Jess

@Dblade

As far as games go, I'm pretty sure it's filtered in order to remove the inevitable abuse it will go through in global chat or whatever.

@Maraq

Surprise, surprise, more cherry picking, poor reading comprehension and delusions of omniscience in regards to who I am and the evidence that I have. Rest assured, it most definitely is "strong enough to even raise a suspicion that all might not be as it seems in the universe" and then some, if you have an open mind...but you're a materialist fanatic and clearly do not. Saying I have nothing is just self-assurance that you're ignorant assumptions are correct. But it doesn't change the reality that I do have evidence, four written pages of it. Unlike you, I have major conseqeunces if I don't tell the truth. When I say something, it's the truth. I already told you you're not worthy to hear my evidence, due to your demonstrated character. No credible case by a sane person with a different belief exists for you. You simply invite it on so you can attack it and attempt to refute it with ignorant opinion, strawmen, slander and manipulation. If anything has been proven by you, it has been that you cannot tolerate different worldviews from your own, so go back to your little materialist box.

You're time is up; my work week is over and you have had more than enough chances to end this with a shred of maturity, which you are clearly incapable of doing. All you are capable of is incessant personal attack. So I am ending it now.

Merry Christmas and Pax Vobiscum

@Maraq

"Well maybe you might want to waste a little time correcting me, rather wasting a lot of time simply stating i'm wrong."

I corrected you thoroughly on many of your assumptions and prejudices of me as a person, because that is the one place where I have unquestionable authority over you. The most recent being your accusation that I'm an atheist to all other gods. I corrected you and, in true you fashion, you conveniently ignored it and moved on, refusing to admit you were wrong. As for your obsession with proof, I told you I don't have it and why that's entirely consistent with Christian theism.

Definition of GOD
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

"as many believers before you who dont have the stones to simply admit they dont actually have any proof, thats why its called faith."

I'm not entirely sure what to make of your reading comprehension skills or ability with the English laguage anymore. I don't have proof, how many times do I have to say it? I've been saying it for some time now. Yet you make up statements like that. That's dishonesty. How moral of you. You keep changing my words to suit your self-gratification. The only logical knots I'm tied up in are the ones you're inventing for your own purposes. I have evidence, and that's not what you're looking for. You're demanding proof because you're a Thomas. Evidence leads to proof, but evidence is not proof. They are different words for a reason.

Definition of EVIDENCE
1a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Definition of PROOF
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : experience
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

They are related, but not the same. One can lead to the other, but I don't have enough evidence to prove Christianity. But I'm not a Thomas, so that's ok. I don't have to put my money where my mouth is because I never once said I could prove my worldview. I asked you to put your money where your mouth is because you claim to be a moral, nice and happily adjusted person, yet are incapable of ending a conversation civily and have reverted to mockey and insults instead.

@Maraq

More cherry picking from you. And temper tantrums? My writing has been neutral in tone throughout.

You don't see what kind of potential hypocrite you are when you say "All you are good for is ranting, and stating "it is so, cos i said so!" "? That's easily half of your writing if not more! Your opinionated rants on Theology alone probably come to several hundred words. Re-read your content. Your absolute claims are too many to list! Develope some humility, seriously. You just can't admit you might be wrong about your targets. And when you are wrong (like your total prejudice and grossly innacurrate assumptions about me) you quietly move on as opposed to fessing up and admitting it. You just can't publicly admit that you might be wrong about what you're attacking. Hitchens hit the same realization in front of hundreds when debating Turek. An audience question asked each debater what criteria or discovery would make them reverse their position. Turek gave his conditions for abandoning Christianity and Hitchens changed the subject and dodged the question because he just couldn't question his own unbelief. Turek later called him on it and the entire audience claped. Dawkins, in an unrelated question period, proceeded to mock an audience member when he was asked "What if you're wrong. Hmm..immature mockery...that seems familiar. For New Atheists, no evidence will do because they don't want to believe. And that's the key issue.You're the 'Fundies" of the irreligious world.

No evidence will do for you. It's just that simple. You will only be satisfied with proof, because you're a Thomas. I could have a thousand times the evidence I have now, and it wouldn't be enough. You keep calling it proof and changing my words saying it's proof. What I have is evidence, three parts objective, one part subjective. I'm not going to waste my time presenting it to you as it would be a futile endeavour. Just more self-gratificatuion through mockery for you. It also involves revealing some major personal information and there is no way I would divulge that to someone of your demonstrated character.

All I have to do is share the Good News. You're aware of the Good News, so I'm free unless I see you starving on the street or something. What I certainly don't have to do anymore is tolerate your obsessive need for self-gratification and equally obsessive need to have the last word in victory. Hurry up and end this; it's my weekend (day of rest and all, you know). Let's see if you have the "morality" to end it on a somewhat civil and respectful note, since "being nice is the smart thing to be". Put your money where your mouth is, my moral, meaningful and happily adjusted friend.

