Open Christian Vs. Atheist Debate. With Special Guests...The Deflection Artist and The Post Deleter! (Page 34)

xylance: Ok first where does Jesus incite violence? Give me that quote, especially since you are demanding evidence.
Secondly, is it not evidence enough that the Christian world has developed faster and greater than any other? You know atheists are the ones who accuse us of believing there's a little man sat on cloud....yet YOU are the one asking for proof he exists!! What if God is a concept? The fact we are talking about him is proof it exists. What is god and what we should expect from him idk the answers to that. I can only say with confidence that Christianity is true.

Unfortunately, although it sounds obvious n basic common sense to search for truth it is not. Have you heard anyone say, "truth is the new hate speech". We are already seeing the effects of turning our back on Christ...And over and over the bible tells stories of what will happen if we turn our back on God.....
its already happening....people don't care about facts because of feelings....its a dumbing down of society. Social justice warriors....its laughable they call themselves warriors whilst demanding a safe space to be protected from "violent" speech. And social justice...kangaroo court. N these dumb asses are at the universities!
Multicultural society - all cultures are equal (again ignoring the facts) - to believe this is to believe in nothing in particular.

Or you can look at the Islamic world. The truth doesn't matter as long as they spread Islam....this is why they have stagnated and achieved so little by comparison. They dont have the desire to search for truth, Good and bad people exist everywhere but the fundamental guiding principles on which we build our society do matter. Now go... seek forgiveness!

Crash: "Ok first where does Jesus incite violence? Give me that quote, especially since you are demanding evidence."

You are equivocating the bible and Jesus. In your original post you said the bible doesn't incite violence.....now you are asking when does Jesus. These are not the same arguments....however...they both do...so it's fine.

Matthew 10:33-35

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at odds against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Jesus....Inciting and encouraging violence.


Next...the bible as a whole...inciting , commanding and condoning violence.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

You profess to be a Christian.....yet you don't know about these and many more like it? Seems suspiciously like you either haven't read the bible...or are conveniently ignoring these passages. Also, before you attempt a facile rebuttal such as ..."Oh well these were in the old testament." Don't.....simply because it's a non argument. If you didn't have the OT ...you couldn't have the NT!! Furthermore, if you believe in , as most christians do, an unchanging god....then god is the same today as he was then. So the "oh it's in the OT" argument is moot. Not to mention a HUGE Justification.


I mean ...I could go on and on....but I think you get the idea.


"Secondly, is it not evidence enough that the Christian world has developed faster and greater than any other?"

No....it isn't "evidence enough" nor is it evidence at all. Furthermore....when you say ...the christian world...what exactly are you talking about? If you are talking about regions...and countries that have Christianity as their religion developing faster....well that's fine to say. Now provide evidence that it was BECAUSE of Christianity that they developed faster. Until you can make that connection...it means nothing.

"You know atheists are the ones who accuse us of believing there's a little man sat on cloud....yet YOU are the one asking for proof he exists!! "

Yes.....correct.....we are asking for evidence and proof a supernatural god creator of all things exists. Why is that funny? You make truth claims about such an entity ...the burden of proof is then on you to provide evidence for that claim. Again...why is that funny?

"What if God is a concept?"

Well....God is a concept. Perhaps you should have asked...what if god is ONLY a concept. Because in your previous posts....you have made it clear you don't think god is a concept. You seem to be equivocating again to distract from the actual argument. Regardless.....until you can provide evidence to the contrary....god will simply remain a concept.

"The fact we are talking about him is proof it exists"

Conceptually ....sure. Exists as an idea in ppls minds....sure. You certainly can't talk about something you can't conceive of. However ....proof god exists any other way.....no....absolutely not.


"What is god and what we should expect from him idk the answers to that."

Well that's funny ...because in most of your previous posts you seem to profess a knowledge to know EXACTLY what god is, and what he wants you to do. Now.....seems you are switching up your story.....odd.

"I can only say with confidence that Christianity is true."

If you mean it's true by ...it exists...then I would agree with you. If you mean it's true in any other fashion...then I would ask you to demonstrate it to be true.....until then it is a meaningless assertion.


"Unfortunately, although it sounds obvious n basic common sense to search for truth it is not. Have you heard anyone say, "truth is the new hate speech". We are already seeing the effects of turning our back on Christ...And over and over the bible tells stories of what will happen if we turn our back on God."

