Does God Exist?

[Kain]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

I agree, I should have entered the thread and debated upon it but I didn't because I based my argument over the sentence he gave me which turned out I was misinformed at most.

The sentence i gave was followed by directions to which thread you should enter.
If you really wanted to debate the least you could do was enter that thread.
The fact that you did not enter or debate based on what's in that thread shows that you only want to debate for the sake of debating or making me and Google and believers look bad. You didn't even bother to go look for the info we provided.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

What is interesting though is that me, myself I have told all the debaters to read a book about evolution and adaptation to get informed about the subject and they started making sarcastic comments.
So why didn't you criticize that ? eh ? Being selective is not the most "logical" step to take.

She did not criticize it because she knows we've already been through this with deAtheganized. And why should i bother and go read a book about evolution when this is what i study and i already know what atheists use as arguments against believers?
You didn't even bother to read the first page of a thread i gave you and i should bother and go read about something i already know about because you said so??

Spare us.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Second point is : I was misnformed but that doesn't mean I can't make a stance at the subject before knowing about it.

How can you take a stance about something you know nothing about? Now you're just trying to find excuses for your own inadequacies. That's your problem and not ours.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

is because we don't base our convictions on one or two arguments.

You did however. That was very clear.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Hehe so the standard for a desperate non-conformist now is this in bold ?

No...again you misunderstand........why do i bother...really....
I said that you read those particular books in an attempt to be non-conformist. Not that you're non-conformist because you read those books.
LOGIC!!! GET SOME!!

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Haha you are attempting to defend Kain, that's alright but you totally embarassed yourself in the process.

Yet again you embarrass yourself while trying to reply to someone else and prove that you are indeed: misinformed, illogical, and merely posing as an intellectual.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Talk about blind faith and what damage it does to common sense and logic.

Yes you're one to know about that.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Repetition is not appealing. On that I can agree. It could be perceived in various ways. It can look boring and simple, but in reality that doesn't mean it is not warranted. Repetition's value is only abolished if it was replied to and refuted. Looking boring doesn't have to do with whether it's right or wrong. So your argument is futile.

Your arguments were all refuted.
Her argument stays valid. Yours does not.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

But I had a reason, unfortunately for you. If you couldn't follow with what the reason was, don't comment. The reason is simple: everything proposed assumed that God had to exist so that he can prove that he exists. Which is the most absurd fallacy. It's that simple. And yes they used this fallacy constantly. If you are infering they have to write word for word for it to count, I recommend you check your IQ. If they can't get over that, yes repition would be required until it craves in their head. I used to make this false assumption 2 years back ( in this thread even). So I have full motive to enforce it. It would be illogical and stupid not to actually, but how do you know.

this is the scenario.
Kexasthur reads in a certain book: all theists do is argue that : because God exists then he exists.
He uses that here in an unsuccessful and irrelevant attempt to show that i argue this way just because i am a theist. His attempt fails but he nonetheless believes blindly that this is how I argue. And so he repeats it time after time regardless if this is true or not.

It's really sad.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

I called people bigots after they showed they are bigots which is a very simple word that describes reality in the case of some members here who tell us "God exists whether you like it or not". If you don't agree, it means you you are enforcing "street talk" and it means you should not hide behind your classy words to makes yourself seem innocent.

No that is not how Black_ice and I argue though eza ballash lli bwejje ye7ke bel nkeye fiyye ra7 2ello bi kell basata: "God exists whether you like it or not" just to spite him for talking the way he does
So far i have not said this with you.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

I always replied and then added the word pseudo-intellectual. But frankly, when you have a post with 3/4 sarcasm and arrogance and smilies all over the place, the least you can infer they are pseudo-intellectuals. But you won't understand that because I just showed you how biased you were in my reply.

Sarcasm is normally used in debates. If you suck at being sarcastic don't blame me It's normal And as i said, the more BS you post the more sarcastic i get. Which is why my posts got more and more sarcastic.