@smg77

Actually, that will not be the case, but not due to the reasons you think. It's all about birth rates and the Secular West has all but stopped growing due to its addiction to birth control. Hispanics, South Asians and Muslims are all have twice, even thrice the amount of children that those of ther Secular West are having, all three of those groups are, for better or worse, extraordinarily religious. Your only hope for a Secular World is Communist China. Hardly a comforting thought, but good luck with that.

@smg77

You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but if that was the case there wouldn't be men like Dinesh D'Souza, WL Craig, Turek, Lennox etc etc who gladly walk into the Lion's Den and have no problem holding their own. The debates are usually up on YouTube. Fascinating stuff, check it out.

@Maraq

That entire tirade was nothing but opinion and baseless assumption which not only demonstrates you're completely out of things to discuss, but that your understandng of Christianity, faith, free will and hell is practically non-existant. Also, your repetetive and shameful tactic of conveniently not adressing the things I bring up which you have no answer to is now quite apparent. Masking it with unprovable opinion, absolute claims (which you have yet to prove) and insults won't hide the fact that you're empty handed on many fronts. You're a master cherry picker. I can almost guarantee you'll do it again.

The saddest thing, is that you just can't seem to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about, yet are absolutely convinced you're an authority on the matter. The primary subject of which, has been me. A large portion of what you write is accusing me of all sorts of ridiculous things, putting words and beliefs in my mouth/head, describing my characteristics, mental state, and on and on and on. Your comments would be a third the thize that they are now if you refrained from this. It's almost as if you have a delusion of omniscience as well as "meaning". You have absolutely no knowledge of who I am. It's pathetic. You say I'm an atheist towards all other Gods but the God of Christianity. You don't know that. How could you? You're wrong, and I can tell you you're wrong because we're talking about me, a subject of which I am the second highest authority, and of which you are the least. So, in regards to me, you are wrong. In truth, I'm actually agnostic to all the other gods, and even have personal theories and opinions on what they might be or have been, as do others out there and it's a fascinating discussion, in my opinion. But I digress. I could never be close-minded enough to be an Atheist to everything, that's for sure. Also, you're speaking entirely in ignorance when you say "You cannot show evidence for your belief because of the both its total absence and your circular self reinforcing diy brainwashing." I can show evidence, and have to others, and those open minded people have accepted it as such. But you're not open-minded, far from it. You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what my evidence is, yet you prejudge it in complete and utter ignorance. That's close-minded.The truth is that no evidence for you will do, because you're a Thomas.

Saying things like me burying my case, that I'm whipping myself into a fervour and all your other ASSumptions do nothing to prove me wrong or you right. It's just more dirt on your hands and a testament to your piss poor ability to have a mature conversation. You're not going to win, you can't win because you can't win against faith, especially when it's backed with the evidence I have to support it. That's why so many Atheist Regimes had to destroy the faithful instead.

The difference is that I'm not setting out to win because I don't have to, because "Every knee shall bow".

You just can't let things go, and agree to disagree because you must convince yourself that you're 100% right with zero room for error. Such arrogance is disgusting. Let it go man.

@Maraq

Just more baseless (endless, perhaps?) assumption, opinion, prejudice and absolute claims. Truly, you are a slave to subjectivity. I said I have strong evidence for my belief, not proof. And it far outweighs your vitriol. The only comedy is you're claims of knowledge about this and that, but absolute cluelessness in regards to basic concepts of belief, like why there can't be proof of God. As in it's not allowed and purposely withheld. And you tell me to know my opponent. More hypocrisy from you, as usual. You and Dawkins have a lot in common.

Morality doesn't even exist; you're hi-jacking a word to describe a completely amoral process. Your "meaning" is a fabrication, no different than the God you accuse others of relying on; both are imaginary within the context of the materialist worldview. Telling me otherwise does not change this. Your "meaning" is delusional, as is your pathetic excuse for your authority to judge others. Your pretense of vast knowledge, utter arrogance and self-satisfactory disrespect does nothing to change the objective facts . This very issue is one of the areas where WL Craig trounced the Mighty Hitchens.

My belief does not need bolstering, for already stated reasons. And I'm quite fine, proficient even, with sharp objects, as I have been fully trained by the government with knives and bayonets, not to mention assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades and the rest. But of course because you know nothing about me you can stick to your ignorant accusations and prejudice.

The only thing here that is indeed pitiful, is your supreme arrogance and pride, and need for self-graitification.

Clearly we are done here. It's called an impasse.

@Maraq

Well this is almost resembling a legitimate conversation now, at least your insults are veiled. It's a step in the right direction. But you're still being cheap and nonsensical: quoting isn't plagiarisng if you, you know, quote the person. Plagiarising is using the words as your own without sourcing them to the original writer. You can't accuse me of both at the same time, as it's literally impossible to do both at once. If you can't grasp basic concepts, how can you grasp the mysteries of existence itself? You can't. At least I admit to the possibility of being wrong and the possibility of you being right. It's called having an open mind. Agnostics are famous for this, check them out. It's you with the absolute claims (ie: saying I'm wrong), and therefore the purden of proof lies with you.