ONCE AGAIN.....WHO'S "TRUTH" ???!!! WHAT TRUTH??!!! FFS....for the bazillionth time...SAYING or BELIEVING something is true....DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!! It doesn't make it so UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE SO!!! How is this sooooo freaking hard for you to grasp?!!!

Also...you BLATANTLY contradicted your previous argument of ..."what if god is a concept." Why even bring up that facile "argument" if you ...yourself didn't/don't even believe it. That simply serves to illustrate the justifications and deflections you bring to this discussion. You move the goal posts....to suit your narrative....then move them back. You simply can't have it both ways. It's very disingenuous and belies your entire position really.


"its already happening....people don't care about facts because of feelings....its a dumbing down of society. Social justice warriors....its laughable they call themselves warriors whilst demanding a safe space to be protected from "violent" speech. And social justice...kangaroo court. N these dumb asses are at the universities!
Multicultural society - all cultures are equal (again ignoring the facts) - to believe this is to believe in nothing in particular."

I agree with this ....absolutely agree. It's very disturbing. However...what exactly does this have to do with the argument at hand? What does this have to do with the existence of god? If you are implying that all these "SJWs" are Atheists....or have "turned their back on god" ...for an explanation as to why they are behaving this way...that's simply a ridiculous nonsense assertion. Until...you can, ONCE again...provide a demonstrable correlation and connection between the two....it means nothing.

"Or you can look at the Islamic world. The truth doesn't matter as long as they spread Islam....this is why they have stagnated and achieved so little by comparison."

Once again with the "Truth" assertions. SMH wow. According to THEM...they ARE spreading truth. Their SUBJECTIVE truth IS ISLAM!! Just as your SUBJECTIVE truth is Christianity!!! Who are you to say that's not truth? Oh....Because you're a Christian....you're the only one that has "truth" right? The bible is "truth" and everything else isn't?!! LOL Do you see where your nonsense "logic" falls apart here?? Do you SEE the OBVIOUS and BLATANT double standard? No...of course you don't because you have religious , dogmatic blinders on.

Also....as far as Islamic/Aarabic countries "stagnating" and "Achieving so little" ....LOL You do know the arabic countries and Islamic countries is where most mathematics and science originated right? You do KNOW our number system is STILL the ARABIC numeral system right??!!! Stagnated?? LOL that's really rich...haha.


"They dont have the desire to search for truth, Good and bad people exist everywhere but the fundamental guiding principles on which we build our society do matter."

They don't have the desire to search for truth according to whom? To what? What "truth" ? Who's "truth" ? LOL....you really need to stop bringing up truth....you have yet to demonstrate anything you are saying to be true. Hence, you have no foundational basis to claim anything you say is "true" in a religious sense.

You are simply saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong because I believe it to be so." That is the most childish and arrogant position one can take.....and I pity you.

"Now go... seek forgiveness!"

Seek forgiveness from whom? From what? From your particular god? LOL Wait....I thought god was only a concept. LOL

You really need to refine your nonsense and come up with some better rhetoric if you want to debate with me sweetie. This is way too easy.

Good talk.

xylance: Lol what are talking about? Those verses invite violence? When? Where? Yes i do know those verses....i don't know why you think they incite violence? Jesus and his metaphorical sword incites violence? Lol iolence in the bible is done by god and must only be done by god.. God's wrath is for him alone. Btw many of the old testament stories are just fiction...
The violence didnt really happen...the purpose of those stories is to convey a message...."TURN YOUR BACK ON GOD AND YOU WILL BE DESTROYED.

Crash: Annnddd....like I said. If you want to debate me .....pls try a bit harder. You said absolutely nothing in that post except your interpretation of the bible.....which you have YET to demonstrate to be true. Try again.

Also....I love how I posted a rebuttal of EVERYTHING in your previous post. .Yet all you did was post about a single thing. Badly I might add.

Crash: Like this.....allow me to demonstrate.



"Lol what are talking about? Those verses invite violence? "

Yes.....if you can read...and can understand words....yes they incite and COMMAND and CONDONE violence. If you are saying they don't you are in some crazy as fuck denial that hasn't even been named yet. LOL

"Yes i do know those verses....i don't know why you think they incite violence?"

I think and KNOW they incite and command violence....because as I alluded to above ...if you can read and comprehend words .....and AREN'T in some special pleading denial bullshit mindset...you can clearly see that.


"Jesus and his metaphorical sword incites violence?"

Short answer.....YES


" Lol iolence in the bible is done by god and must only be done by god.. God's wrath is for him alone."