But a pseudo-intellectual isn't someone who uses sarcasm in his posts. And smilies are hardly a sign of a pseudo-intellectual. This can be merely the case of someone who has this "style".
A pseudo-intellectual is someone who claims to have knowledge that he doesn't have. Or claims that he is an intellectual based on very little knowledge. Which is of course what you are in this case.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

As I said I don't want to continue the discussion about the subject anymore, but people think that just because I take comments positively, then they can "yerekbo 3ala dahre" and attack me personally. If they do, I will reply.

Ahla w sahla fik ta3a kell yom bas ma 7ada rekeblak 3a dahrak
enta lli 3assabet mennak la 7alak
w don't forget who started with the "pseudo-intellectual" bit.

And if there is one thing i cannot stand is someone using my very clear english and twisting my words to his own accord.
As black_ice once said: quit cherry picking things for your convenience.

Get an education
Aw i'll just use what you told me: Go read some more books preferably ones explaining what logic is and how to use it.

edit: by more books i mean more than 1.And the book must be over 50 pages.

[KeXasthur]

I said that you read those particular books in an attempt to be non-conformist

I think this sums it all. Mr. Assumptions.

I already know how you view religious debates anyway. They're like a military mission between two opposing clans to you as I debated along you with Eagle 2 years ago...
Have fun !

[Kain]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

I think this sums it all. Mr. Assumptions.

I already know how you view religious debates anyway. They're like a military mission between two opposing clans to you as I debated along you with Eagle 2 years ago...

1- The fact that you only replied to this part is enough for me

2- This was not an assumption this was sarcasm You however are clearly unable to differentiate between the two as you lack the necessary knowledge

3- Military mission? If you're wrong and have nothing but BS to defend yourself with then it's only natural for me to have some fun proving that you have nothing BUT BS

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Have fun !

I did
It was a blast
We should do this again sometime

[KeXasthur]

Originally Posted by Kain

1- The fact that you only replied to this part is enough for me

The fact that I replied to this part shows how tolerant I am as I already have no will to reply to assumptions anymore. When you stop replying to certain parts, it's a result of you being on higher ground, but when I stop it's a result of me being on lower ground. Your morals don't look as solid as your belief in religion.

2- This was not an assumption this was sarcasm You however are clearly unable to differentiate between the two as you lack the necessary knowledge

Or your sarcasm is taking over you. Sarcasm has alot to do with arrogance and ego and being on higher ground.

Why do I feel you are still thirsty to cover an inadequacy in your debates by trying to push me into replying to this topic again although I clearly showed no interest in so anymore. ( saying because you are having fun is not a satisfying answer because even if you throw yourself of the balcony and film it I'm sure you would still find your way to sarcasm in those last moments).

[Kain]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

The fact that I replied to this part shows how tolerant I am as I already have no will to reply to assumptions anymore.

If you base your stands on assumptions doesn't mean i do too
I clearly showed that my statements and stands were not based on assumptions eno la2 moserr ya3ne?

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

When you stop replying to certain parts, it's a result of you being on higher ground, but when I stop it's a result of me being on lower ground. Your morals don't look as solid as your belief in religion.

The difference is that i stopped replying because you were repetitive
VERY repetitive I was only kind enough to repeat myself more than twice
edit: by repeating myself more than twice i meant answer your repetitive assumptions and questions more than twice.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Or your sarcasm is taking over you. Sarcasm has alot to do with arrogance and ego and being on higher ground.

Or it's just about having fun
It IS fun. you wouldn't know of course because you don't know the first thing about sarcasm
As i said i take great joy in showing people who only talk BS that what they're saying is pure bullcrap

Aren't you the one who's assuming now?