The fact that you champion the God Delusion is just sad. That book is no different than a priest writing about evolution, and is considered a polemic; some atheist literary critics have even denounced it. It's only the petulant and inflammatory New Atheists who cling to its content, despite the book being refuted by several different books (The Dawkins Delusion, The Devil's Delusion, etc) But that's neither here nor there.

It's a shame you can't get away from your baseless accusations and empty opinions. Confused puppy etc. You have absolutely no clue about me, aside from your own prejudices and self-admitted bias. Hardly solid ground. You even go so far to automatically assume that I think you're a nihilist, which clearly shows you missed my argument altogether. Several times.

And then you demand proof of God? Hilarious. The atheist brings God into the discussion. God has nothing to do with the fact that you have no objective means to justify your particular version of the way you go about your meaningless existence, and the inablity of you to judge the meaningless existence and acitvities of others. Someone of your self-reassured intelligence and self-claimed vast knowledge of religion and discussions with believers will know why, theologically speaking, there is no proof of God. You're just asking for it in order to trap me into producing what you call "totally "off the shelf" and pre packaged'. You know why, from a theological point of view, there can't be any proof of God. You just want me to say it so you can self-gratify yourslef with more mockery. And if you don't know why, theologically speaking, there is no proof of God, then everything else you say is moot because that's beyond basic. And you talk of honesty....

For the last time, survival of the species is impossible, and therefoe any "morality" (read: survival instincts) derived from it, is absolutely futile and irrelevant. Yours and a rapsist's included. It has everything to do with the cosmos because it all came from the singularity and will be claimed by heat death. You're just a bunch of objectively meaningless atoms, as is the entire human race. Your opinions that cry different are essentially lipstick on a pig. Due to the actual facts, you cannot logically judge the actions of others since there is no right or wrong, there is no superior way to exist: it's all relative and irrelevant. Opinion and accusation does not change this. There is no moral high or low ground, just ground. Lots of swirling atoms. To make anything more of it, is delusion and fantasy or, at the very least, ignoring the material truths that science has revealed to us. But clearly you are incapable of admitting this material truth, as it robs you of your ability to criticize and mock others and most importantly, engage in self-gratification. There is a reason why it's known as the Achilles Heel of Atheism. Christopher Hitchens can't defend against, so it's no surpise that you can't, despite your self-assurance and all-encompasing opinion.

You say there is hope for me yet, and it's clear that you will not stop until I adopt your delusional view of the world. Trust me when I say that there is absolutely nothing you can say that will cause me to dissmiss the major points of evidence that brought me from agnostic-deism to Christianity. You're wasting your time, as the evidence for my chosen faith is so strong, that even science (God bless it) is powerless in refuting said evidence. But because you're a Thomas, there's no further point talking about it in detail. Just know that you are utterly impotent against it and your "fiery darts of the wicked" mean nothing. Yeah that was from the bible. No plagiarism here.

I'm not trying to convert you, you're quite aware of the Gospels and fully reject them. I have no obligations towards you. And whether I'm a delusional Christian or omniscient atheist such as yourself, is in the end, irrelevant. Go spend your life doing something else, since it's so "precious".

Pax Vobiscum

@Maraq

"its simply because i've realised certain very important details, which you haven't. Your logic is assailable for a reason (it has none), its flawed. mine is effortless to defend, because its not flawed."

Your arrogance and pride do nothing to validate reality or your words.
It is your opinion, but the reality is that you have it backwards. You''re ignoring the objective realities of the universe in favour of your own subjective crutch. It is indeed effortless to defend, because it is entirely and utterly defenseless.

I'm not the one ignoring the logical conclusions of my own worldview because it doesn't suit my fancy ( ie: I'm currently destined for hell, or at the best, purgatory, so you will inded in all probabilty see me! Not a comforting thought, but that is where the evidence lies at the moment, but I digress...)

The logic you say is non-existant, is not even MY logic, I don't own it; and it is shared by Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell (well, was), existential nihilists (ie: honest atheists) and many other atheists who follow the same logic to the same conclusions. The fact that a religious person has presented it to you completely clouds your own logic and reason, such is your bias and hatred. In fact, so much so, that you've pitted yourself not only against the religious (that is a given) but also against the honest materialists out there who get it that they have no objective way or right to judge others. It is you that is confused. All you can do is sling mud and shout "I'm right, you're wrong". You're like a broken record. Do you not see the endless cycle you're in? I will give you a modicum of credit for keeping your last paragraph free of insults. Congratulations, you're on your first step to mature discussion. But that's it. The rest is just your subjective, delusional bollocks as usual.