So.... A.) You're admitting your "loving god" commits acts of unspeakable violence.....well good...that's a start.
B.) However.......you are contradicting what the bible says with that statement, because there are CLEARLY many MANY instances of god commanding angels or man to do his violence for him.
C.) Either way it appears that the god of the bible is a bloodthirsty evil sadist.


"Btw many of the old testament stories are just fiction"


Why? Because you NEED them to be....or else your "loving god" looks like a murderous lunatic? I guess the 10 commandments and original sin are just fiction too right? Or is ONLY the evil nonsense fiction because it doesn't further your narrative of a "Loving god?"

Do you see the justifications ONCE again? LOL I would ask you to provide evidence that "most of the stories in the OT are fiction." However, it doesn't matter one way or the other since you have failed to demonstrate ANY of the bible to be true.


"The violence didnt really happen...the purpose of those stories is to convey a message...."TURN YOUR BACK ON GOD AND YOU WILL BE DESTROYED."


LOL...well that just sealed it for me about you. HAHA. You are clearly just another religious nutball that simply makes wild claims and assertions....yet provides no demonstration or evidence that they are actually true.

Good luck in all your future endeavors ...however debating me and coming out NOT looking like an idiot...won't be a victory for you .

Good talk.

xylance: Lmao OMG

Ok where to start...



"Good luck in all your future endeavors ...however debating me and coming out NOT looking like an idiot...won't be a victory for you"

Firstly, its "endeavours"
Secondly, that sentence does not make sense....debating you and coming out NOT looking an idiot ...will not be a victory for me????? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that you are incapable of making anyone look like an idiot and therefore it doesn't count if i don't look like one??


Ok, then you say ....
"another religious nutball that simply makes wild claims and assertions....yet provides no demonstration or evidence that they are actually true."

What wild claims and assertions have i made?
Demonstration.....Of what?
Evidence....Of what?
I have provided evidence that historians universally agree that Jesus lived, died by crucifixion, and founded Christianity. More has been written about Jesus than any other historical figure from that period.

I asked you how you would use reason and common sense to explain the gospel claims of the resurrection, and why the first Christians were willing to die for their faith.
You tried to say they were onto a good thing??? How where they onto a good thing? Also, no one in history has ever died for a cause they did not believe in. You failed to give me a sensible common sense explanation.

Where is your evidence that bible passage about Jesus has ever incited violence....your arguments do not make sense, they are weak.

Crash: "Good luck in all your future endeavors ...however debating me and coming out NOT looking like an idiot...won't be a victory for you"

"Firstly, its "endeavours"
Secondly, that sentence does not make sense....debating you and coming out NOT looking an idiot ...will not be a victory for me????? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that you are incapable of making anyone look like an idiot and therefore it doesn't count if i don't look like one??"


Nice obvious straw man right out of the gate. LOL ...I could just end it here and say everything after this is nonsense simply for the fact you aren't engaged in debate here....you are simply Ad homing in a futile attempt to avoid posting a rebuttal to anything I have said. Sad and Obvious.

That being said.....you point out a typo.....which...ok fine...fair enough. That simply makes you an asshole. LOL It also tips your hand to reveal you have absolutely no interest in debating me. You simply want to attempt to make me look bad by pointing out a typo....something that everyone does constantly on chat rooms. Wow...way to go...you're really smart. LOL

Furthermore.....the admittedly bad grammar in the second part....I will concede that....to some it may have been confusing.....however I'm supremely confident you know what I meant. However that's neither here nor there......It was an ill formed sentence....mostly born out of exhaustion and slight inebriation. Excuse?...Perhaps.......Explanation....definitely.


"What wild claims and assertions have i made?"

1) "Without the Resurrection Christianity wouldn't exist! It doesn't make sense that it was all made up."

2)"..the Christian world has developed faster and greater than any other"

3)"I can only say with confidence that Christianity is true." (I'll grant this one has some cavets...depending on what you mean by true....which I have already rebutted in my previous posts.)

4)"Or you can look at the Islamic world. The truth doesn't matter as long as they spread Islam....this is why they have stagnated and achieved so little by comparison."

5)"Lol [iolence] in the bible is done by god and must only be done by god.. God's wrath is for him alone. Btw many of the old testament stories are just fiction...
The violence didnt really happen...the purpose of those stories is to convey a message...."TURN YOUR BACK ON GOD AND YOU WILL BE DESTROYED."

