Poll: How did human life come about?

[So]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

That's because the only true God is the Giant Flying Spaghetti Meatball Monster. You will never understand until you have been touched with one of his spaghetti tentacles with delicious pasta sauce.

It is his noodly appendage. The question is, when will the pastafarian savior come and forgive us for our sin of killing his chosen people, the holy pirates?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

What is the problem here? The text is the Bible as a whole, the canon of scripture.

Says who? The Council of Nicea? Since when do I care what they think?

You see, right here your presuppositions are laid bare. You argue that a passage written in a much later work by a different author MUST compel an extraordinarily unusual interpretation of the passage in question because you've already decided that they must harmonize.

That's called question-begging. Look it up.

EDIT: And on another point, can you please cite for me the chapter(s) and verse(s) that define "spiritual death"? Give that concept some biblical context, if you would please.

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

If I recall, you are 15 years old. I can remember when I was 15...I thought that I knew everything. It has taken a number of decades for me to realize just how little that I did know.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Says who? The Council of Nicea? Since when do I care what they think?

I hear ya there.

You see, right here your presuppositions are laid bare. You argue that a passage written in a much later work by a different author MUST compel an extraordinarily unusual interpretation of the passage in question because you've already decided that they must harmonize.

I know the Bible contain contradictions, but this one isn't one of them. RapidSnail is completely correct. And the interpretation is very simple.

That's called question-begging. Look it up.

EDIT: And on another point, can you please cite for me the chapter(s) and verse(s) that define "spiritual death"? Give that concept some biblical context, if you would please.

Well, look at Proverbs 10:2. "...but righteousness delivereth from death." How does that work if we're talking about physical death? Every person in the Bible, except one, has died. Many of them were supposedly righteous. So what's the deal?

Also, look at 1 Cor. 15:22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." These scriptures all point very obviously to the fact that physical death is not the only death referred to in the scriptures.

If you don't believe it, put his theory to the test. Adam partook of the fruit and what happened? Physical death (death of the body) or spiritual death (separation from God)? Seeing as there are no longer any recorded experiences after that point of Adam communing with God, and since he lived for 900+ more years, I'd have to go with answer 2. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

If I recall, you are 15 years old. I can remember when I was 15...I thought that I knew everything. It has taken a number of decades for me to realize just how little that I did know.

Actually, I'm only 10.

Feel free to get back to me when you have something substantive to contribute.

(big words for a 10 year old, dont'cha think?)

 

[Seekermeister]

engineereeyore,

Every person in the Bible, except one, has died.

Actually, 2. Enoch and Elijah.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
that's called question-begging. Look it up.

EDIT: And on another point, can you please cite for me the chapter(s) and verse(s) that define "spiritual death"? Give that concept some biblical context, if you would please.

Well, look at Proverbs 10:2. "...but righteousness delivereth from death." How does that work if we're talking about physical death?

How does it work if we're talking about "spiritual death?" I'm still not sure that the idea of "spiritual death" is meaningful in the first place.

Every person in the Bible, except one, has died. Many of them were supposedly righteous. So what's the deal?

It would seem that the obvious answer is the claims of the Bible are false.

Also, look at 1 Cor. 15:22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." These scriptures all point very obviously to the fact that physical death is not the only death referred to in the scriptures.

If you don't believe it, put his theory to the test. Adam partook of the fruit and what happened? Physical death (death of the body) or spiritual death (separation from God)?

You're committing the same fallacy. It was claimed that the day Adam partook of the fruit, he would die. He didn't. After the fact, people like you and RapidSnail come along and shoehorn this nebulous idea about "spiritual death" into the interpretation because you've already decided that there cannot be a contradiction.

Seeing as there are no longer any recorded experiences after that point of Adam communing with God, and since he lived for 900+ more years, I'd have to go with answer 2. Makes perfect sense.

No, really, it doesn't at all.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

If I recall, you are 15 years old. I can remember when I was 15...I thought that I knew everything. It has taken a number of decades for me to realize just how little that I did know.

