheists like you possess.

If your expectations are low, may I suggest that you give my post a wide berth thus saving yourself from being seen as an obnoxious troll.

 

[Serenity7855]

Open a lexicon covering your own holy book and learn. It was no wriggling it was proof that a word for servant which is not property was not used. The word for slave, property, was used. This show a clear difference in the meaning of the verse. It is amusing that I am teaching you about the language used in your own religion. You seem to be ignorant of your own holy text

Your use of lexicons is not recognised by me. The Bible was intended to be read by all mankind regardless of academic achievement. It is plain and simple and contains exactly what God wants it to contain and has been translated in the way that he wanted it translated, whether in English or Chinese. You think you are clever but you know nothing about the God I worship or His Holy Spirit of truth. You do not possess that ability. It does not require reading with a lexicon dictionary when read with the influence of the Holy Ghost. But you would not know about the higher laws of mortality.

 

[Serenity7855]

I have been saying this for a month now.

You say many things that posters ignore

 

[Serenity7855]

5 is amusing as a congregation is made of average people while researchers are not average people but those specialized in a field

4 is hilarious as I can question any of these figures and disagree. Yet if I disagree with God I get to get to hell. I can not even contact God via twitter.

Whomever this scientist was he had no certification or degrees in logic or philosophy.

Try vocalising your objection to HIV being the cause of AIDS in Robert Gallo research facilities and see how long you keep your job. Science dictates to scientists what it expects or if you disagree then your out. There isn't even anyone you can twitter with your complaint.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see just in case they are completely wrong.

 

[Shad]

Lack of education, how ironic from someone who's knowledge can be found on Wiki. Why are you going on about theism for? All it does is demonstrate how intellectually redundant you are with a lacking ability for reading for comprehension

Says the one using a dictionary while I at least showed there was a difference between field terminology and layman's terms. Nice try to dodge that you were wrong but you failed to do so. Look up the words monotheism and polytheism. Theism is belief in a supreme beings identified as gods. Mono is when there is only one, poly is when there is many...

monotheism (theology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
polytheism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Your need to be vitriolic disguises the irrelevant point you are trying to make.

No my points stand on their own merit. I toss in a bit each to show the level of contempt I have for you due to our dialog.

It is not my survey. It was introduced by Minx. Read the argument instead of being preoccupied in finding the most venomous and crass insults to post.

You still used the source, regardless of who introduced it you still used it. You could have chosen not to use it for reasons I have stated but you did not.

If it means nothing to you then why are you making comment on it.

To point out that it is flawed so become meaningless.

Is the poll by non-experts. How have you come to that conclusion?

Considering they made the same mistake as you it is reasonable conclusion. If it was done by someone with knowledge of the field more than layman generalization would be used.

You are using the terminology not me. I was giving a definition of the word "theism" simply to support my objections to the claim that there are more theist in science then atheists. You are just making argumentative remarks because I have exposed you in your ignorance.

You are talking about religion using terms associated by religion. If you the word out of it's context this is your issues and I can find fault it in it. You have only continued to publicly post your own lack of education on the internet.

Your puerile ad hominem is like water off a ducks back to me. They do not penetrative the surface and only serve to demonstrate the lack of moral accountability atheists like you possess.

If it was water off your back you wouldn't form a response which specify addresses a topic which you claim does not bug you. Morals does not mean I should treat you with respect. Respect is earned not given, you have failed to earn mine and actually have provide reasonable cause for the contempt I have for you.

If your expectations are low, may I suggest that you give my post a wide berth that saving yourself from being seen as an obnoxious troll.

The bar is low for my expectation of you but others read this forum and could learn something. I use these little dialogs as a method of brain draining to clear my thoughts before going back to my studies.

 

[Shad]

Try vocalising your objection to HIV being the cause of AIDS in Robert Gallo research facilities and see how long you keep your job. Science dictates to scientists what it expects or if you disagree then your out. There isn't even anyone you can twitter with your complaint.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see just in case they are completely wrong.

So clearly his specialty is not in logic nor philosophy nor religious studies. So his view is merely an opinion of a scientist outside their field of study. I am not questioning his work on HIV I am question views well outside his expertise. Thanks for providing evidence that your citation is an argument from a non-expert.

 

[outhouse]

You say many things that posters ignore

And you still have nothing! for evidence after all these pages you only have mythology to guide you

 

[Serenity7855]

Says the one using a dictionary while I at least showed there was a difference between field terminology and layman's terms. Nice try to dodge that you were wrong but you failed to do so. Look up the words monotheism and polytheism. Theism is belief in a supreme beings identified as gods. Mono is when there is only one, poly is when there is many...

monotheism (theology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
polytheism -- Encyclopedia Britannica



No my points stand on their own merit. I toss in a bit each to show the level of contempt I have for you due to our dialog.



You still used the source, regardless of who introduced it you still used it. You could have chosen not to use it for reasons I have stated but you did not.



To point out that it is flawed so become meaningless.



Considering they made the same mistake as you it is reasonable conclusion. If it was done by someone with knowledge of the field more than layman generalization would be used.



You are talking about religion using terms associated by religion. If you the word out of it's context this is your issues and I can find fault it in it. You have only continued to publicly post your own lack of education on the internet.



If it was water off your back you wouldn't form a response which specify addresses a topic which you claim does not bug you. Morals does not mean I should treat you with respect. Respect is earned not given, you have failed to earn mine and actually have provide reasonable cause for the contempt I have for you.



The bar is low for my expectation of you but others read this forum and could learn something. I use these little dialogs as a method of brain draining to clear my thoughts before going back to my studies.

Now that you have kindly informed me of your contempt for me, thus excluding any possible constructive and honest discussion with you, I can put you on my ignore list as to converse with you will serve me no benefit. Thank you.

