Is Atheism Dead ?

@kellyjay said
It takes at least two to debate, and typically both are participating in it, you may have been debating I was just having a conversation.

"Conversation", "debate", "discussion". Sophistry.

@kellyjay said
Here is where I think you are confused; I'm not in a debate with you; I'm on a chess server in the Spirituality forum talking about things I care about for as long as I care to.

It’s a debate!
What is it with this casual dishonesty.

@kellyjay said
Not at all, we can find points to draw on in many writings. The distinction with the Lord of the Rings which I love and have read more than a few times, I don't count it as historical. While the OT you can draw on as we can the Illiad, but having something to draw on that actually occurred is different than Gandalf talking to Frodo.

Your claiming that everything or most of everything in the OT is historically factual?
That’s a massive claim for a book who’s plot line infers that our species is only about six thousand years old, in what way is lord of the rings less fantastical than the OT or the Iliad?

@avalanchethecat said
That phrase doesn't really mean anything. Do you mean the 'name' of god made flesh?

Edit: Also, the books you're reading about Jesus were written by men. Acting as intermediaries.

<<That phrase doesn't really mean anything. >>

It does to somebody who believes in God. Obviously not to an atheist.

<<Edit: Also, the books you're reading about Jesus were written by men. Acting as intermediaries.>>

Written by men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. I thought you looked into the Holy Bible “extensively.”

@pb1022 said
<<That phrase doesn't really mean anything. >>

It does to somebody who believes in God. Obviously not to an atheist.

<<Edit: Also, the books you're reading about Jesus were written by men. Acting as intermediaries.>>

Written by men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. I thought you looked into the Holy Bible “extensively.”

If you'd like to discuss things reasonably, I'm happy to do so. Before we do that, though, you're going to need to either demonstrate that your accusations of me lying are based in something more than your imagination, or you're going to need to apologise and retract those accusations.

@avalanchethecat said
If you'd like to discuss things reasonably, I'm happy to do so. Before we do that, though, you're going to need to either demonstrate that your accusations of me lying are based in something more than your imagination, or you're going to need to apologise and retract those accusations.

He called Ghost of Duke a "pathological liar" 400-500 times on this forum in 2018, often copy-pasting the same text 4 or 5 times in a row or across multiple threads simultaneously.

@fmf said
He called Ghost of Duke a "pathological liar" 400-500 times on this forum in 2018, often copy-pasting the same text 4 or 5 times in a row or across multiple threads simultaneously.

You’re lying again, but hardly a surprise.

You wouldn’t be you without that unfortunate and significant character flaw

@avalanchethecat said
If you'd like to discuss things reasonably, I'm happy to do so. Before we do that, though, you're going to need to either demonstrate that your accusations of me lying are based in something more than your imagination, or you're going to need to apologise and retract those accusations.

I’ve already done that, but just because I write a post in response to something you’ve written doesn’t mean I’m interested in a discussion with you.

In most cases, I’m simply correcting the record.

@pb1022 said
I’ve already done that, but just because I write a post in response to something you’ve written doesn’t mean I’m interested in a discussion with you.

In most cases, I’m simply correcting the record.

You have neither justified your accusation nor apologised.

You're not correcting anything, you're just wading in with a contrary opinion to try to stir things up, troll-fashion.

@avalanchethecat said
That phrase doesn't really mean anything. Do you mean the 'name' of god made flesh?

Edit: Also, the books you're reading about Jesus were written by men. Acting as intermediaries.

Look at it this way, God is God everywhere in His completeness at no time or anywhere is He any less or more than He is, the great I AM. In this world we lost out due to sin, He setup everything for the fullness of time to enter into humanity as one us so we could relate to Him in terms we could grasp, then redeeming us He sends His Spirit into us. It’s very personal and one on one, as the saying goes He has no grandchildren. The one intermediate is Jesus, God Himself, why He chooses to use people is a mystery to me too.

@kellyjay said
Look at it this way, God is God everywhere in His completeness at no time or anywhere is He any less or more than He is, the great I AM. In this world we lost out due to sin, He setup everything for the fullness of time to enter into humanity as one us so we could relate to Him in terms we could grasp, then redeeming us He sends His Spirit into us. It’s very personal and one ...[text shortened]... en. The one intermediate is Jesus, God Himself, why He chooses to use people is a mystery to me too.

Well, yes, I daresay that's what the bible tells you.

@kevcvs57 said
Your claiming that everything or most of everything in the OT is historically factual?
That’s a massive claim for a book who’s plot line infers that our species is only about six thousand years old, in what way is lord of the rings less fantastical than the OT or the Iliad?

Yes

@fmf said
"Conversation", "debate", "discussion". Sophistry.

Well if you think entering into someone else discussion means a debate as started, okay fine, by your definition it is and I sure you win them all.

@kellyjay said
Well if you think entering into someone else discussion means a debate as started, okay fine, by your definition it is and I sure you win them all.

You and I debated a topic on this public forum for pages and pages.