You still think you know everything. That is the problem.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

If I recall, you are 15 years old. I can remember when I was 15...I thought that I knew everything. It has taken a number of decades for me to realize just how little that I did know.

Ad hom attack right there. You didn't even try to reply to his argument.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the "word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

How is Vic wrong?

Con
Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: con
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: trick
Synonyms: bluff, cheat, crime, deception, double-cross, dupe, fraud, gold brick*, graft, gyp, mockery, swindle, take in
Source: Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

How is he wrong? That saying religion is a con means that you want religion outlawed?

Words have different meanings...

You sometimes need to use context clues to figure out which meaning. As I already posted:
A con is
to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
?noun
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk"

Fraud is one synonym.


Fraud has this similar meaning to con-
"a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; "



He is saying that because the synonym to a con is a fraud.. and since the word fraud also has a legal term that defines a fraud for money as illegal... that somehow that means that if you think someone or something is a fraud that it should be outlawed.

Are people really this dumb?

Let's take another example. If I say that my doctor is a fraud, it does not mean that I wish him to be outlawed. It also doesn't necessarily mean that he is swindling me out of money. It could mean that I think he is a farce as a doctor. Someone who has a certificate but practices terrible medicine. He is a sham.

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

(big words for a 10 year old, dont'cha think?)

Big words for a 100 year old. Why don't you prove that you are up to using them? Instead of making absurd assertions, why don't you attempt to support what you say? Not with links, but with logic.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
engineereeyore,

Every person in the Bible, except one, has died.

Actually, 2. Enoch and Elijah.

Actually, they did, just not on Earth. Everyone must die in order to be ressurrected, and these two are no different. I think they referred to it as "twinkling", but they did still die at some point.

The person I'm actually referring to is John, who requested to remain alive until the second coming.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the "word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

How is Vic wrong?

Con
Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: con
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: trick
Synonyms: bluff, cheat, crime, deception, double-cross, dupe, fraud, gold brick*, graft, gyp, mockery, swindle, take in
Source: Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

How is he wrong? That saying religion is a con means that you want religion outlawed?

Words have different meanings...

You sometimes need to use context clues to figure out which meaning. As I already posted:
A con is
to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
?noun
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk"

Fraud is one synonym.


Fraud has this similar meaning to con-
"a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; "



He is saying that because the synonym to a con is a fraud.. and since the word fraud also has a legal term that defines a fraud for money as illegal... that somehow that means that if you think someone or something is a fraud that it should be outlawed.

Are people really this dumb?

Let's take another example. If I say that my doctor is a fraud, it does not mean that I wish him to be outlawed. It also doesn't necessarily mean that he is swindling me out of money. It could mean that I think he is a farce as a doctor. Someone who has a certificate but practices terrible medicine. He is a sham.

Like I already said, at least we (and by that, I mean everyone, as you've so kindly put it in your sig) know exactly where you stand on ethics.

You might also... if this is possible for you (which I doubt)... want to take into account my previous post to this. How can you claim you don't know "The Truth" when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? Perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us? Nah... then you'd have to stop flinging personal attacks and feeling superior about yourself...

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
How does it work if we're talking about "spiritual death?" I'm still not sure that the idea of "spiritual death" is meaningful in the first place.

Death really means 'removal'. Think about it. If you believe the Bible, do you ever really die? No. Your spirit lives for ever. Physical death is nothing more than the separation of your spirit from your body. So what is spiritual death? The separation for that which is spiritual, or in this case, God.

It would seem that the obvious answer is the claims of the Bible are false.

Not sure I'd agree with you there. Ever heard the expression "you're dead to me." Is the person really dead? No, it just means they are 'removed' from that persons life. Make sense?

You're committing the same fallacy. It was claimed that the day Adam partook of the fruit, he would die. He didn't. After the fact, people like you and RapidSnail come along and shoehorn this nebulous idea about "spiritual death" into the interpretation because you've already decided that there cannot be a contradiction.

Yes he did. He was removed from the presence of God the very day he did it. And as I have already stated, there are contradictions in the Bible, and I'm fine with that. I have no need to 'shoehorn' anything, so that excuse doesn't work on me.