(Oh and by the way it's VIOLENCE...not ...iolence..... See what I did there I pointed out a typo you made...which does nothing at all to further my argument...it just makes me look like an asshole. Or it would...If i wasn't doing it ironically to point out the nonsense in the first part of your post. )

These are just a few that I saw...just from skimming your previous responses to me....and not even that closely ...lol.


"Demonstration.....Of what?"

Are you serious? LOL ...was that a real question? Are you deficient ...illiterate ...or simply having a different debate? HAHA.... I have explained to you MANY MANY times ...something isn't true until you DEMONSTRATE it to be true. IE..."There is a god." IE..."Jesus is real and divine and died for our sins" To which you have not so cleverly side stepped and not answered the challenge.

Saying something is true....does NOT MAKE IT TRUE...until you can DEMONSTRATE it to be TRUE.....this has got to be the 40th time I've typed this....please for the love of everything....get it through you thick head this time. haha wow.


"Evidence....Of what?"

Oh FOR FUCKBALLS SAKE. Evidence your assertions are TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEE!!! LMFAO SERIOUSLY WTFUUCK IS IT WITH YOU!! BWHAHAHahahahahHahAH WOW.

"I have provided evidence that historians universally agree that Jesus lived, died by crucifixion, and founded Christianity."

Well that's simply a flat out lie. LOL.....you have provided SOME evidence that SOME historians MAY agree. YOU have COME NO WHERE CLOSE to providing evidence that all historians UNIVERSALLY agree. So....please.....stop with the OBVIOUS nonsense lies. Wow.....

"More has been written about Jesus than any other historical figure from that period."

So what? What's your point? All that is evidence for is that a MAN...simply a HUMAN MAN...named Jesus POSSIBLY existed at that time. So....again....what's your point?


"I asked you how you would use reason and common sense to explain the gospel claims of the resurrection, and why the first Christians were willing to die for their faith."

And I answered that.....See my previous posts. LOL


"You tried to say they were onto a good thing??? How where they onto a good thing?"

I answered that.....See my previous posts. LOL


"Also, no one in history has ever died for a cause they did not believe in."

I answer this one too.....See my previous posts!! LMFAO ...wow.


"You failed to give me a sensible common sense explanation."

Incorrect.....You simply don't accept it because it destroys the narrative you want to push.


"Where is your evidence that bible passage about Jesus has ever incited violence"

In the bible. Yah know....when god commands the ppl to DO VIOLENCE ....then they....ya know...DO VIOLENCE!! LMFAO.

".your arguments do not make sense, they are weak."

LOL you keep telling yourself that honey....you kinda NEED that to be the case huh?

Simply take a count here....how many of your idiot assertions in your posts have I made a rebuttal to.....oh yeah...ALL OF THEM.


How many of my posts have you attempted to make a rebuttal to..........LESS THAN HALF. HMMmmmmm should tell you right there who has the weak position here sweet cheeks.

You pick out certain parts of all my posts because you think you MIGHT be able to offer some sort of refutation to those.....you can't...but you try. All the OTHER parts you don't even attempt to make a rebuttal to ....simply because you know you can't. I mean...without coming off like a complete idiot or lunatic.


As always....good talk . I would say ....try again some other day....but isn't it about time you give up? I mean...how much embarrassment can you take?

Zanjan: Which begs the question about the contingent world:

‘All of this could have failed to exist; why is there something, rather than nothing?’

Purpose. Out of chaos, we see a precise direction – even if we don’t understand the details, we see an overall system of order that points to higher and higher development of being, rather than dissolution of gains. From point A, there is progress to point C………..it stands there is a linked bridge; thus, point C and D must be known in advance. Something, not nothing, must always lie ahead; and, we’re like the mesmerized Cobra, who sways to its song.

Some power must fuel, attract, must draw and squeeze the entity through narrow, winding passages; if power only pushed, the entity would either fall off the bridge or pile up on itself, halting advance.

We see laws, operating universally, that prevent breakdown of the whole. Far beyond an accidental machine, we see symbiosis and the harmony of separate entities which have no mind to know its wisdom. In short, one was made for the other, ad infinitum. Should disaster interrupt function, the symbioses is corrected, returning to balance; how can a machine repair itself? Yet we see the repair occurring. Evidence mounts as we explore ‘impossible’ flukes of nature.

How much evidence is required to be accepted as proof – 2 pieces, five, 15? If a thing has one proof, will it change by adding 15 more proofs? If one rejects the first proof, almost certainly they’ll deny successive proofs.

