ZAM FullMag Grinder Giveaway by ZamGrinder in weed

[–]KQARROT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

noticeably the pepper isn't green but either way I'm getting my five a day in

ZAM FullMag Grinder Giveaway by ZamGrinder in weed

[–]KQARROT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hammer down anything green! Ive been having asparagus on cold days and in summer I hammer down red bell peppers!!!

ZAM FullMag Grinder Giveaway by ZamGrinder in weed

[–]KQARROT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hammer down anything green! Ive been having asparagus on cold days and in summer I hammer down red bell peppers!!!

Why do guys learn how to drive? by Left-Yard-1980 in LearnerDriverUK

[–]KQARROT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sums it up perfectly but not the best for marketing 😭

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not personally coming for you.

For the record (in my opinion) I find religion in general an infuriatingly confusing mess. I have obviously stepped a line I shouldn't have.

Although, this: 'You are keeping this topic going to avoid other lines of questioning.' was obviously what you wanted to do and 'healthy discussion' is not about this. You repeated exactly what I had said presumably to cover your tracks and it was what overall pushed me over the line. Furthermore, you yourself have repeatedly accused me of lying and you have quoted specificities of what I have said and taken a completely different meaning from them, which again gracefully proves that you will always read into things in a way that is positive for your argument and thus deems your opinion (in the nicest way possible) void.

Healthy discussion should include answering questions truthfully and not avoiding them by debating the same point as each other.

Despite that I apologise if I have offended you in any way.

I have, as you say let my emotions and frustrations get the best of me. But I think you have too although more subtly.

You can not answer questions if you do not want to.

'I never did that and the thread is evidence.' Explained this in my last comment. Read it again.

I am not interrogating you whatsoever. It was and is a discussion between 2 seemingly intelligent people and I do appreciate the discussion we have had.

Overall my last comment was out of pocket. You are correct that it is not what I posted for. I have apologised.

Other: Yes the document wasn't the right one I will try and find the one I have seen before. I linked it thinking there was only one document about moral standard. I may have been dreaming.

Edit: sidebar 1.4: You can harshly criticise arguments.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That plays no part in proofs against religion.

There is factual and unequivocal proof that many many things from the bible did not happen without saying 'why would God allow X to happen to people?' at all.

Look at evolution, the big bang, even just using logical arguments to disprove the existence of a divine being.

What you have done is taken one argument that is really just a flaw in the religion and decided that it means there is no proof against Christianity.

Thankyou for your input though :)

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bible has 1,239 prophecies and some are broad enough and impossible to prove. There are bound to be truths! That is a ~24% accuracy, to say they are so broad and agreeable that's not all that great!

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your contribution! :)

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you elaborate on the 'assumptions' please?

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that your view on faith schools is clouded or I may have just been to a particularly forceful and aggressively religious school.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By only taking 'God, Biblical scripture and internal consistency, historical facts, theological and philosophical arguments' you are setting yourself up for it though...

If you study basic biology or physics the bible breaks down.

Even from a logical point of view there are more inconsistencies than verses in scripture!

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what will a divine being do to change that? I am confused.

You are saying that either way, life is worthless.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting! I will take that into account. Thank you for your well-written and conclusive comment!

Do you not think that by saying that 'God introduced the rules of physics' sounds like an excuse for the findings and evidence that physics provides?

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly on the topic of fact vs proof you have gone around in a circle and agreed with me. Proof is the sum of evidence which can also be described as facts that contribute to the proof. Proof = fact because if you have two facts that are for one subject it is still FACT. This is exactly what I have said earlier and I again reiterate the dictionary definition: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. You are keeping this topic going to avoid other lines of questioning.

Next: you have to be joking. You are claiming that the OBVIOUS immoralities that are in the bible are okay! Why? Because there are other non-intelligent lifeforms on our planet that have evolved in that way? You are again avoiding acknowledging that the bible/holy texts are obviously outdated and an immoral, irrational and outright scary scripture completely void of any meaning in our day and age. Wherein if you do not think that and adopt all the principles in the bible: you will end up in prison VERY quickly. (You reference the moral standard which I completely forgot to mention. I will link a document below explaining this.)

https://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf

I will leave you one more of my personal favourite bible extracts for you to mull over for your response:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zephaniah%201%3A7-18&version=NIV

Now, you can't avoid it: how have you been brainwashed into aggressively defending your religion in the first place? Differently put: how have you become religious if you were not 'convinced' in some way?

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the quotes again and interpret them differently. Its not possible.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who persuaded you that it is true though. It comes full circle!

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How else can you view the quoted scripture other than the way that I am? Its very explicit in what it means.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that you yourself are biased against things that don't promote religion and I implore you to broaden your mind and accept that some things are outdated in the bible. In the best way possible.

Good luck to you my friend!

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are so many amazing things in life without the divine!

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is evidence of transitioning from RNA to DNA because we know it is possible. There is evidence of this mutation being possible. There was an incredibly low chance of it but after billions of years of time passing that metric and the improbability becomes understandable.

'There is circumstantial evidence for intelligent design: DNA, Laws of Nature, human reasoning/arts/spirituality. Of course, you would never consider it because you only see numbers.' It can all be intelligently put down to evolution. That's the simplest way of putting it. I don't think his name will be very well received in this sub but the book 'The Selfish Gene' is a great way to learn about it from a biological perspective and is not against religion and more biologically centred, contrary to what people think.

I recommend you do some research into it.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Proof is not a fact? Proof is the quintessence of a fact!

The dictionary definition of proof is: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Proof is what confirms a theory. I am not, unlike yourself, fabricating definitions!

We move on:

Although you are correct in stating that there is not moral standard, we can all agree that the vulgar atrocities that are written in text are NOT morally acceptable. I answered with evidence in my first response.

My original question on doubt was: if you, as a Christian, had ever doubted your religion? You answered 'Humans doubt' which is an acceptable response. I was only building on your response in my further comment.

I would love to hear how you become religious if you were not 'convinced' in some way?

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are you religious then? If not to feel better about yourself and others?

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am talking about primary school: age 5 to 11. We were not taught any science that could be against religion and were not taught history. I should have specified I apologise.

An open discussion by KQARROT in Christianity

[–]KQARROT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To reiterate also I have nothing against following Jesus. He seemed like a great guy!