No, really, it doesn't at all.

Honestly, would you accept it if it did? Perhaps it's you that has to shoehorn it into a contradiction in order to justify your lack of belief. To the believe it makes sense, to the non-believer it doesn't. If anything makes sense, that does.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
engineereeyore,

Every person in the Bible, except one, has died.

Actually, 2. Enoch and Elijah.

Actually, they did, just not on Earth. Everyone must die in order to be ressurrected, and these two are no different. I think they referred to it as "twinkling", but they did still die at some point.

The person I'm actually referring to is John, who requested to remain alive until the second coming.

John never made that request. I believe what you are thinking of is when Peter was walking with Jeus, looking over his shoulder and seeing John, asked Jesus about the fate of the one that had betrayed Him. And Christ replied, something like "What is it to you if he remains alive until I return. I have never quite understood how John fitted into this, but John died also.

I believe that if you will check, you will find that you are wrong about Enoch and Elijah.

 

[eojinlim]

Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

I believe that everything was guided by God. Whether it took 10, 000 years or millions of years for life on Earth to promulgate and evolve is besides the question.

Here's a snippet of how non-believers usually argue when confronted with a question of God and his hand in creating the universe:
1) Darwin's Theory of Evolution proves with a mind numbing amount of evidence, that human life, or all life on Earth took place over millions of years through Natural Selection and Inheritance.
2) Therefore, the church's belief that life evolved over 10, 000 years is completel rubbish
3) Therefore, there is no such thing as a Prime Being or God or Jesus or any of that sort of thing.

The thing that gets me is that the 10, 000 year counter point by non-Christians is absolutely baseless. As a staunch believer of evolution as well as being a life long Christian it pains me to hear this argument over and over. Nowhere in the Bible does it state 10, 000 years. Therefore, when they argue that it can't possibly happen over 10, 000 years, I would agree with them and tell them that their arguments are based on some 100 yr old dead bishop, that came up with a number, in a time period where they couldn't even wipe their asses with toilet paper.

I rest my rant...i mean case.

lol.

My choice is #2 ish. I believe that God had a hand in everything. The processes that govern life, nourish it, destroy it...he had a role in coming up with everything. He may not have literally created people out of his bare hands but he created a process called evolution, biological reactions, DNA synthesis, and on and on and on.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

What is the problem here? The text is the Bible as a whole, the canon of scripture.

Says who? The Council of Nicea? Since when do I care what they think?

You see, right here your presuppositions are laid bare. You argue that a passage written in a much later work by a different author MUST compel an extraordinarily unusual interpretation of the passage in question because you've already decided that they must harmonize.

That's called question-begging. Look it up.

EDIT: And on another point, can you please cite for me the chapter(s) and verse(s) that define "spiritual death"? Give that concept some biblical context, if you would please.

I believe I understand the problem. You are supposing that since I quoted a passage from John, I must be using it to give proof to the problem text which is not the case. The purpose of the quotation was to show how the second birth is necessary because of the spiritual death of Adam in the garden, not to prove my earlier point. In fact, I could have left the entire passage out as it doesn't effect my reasoning.


Luke 15:32

It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Romans 8:10

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Colossians 2:13

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

1 Peter 4:6

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Ephesians 2:1

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the "word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

How is Vic wrong?

Con
Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: con
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: trick
Synonyms: bluff, cheat, crime, deception, double-cross, dupe, fraud, gold brick*, graft, gyp, mockery, swindle, take in
Source: Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

How is he wrong? That saying religion is a con means that you want religion outlawed?

Words have different meanings...

You sometimes need to use context clues to figure out which meaning. As I already posted:
A con is
to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
?noun
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk"

Fraud is one synonym.


Fraud has this similar meaning to con-
"a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; "



He is saying that because the synonym to a con is a fraud.. and since the word fraud also has a legal term that defines a fraud for money as illegal... that somehow that means that if you think someone or something is a fraud that it should be outlawed.

Are people really this dumb?