 

[Shad]

Your use of lexicons is not recognised by me. The Bible was intended to be read by all mankind regardless of academic achievement. It is plain and simple and contains exactly what God wants it to contain and has been translated in the way that he wanted it translated, whether in English or Chinese. You think you are clever but you know nothing about the God I worship or His Holy Spirit of truth. You do not possess that ability. It does not require reading with a lexicon dictionary when read with the influence of the Holy Ghost. But you would not know about the higher laws of mortality.

God would of had people born with the knowledge of High Greek if this was the case. Yet you rely on translation to English to read the Bible. You then deny the very tools used, lexicons, for definitions of words you read in English. Hilarious.

Now that you have kindly informed me of your contempt for me, thus excluding any possible constructive and honest discussion with you, I can put you on my ignore list as to converse with you will serve me no benefit. Thank you.

You are free to do so. My contempt does not prevent me for having a dialog. It is just my evaluation of you and the arguments you have presented. The flip-flop nature of using logic while not understand it while later denying use of logic or calling foul when someone uses logic against you. I have not ignored you with your obvious contempt for atheists and your whining about morals. After all I rather silence opposition by the merit of my arguments not just pretend these do not exist via an ignore button. You could just refrain from responding but you are unable to display a little will power to do so. The use of the ignore is more about your lack of abilities, self-control and inability to defend your arguments from criticism than my views of you. You showed contempt of atheists in the opening thread. Do not play the victim after throwing the first punch. You run for the hills at the first sign of people fighting back.

 

[adi2d]

That is funny as it was taken from a book by a very renowned Nobel Prize winning scientist. You either tell lies, just to offend, as atheists with no moral accountability do, or you do not have a clue about that which you talk. I think both.

So once again you 'accidentally' forget to credit your copying of someone elses words

 

[Sapiens]

That is funny as it was taken from a book by a very renowned Nobel Prize winning scientist. You either tell lies, just to offend, as atheists with no moral accountability do, or you do not have a clue about that which you talk. I think both.

I really don't give a damn whom your quoting ... it's BS. In any case I am unable to locate any quote references for anything that you posted, which places you claim in serious doubt. Reference please, or shut the hell up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Shuttlecraft, what you are doing is telling a Beatles fan that John Lennon held his guitar too high. A Beatles fan can see no wrong in John Lennon as a Dawkins fan will defend Dawkins whether he is right or wrong, as they are doing right here. Nothing you say will show Dawkins as the Dork that he really is.

No. What he's doing is lying about what somebody wrote. That's it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. Never seen such a disastrous misspelling before.

If God had "condom-ed" the impregnation of Mary, there wouldn't have been any Jesus... Right?

I used to hate auto-correct but I'm starting to like it, thanks to gems like these!

You should see some of the texts I've sent to people. Auto correct really does have a filthy mind!

 

[Serenity7855]

I really don't give a damn whom your quoting ... it's BS. In any case I am unable to locate any quote references for anything that you posted, which places you claim in serious doubt. Reference please, or shut the hell up.

I said it was taken from a book. Why were you looking for a quote

The only real Bs, that is to be found on this forum, is usually in your post.

When I have to answer to you or have to comply to your requests to "shut the he'll up" I will no longer be a member of this forum. It is sufficient for Christians to have to endure your presence here and read the sheer drivel you write and copy and paste dishonestly. Now, please be about your own business and stop bothering me with your nasty, odious, insulting, rude, derogatory, vexing, galling, provocative, impertinent, uncivil, and impolite mouth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I said it was taken from a book. Why were you looking for a quote
The only real BS that is to be found on this forum is usually in your post.

When I have to answer to you or have to comply to your requests to "shut the he'll up" I will no longer be a member of this forum. It is sufficient for Christians to have to endure your presents here and read the sheer drivel you write. Now, please be about your own business and stop bothering me with your nasty, odious, insulting, rude, derogatory, vexing, galling, provocative, impertinent, uncivil, impolite mouth.

What book? What author?

You know, you can find quotes from books on the internet.

 

[Serenity7855]

So once again you 'accidentally' forget to credit your copying of someone elses words

Once again, so when have I done it before, or are you trying to discredit me with falsehoods. Secondly, if you had any concept on the comprehension of text you would read the words "taken from" and not "quoted from" or "copied" thus preventing you from making yourself look like you are intellectually inert. Post like this does very little for your credibility here. It just makes you sound bitter and vengeful.

 

[Serenity7855]

What book? What author?

You know, you can find quotes from books on the internet.

The point is not worth the investigation you seek after. It was my presentation of someone elses beliefs adopted by myself. What is important is that the two self proclaimed highly intelligent posters on here criticised the words of a well respected scientist. They did it thinking that it was from me and tried to discredit it with their dishonest and immoral appraisal of it, but it has back fired on them making them look the fools. I am a messenger, I do not write the message. I have told both of these poster this, yet they still insult words that are usually not mine trying to elevate themselves. Frankly, It is fun to witness stumbling trolls.

 

[adi2d]

Once again, so when have I done it before, or are you trying to discredit me with falsehoods. Secondly, if you had any concept on the comprehension of text you would read the words "taken from" and not "quoted from" thus preventing you from making yourself look like you are intellectually inert.

You can go through this thread and find out. You claimed you forgot to credit a quote.

You have been asked what book it was "taken from". Why is that so har?

 

[outhouse]

And you still have nothing! for evidence after all these pages you only have mythology to guide you

Still waiting :slap:

334 pages of dribble

 

[Serenity7855]

No. What he's doing is lying about what somebody wrote. That's it.

Can you point that out only I did not see that in his post.