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Why do I feel you are still thirsty to cover an inadequacy in your debates by trying to push me into replying to this topic again although I clearly showed no interest in so anymore. ( saying because you are having fun is not a satisfying answer because even if you throw yourself of the balcony and film it I'm sure you would still find your way to sarcasm in those last moments).

tsk tsk...assumptions assumptions

Yes it really is fun anyone in this forum who has used sarcasm before would know that....hell anyone who knows me would know how much fun i have exposing people that talk like you for what they really are

--->Either pseudo-intellectuals or posers.

edit: i only replied because i felt the need to since you insist only falsely accusing me and intentionally repeating that which has already been proved wrong. Not that i wanted you to reply But your reply just made me wanna reply again...halla2 shoof eno as soon you stop i'll stop

[mr_j]

I don't want to restart the "running in circles argument", no more physics and evolution and big bang theories. but I have a really simple question that I want to hear answers to:

tell me why I should believe the qur2an, tell me why I should believe the bible, tell me why I should believe the jewish torah.

these books were written thousands of years ago, in case of the bible and maybe the torah, the writers are basicly unknown, the sources they used are unknown and many of the stories are scientificly proven to be lies

adam and eve did not exist, there is no way adam and eve existed
there is no way God made a flood and all the species of animals got on Noah's ship and that is how life continued, there is no scientific evidence that a flood existed etc...
God does not bring the sun from the east and sets it in the west and he cannot make it go the opposite way, simply because the sun never moves that story was based on the idea that the earth is flat

so the simple question is, give me a reason why I should believe what this book says, and why I should prefer it over the other books. knowing that the only witness to Mohamad seing the angel was Mohammad himself, and even back in his time many did not believe him. and the only witnesses to the saint's miracles were the priests and nuns that lived with them

who was the witness to the conversation that jesus had with caesar? did caesar tell the story for those writign the bibles? akid la2, who was the witness on jesus's appearence to his disciples? totaly scientific and unbiased sources
jesus does not have to answer your prayers everytime you pray for a relative to heal from cancer or heart disease or going to surjery, but he did turn water into wine in kanah's wedding so some idiots can continue getting wasted(God only answers important prayers) and he helped soem fishermen catch more fish and make more money

we are putting our trust in what exactly?
I want to argue the books now, not the question of wether a divine being exists

[Tawa]

Originally Posted by mr_j

...
these books were written thousands of years ago, in case of the bible and maybe the torah, the writers are basicly unknown, the sources they used are unknown and many of the stories are scientificly proven to be lies

adam and eve did not exist, there is no way adam and eve existed
there is no way God made a flood and all the species of animals got on Noah's ship and that is how life continued, there is no scientific evidence that a flood existed etc...
God does not bring the sun from the east and sets it in the west and he cannot make it go the opposite way, simply because the sun never moves that story was based on the idea that the earth is flat

so the simple question is, give me a reason why I should believe what this book says, and why I should prefer it over the other books. knowing that the only witness to Mohamad seing the angel was Mohammad himself, and even back in his time many did not believe him. and the only witnesses to the saint's miracles were the priests and nuns that lived with them

who was the witness to the conversation that jesus had with caesar? did caesar tell the story for those writign the bibles? akid la2, who was the witness on jesus's appearence to his disciples? totaly scientific and unbiased sources
jesus does not have to answer your prayers everytime you pray for a relative to heal from cancer or heart disease or going to surjery, but he did turn water into wine in kanah's wedding so some idiots can continue getting wasted(God only answers important prayers) and he helped soem fishermen catch more fish and make more money

And, this one is hilarious:

[xcoder]

Originally Posted by mr_j

tell me why I should believe the qur2an, tell me why I should believe the bible, tell me why I should believe the jewish torah.

If you believe in god and does what he wants you go here:


Or else you go here:

[RAM BÓY™]

Originally Posted by xcoder

If you believe in god and does what he wants you go here:


Or else you go here:

can u prove enno fi Paradise and Hell?

[Neoxter]

but that go here and go there, is based on the deeds you did throughout your life, if u were good in life u deserve heaven and if u were bad u rot in hell, very fair.