Let's take another example. If I say that my doctor is a fraud, it does not mean that I wish him to be outlawed. It also doesn't necessarily mean that he is swindling me out of money. It could mean that I think he is a farce as a doctor. Someone who has a certificate but practices terrible medicine. He is a sham.

Like I already said, at least we (and by that, I mean everyone, as you've so kindly put it in your sig) know exactly where you stand on ethics.

You might also... if this is possible for you (which I doubt)... want to take into account my previous post to this. How can you claim you don't know "The Truth" when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? Perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us? Nah... then you'd have to stop flinging personal attacks and feeling superior about yourself...

"when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? "

Sure. I never claim such. I only claim to have an opinion of such. An opinion only requires a reasonable conclusion from reasonable evidence. I have repeated this many times, but you don't seem to get it.

Theoretically, you could have somehow assumed that somehow I had intimate knowledge of the writers from 2000 years ago and I had scoured the world for enough evidence to actually present a case to the world of my knowledge. That would be ridiculously foolish to assume. This is a poll and thread on opinions. I stated my opinion. When it was made clear that somehow, despite whatever foolishness, somehow you thought I was stating a concluded fact, I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES in MULTIPLE POSTS that this is my opinion and that you need to learn to accept the opinions of others. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The irony is strong that you keep hammering in personal attacks when you have made multiple attacks on me and I never on you. Let's go through them "bigot," "asshole," "stfu(multiple times)." And I called you arrogant? Yep, thanks for lecturing me on personal attacks!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? "

Sure. I never claim such. I only claim to have an opinion of such. An opinion only requires a reasonable conclusion from reasonable evidence. I have repeated this many times, but you don't seem to get it.

Theoretically, you could have somehow assumed that somehow I had intimate knowledge of the writers from 2000 years ago and I had scoured the world for enough evidence to actually present a case to the world of my knowledge. That would be ridiculously foolish to assume. This is a poll and thread on opinions. I stated my opinion. When it was made clear that somehow, despite whatever foolishness, somehow you thought I was stating a concluded fact, I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES in MULTIPLE POSTS that this is my opinion and that you need to learn to accept the opinions of others. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The irony is strong that you keep hammering in personal attacks when you have made multiple attacks on me and I never on you. Let's go through them "bigot," "asshole," "stfu(multiple times)." And I called you arrogant? Yep, thanks for lecturing me on personal attacks!

I'm gonna say it one last time. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to be secure in your opinion. There is a difference. Get. a. clue.
And those attacks I supposedly made against you were my opinions, and I think they're quite factual even. So by your own logic, you can't say anything bad about me for having them, or even complain. Or are you saying that I'm not entitled to MY opinions?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: eojinlim
I believe that everything was guided by God. Whether it took 10, 000 years or millions of years for life on Earth to promulgate and evolve is besides the question.

"Besides" what question? Assuming God exists, why would that make questions about the universe irrelevant?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? "

Sure. I never claim such. I only claim to have an opinion of such. An opinion only requires a reasonable conclusion from reasonable evidence. I have repeated this many times, but you don't seem to get it.

Theoretically, you could have somehow assumed that somehow I had intimate knowledge of the writers from 2000 years ago and I had scoured the world for enough evidence to actually present a case to the world of my knowledge. That would be ridiculously foolish to assume. This is a poll and thread on opinions. I stated my opinion. When it was made clear that somehow, despite whatever foolishness, somehow you thought I was stating a concluded fact, I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES in MULTIPLE POSTS that this is my opinion and that you need to learn to accept the opinions of others. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The irony is strong that you keep hammering in personal attacks when you have made multiple attacks on me and I never on you. Let's go through them "bigot," "asshole," "stfu(multiple times)." And I called you arrogant? Yep, thanks for lecturing me on personal attacks!

I'm gonna say it one last time. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to be secure in your opinion. There is a difference. Get. a. clue.
And those attacks I supposedly made against you were my opinions, and I think they're quite factual even. So by your own logic, you can't say anything bad about me for having them, or even complain. Or are you saying that I'm not entitled to MY opinions?