Zanjan: As someone said, ‘the onus is on the claimant to prove their assertion’. How convenient to take the position that something doesn’t exist – no proof is required because that’s impossible. No thinking is necessary; thus, no observance or effort is made by the claimant.

How is this a fair playing field? No, those for and against aren’t in the same camp, not within shouting distance, not anywhere near the ball park. The desire to understand reality is absent so truth remains hidden from sight.

To the atheist who demands proof of the existence of God, I say change your position to any assertion that you, too, can prove. In a previous conversation, that’s what I meant by meeting others on ‘middle ground’.

Never sit in your own camp like an unfertilized egg – a dead thing will be ignored and discarded. Take one foot out of that grave and place it on unfamiliar ground – it will touch truth and contribute to it.

Zanjan: Middle ground for seeking truth:

Two individuals belong to different religions – the field of discussion should rest on a third religion as a weigh point. Build bridges to reality.

An alternative choice is science, remembering that science is limited to the study of the physical world. It can prove you have a functioning brain; it can’t prove you have a mind or soul unless it uses the same logical applications of observance and reason that religion does.

Consider that religion includes and goes beyond empirical evidence because the soul accesses more senses than the 5 belonging to the natural world.

Every one of those *basic* 5 senses is governed by a central nervous system that must operate in top form for the sense to exist (manifest). This is pretty much a law. The same is true for spiritual abilities. If half the population could taste meat but the other half couldn't, would you argue that everyone is a liar or.... think that something else is going on?

Since thought can’t be contained, we should reasonably expect the possibility there are other faculties/powers/energies that can’t be either, yet also bow to a law. Our only proof is consistent sustainability.

Crash: "Fine tuned for life" and "God" or any particular religious deity ...are absolutely not the same things whatsoever. So ...there's that. People that used the "Fine tuning" argument to argue for the existence of any god are simply doing it wrong. You are jumping 20 steps without showing your work. That's simply a fact. Even if it was proved 100% , without any doubt that the universe was "Fine tuned for life" , that still wouldn't get anyone any closer to a "god." At least in the terms of a Religious "god." If you are using the term generically ...then...possibly.

Teamplayr: Explain how it would not suggest a designer? I showed my work, use your reason

Zanjan: "At least in the terms of a Religious "god."

You realize God isn't religious, right? Religion is an organization; it's for humans. God doesn't have to practice anything - He knows what He's doing.

Since He's incomprehensible to His creation, no one understands Him either. Our job is to listen to Him. Looking for proof is a type of listening, as long as that's what you're actually doing.

Teamplayr: LOL

Crash: once again.... a "Designer" doesn't equal any "god." At least a religious "god" of any known text or tome. You are conflating definitions vivify. Furthermore you aren't showing your work....you are seemingly saying ..... "it appears designed , therefore that designer is "god." " That's a god of the gaps fallacy not to mention jumping to a conclusion...without showing how you arrived at said conclusion. Hence, NOT SHOWING YOUR WORK! You are simply making assertions based on inconclusive evidence. As I said before...even if intelligent design was proved absolutely correct....that still wouldn't get you to any "god" or "gods."

Zanjan: The Designer happens to be the *Supreme* Designer = God.

We're all creators but there's a limit to what we can create. We're all plotters, yet there's always somebody more clever at it. We're always having contests to see who's the greatest but when we do find the greatest, we learn there's really no contest.

That's why we say God is the greatest...of all. He is the Most Glorious, the All-Knowing.

Cut the criticism, what do you propose, Crash?

Crash: "The Designer happens to be the *Supreme* Designer = God."

Simply an assertion without any supporting evidence. Unless you are defining god in the generic sense....in which case the term really loses a lot of meaning from a religious THEISTIC standpoint. ANYTHING could be "god." So...there's that.

"That's why we say God is the greatest...of all. He is the Most Glorious, the All-Knowing."

Another assertion without any supporting evidence.


Make baseless assertions all you want zan, you always do. However until you can demonstrate they're actually true.....that's all they are......simply assertions.

Zanjan: "the term really loses a lot of meaning from a religious THEISTIC standpoint. "

This is your proposal? OK.

How can you presume to know the religious mind when you're an atheist?? The religious have an appreciation for the Creator, which is not something anyone or anything can lend you. Furthermore, if they are worthy servants, they also have an appreciation for every created thing. "Appreciation" is not written in any book; but should one possess appreciation, they'll respect it in others.