All attacks are opinions.. they are still attacks.
You are entitled to have a poor opinion of someone, but attacking them with it is often frowned upon and marks someone as immature. Being that this is private property, ATOT reps would have every right to remove you for it.

I also have the right to call you out on the fact that you have personally name called and attacked me at least double the amount that you could possible claim an attack on you, all the while claiming that you have the high road.

I have the right to be "secure" in my opinion. When I hear something that proves otherwise, I will hear it. I have yet to hear it. Til then, I will keep this opinion. That is how it works usually.

What other way would you like it?



Now, since you have managed to divert attention from your claim. Let's try this again.

""when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? " "

I only claimed to have an opinion that the bible is the largest con in history. An opinion can be an alternate viewpoint. It is in NO way a claim to have the "right" answer. That is what is called a FACT. I claimed no such fact. I continue to say it is my opinion. That in itself shows that I do not believe it to be a fact.

Now, if you claimed, "no it is not!" and I responded, "you are wrong.", then THAT could be construed as me saying that others are wrong. If I have done so, please quote me and I will amend my opinion.

So I challenge you again, PROVE IT. Quote me where I said any other view is wrong.

 

[Mo0o]

wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
wtf is Vic and Shadow9d9 arguing about? Are you guys arguing about arguing?

Nope. If you can't stay up with the debate, then don't get involved. He keeps claiming I am forcing my opinion on others. He claimed I was a bigot/asshole/etc etc for having an opinion that differed from his own. I have been trying to explain that an opinion does not equal fact. Simple.

The crux of the problem was his response to my initial statement, immortalized in my sig.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? "

Sure. I never claim such. I only claim to have an opinion of such. An opinion only requires a reasonable conclusion from reasonable evidence. I have repeated this many times, but you don't seem to get it.

Theoretically, you could have somehow assumed that somehow I had intimate knowledge of the writers from 2000 years ago and I had scoured the world for enough evidence to actually present a case to the world of my knowledge. That would be ridiculously foolish to assume. This is a poll and thread on opinions. I stated my opinion. When it was made clear that somehow, despite whatever foolishness, somehow you thought I was stating a concluded fact, I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES in MULTIPLE POSTS that this is my opinion and that you need to learn to accept the opinions of others. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

The irony is strong that you keep hammering in personal attacks when you have made multiple attacks on me and I never on you. Let's go through them "bigot," "asshole," "stfu(multiple times)." And I called you arrogant? Yep, thanks for lecturing me on personal attacks!

I'm gonna say it one last time. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to be secure in your opinion. There is a difference. Get. a. clue.
And those attacks I supposedly made against you were my opinions, and I think they're quite factual even. So by your own logic, you can't say anything bad about me for having them, or even complain. Or are you saying that I'm not entitled to MY opinions?

All attacks are opinions.. they are still attacks.
You are entitled to have a poor opinion of someone, but attacking them with it is often frowned upon and marks someone as immature. Being that this is private property, ATOT reps would have every right to remove you for it.

I also have the right to call you out on the fact that you have personally name called and attacked me at least double the amount that you could possible claim an attack on you, all the while claiming that you have the high road.

I have the right to be "secure" in my opinion. When I hear something that proves otherwise, I will hear it. I have yet to hear it. Til then, I will keep this opinion. That is how it works usually.

What other way would you like it?



Now, since you have managed to divert attention from your claim. Let's try this again.

""when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? " "

I only claimed to have an opinion that the bible is the largest con in history. An opinion can be an alternate viewpoint. It is in NO way a claim to have the "right" answer. That is what is called a FACT. I claimed no such fact. I continue to say it is my opinion. That in itself shows that I do not believe it to be a fact.

Now, if you claimed, "no it is not!" and I responded, "you are wrong.", then THAT could be construed as me saying that others are wrong. If I have done so, please quote me and I will amend my opinion.

So I challenge you again, PROVE IT. Quote me where I said any other view is wrong.

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Vic (pages ago)
Maybe this is a case of -- once again -- people on the internet shooting BS out of their asses without even realizing what their statements mean or imply.