I see no supporting evidence for your assertion the term has lost a lot meaning to anyone other than atheists.

Crash: "How can you presume to know the religious mind when you're an atheist??"

That statement makes no sense Zan. You seem to be trying to straw-man ONCE again...lol as you always do. However...I will endeavor to answer it.

I have an understanding of what is in the "religious mind" (whatever that means) because I am a former believer.

However , that being said....a "religious mind" is nothing more than a mind that believes in religious concepts. It's nothing magical, mystical, or beyond comprehension to someone that isn't religious. That assertion is simply another deflection religious ppl use to justify their position.

Furthermore, It has very little to do with my previous posts. Hence, your attempt at a straw-man. I was simply responding to the "intelligent design" argument. Stating that even if intelligent design was proved correct, it doesn't then mean any particular religious "god" deity is said designer.

By definition a THEISTIC "god" concept has certain precepts and tenants to be adhered to in order for it to BE theistic in nature...and by extension ...a "religious god." A personal "god" that hears your prayers, intervenes in your life, cares about you, and has a plan for you. If this isn't the case....it isn't considered to be any classically recognized theistic "god."

Hence my statement that "god" can be anything, when used in the Generic sense. In which case saying Intelligent designer = "god" could be technically correct. However absolutely NOT correct when used in the RELIGIOUS context.

As to the rest of your post....it is once again nothing but anecdotal assertions from you, not to mention a giant begging the question fallacy , seeing as you are presupposing any "god" exists without first demonstrating that it is so.

So......ONE MORE TIME....even if intelligent design was proved correct tomorrow...that still doesn't get anyone to a classically accepted definition of any Theistic , Religious "god" construct. Sorry ....it just doesn't. To assume it does....is as I said many times before.....simply and assertion and a god of the gaps fallacy. You don't know....so you say...."GOD DID IT." C'mon zan...I really don't understand why I have to keep going over and over the same crap with you.

Talk about willful ignorance, with a heavy dusting of cognitive dissonance.

Zanjan: "I have an understanding of what is in the "religious mind" (whatever that means) because I am a former believer. "

In what? So far, we can guess you once believed in religion. For all we know, you might have fancied Voodoo. Doesn't indicate you actually believed in God and not all believers are practicing members of a religion. See, if you don't practice, you'll never, ever get the hang of it.

FYI, the religions of God aren't restricted to concepts - they include recognition of real patterns of behaviour, understanding working principles, realizing the spirit of the laws, and employing the various disciplines as a means to acquire spiritual virtues - it's a way of life 24/7.

If you see something is consistently working, you'll have knowledge of why it's working (not if it fails). Therefore, if it's working, you don't have to use the word 'belief' - that is, I don't say 'I believe', I say I know for certain. If one is ever totally certain of a thing, they'll never become uncertain about it.

Since you threw out the baby with the bathwater, there's no way you've retained anything of a religious nature, if you ever had it. Not saying this is a bad thing - some people have to step back and start all over from scratch. In that state, you'd be unable to share someone else's storymind until you discovered something profitable to you.

Zanjan: Now, back to your proposal. Thanks for a better explanation.

I will hand it to you that THEISTIC positions are concepts; so, if they entertain a THEISTIC concept of god - or ANY concept of God - it must always wrong. God is incomprehensible. No man can know the mind of God.

As you say in your example, the use of the term 'personal God' (only used by Christians) is a sorry bit of deception. If you understand patterns, you'll see the aforementioned traits relate to humans and even some animals, not God. So, I guess we can agree on that talking point.

That there is an intelligent designer of the universe has already been proven by that designer's movements, which demonstrate plans made in advance that guide the unfolding.

We can liken it to the principles of origami - the folded object has one form and stays tightly that way; at a certain time, the object suddenly unfolds, appearing to do so by itself. However, this couldn't happen unless there was a deliberately crafted folding pattern that permitted it to do so - that is, only when an internal pre-set (trigger) was decisively pushed.

"I really don't understand why I have to keep going over and over the same crap with you."

Aww.....must be terribly frustrating for you. Take heart, it's not identical to my previous discussions with you. Fortunately, *I* understand so am only addressing new assertions you make.

See, your denial doesn't change reality, regardless of the many different packages it may arrive in. I'm not one to constantly harp on to deniers - they're a wall and can stay that way as far as I'm concerned. You, on the other hand, haven't realized that yet so you're doomed to repeat the lesson until you do.