Where Did God Go?????

1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

1) I don't have a freaken clue what even connects you to god so what am I supposed to assume seperates you from god?

3) Now take a heroin addict from the suburbs and compare to him to a random black guy in the "hood" Scary shit right?


Edit:

It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

Was that even English?

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/forgotten-exper.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

pwnt

"let's take a 55 year old experiment and use it to explain the origin of the world though it hasn't been in controlled atmosphere since 1955"

P2 wrote:"let's take a 55 year old experiment and use it to explain the origin of the world though it hasn't been in controlled atmosphere since 1955"

someone didn't read the article

I haven't actually read it, but just from the title on the origin of life, it is widely excepted that that the first forms of life came from Australia from mixtures of sulpher and iron.

The Australian part of Pangaea?????

yeah what is now australia

umm......

CT Track wrote:1) I don't have a freaken clue what even connects you to god so what am I supposed to assume seperates you from god?

3) Now take a heroin addict from the suburbs and compare to him to a random black guy in the "hood" Scary shit right?


Edit:

It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

Was that even English?

1) If you'd read my post, I said to use the Christian definition.

2) Generally, there are les heroin addicts in the suburbs than the hood.

And yea haha it was supposed to say: "It has to do with this because they live apart from God, they don't express their faith by action. If you don't put your faith in God, you're an atheist.

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

Nobody cares what they claim to be. You judge a fig tree by it's product. I just got done telling you how if you live your life in depravity then you can't live your life in God. When faith doesn't act, it's not faith at all, is it?

It was not racist or prejudiced at all. Just generalized. Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white. Of course there are exeptions(duh), but generally that's how it is. Am i wrong?

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

Nobody cares what they claim to be. You judge a fig tree by it's product. I just got done telling you how if you live your life in depravity then you can't live your life in God. When faith doesn't act, it's not faith at all, is it?

It was not racist or prejudiced at all. Just generalized. Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white. Of course there are exeptions(duh), but generally that's how it is. Am i wrong?

Therefore, white people are smart and black people are dumb. You are exactly right.

You are missing the point entirely. What you are saying has nothing to do with anything. Religious people, like you, are dumb, like you, because they consider the existence of an old white guy in the sky a likely possibility. I don't care what your definition of faith is; the fact that you believe a god exists is stupid. As such, dumb people are more likely to believe a god exists because they are dumb. I am right. You are wrong. I am smart. You are dumb.

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

Nobody cares what they claim to be. You judge a fig tree by it's product. I just got done telling you how if you live your life in depravity then you can't live your life in God. When faith doesn't act, it's not faith at all, is it?

It was not racist or prejudiced at all. Just generalized. Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white. Of course there are exeptions(duh), but generally that's how it is. Am i wrong?

Therefore, white people are smart and black people are dumb. You are exactly right.

You are missing the point entirely. What you are saying has nothing to do with anything. Religious people, like you, are dumb, like you, because they consider the existence of an old white guy in the sky a likely possibility. I don't care what your definition of faith is; the fact that you believe a god exists is stupid. As such, dumb people are more likely to believe a god exists because they are dumb. I am right. You are wrong. I am smart. You are dumb.

I never said that.

No, this has everything to do with the argument that Atheists are smarter than Christians. And I don't beleive in an "old white guy in the sky", I beleive in God.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

Nobody cares what they claim to be. You judge a fig tree by it's product. I just got done telling you how if you live your life in depravity then you can't live your life in God. When faith doesn't act, it's not faith at all, is it?

It was not racist or prejudiced at all. Just generalized. Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white. Of course there are exeptions(duh), but generally that's how it is. Am i wrong?

Therefore, white people are smart and black people are dumb. You are exactly right.

You are missing the point entirely. What you are saying has nothing to do with anything. Religious people, like you, are dumb, like you, because they consider the existence of an old white guy in the sky a likely possibility. I don't care what your definition of faith is; the fact that you believe a god exists is stupid. As such, dumb people are more likely to believe a god exists because they are dumb. I am right. You are wrong. I am smart. You are dumb.

I never said that.

No, this has everything to do with the argument that Atheists are smarter than Christians. And I don't beleive in an "old white guy in the sky", I beleive in God.

That's exactly what you are saying.

Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter

Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white

Did you miss my point again because your tiny brain was distracted by my "old white guy in the sky" joke? Or did you realize you are in fact wrong, and therefore had nothing to say but to take apart my sarcasm?

And generally, heroin is a white predominant drug. What of it? My point is you can take a small sample of anything and compare it to a complete opposite and call it a generalization. And GENERALLY, using the word GENERAL can also be used as STEREOTYPING.

It doesn't seem worth arguing with you, although it is fun, because your narrow mind can't accept anything besides what your reverend says.

[quote="Adonai"]

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Adonai wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

CT Track wrote:1) How would I know. You change the definition of sin everytime the argument comes up, and who am I do define what is sin. And what does that have to do with anything anyways?

2) Yes

3) No, which I've so satirically stated for you previously.

1. The definition of sin is: an action that separates a human from God. that has never changed, i have never changed it. i didn't tell you to define it, i clearly said "in the christian definition". It has to do with this because they are living apart from God, they do know express faith by action. No faith in God means atheist.

3. Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter?

You do realize that poorer areas tend to have higher religiosity? This is not a generalization; there are a number of studies which support this trend.

Whether or not a person believes in a god is not dependent on what you consider "apart from God." Nor are ones beliefs dependent on how "close to god" one is. Just because I sin does not mean I don't believe in god. Besides, the definition of sin is different from religion to religion.

And I think your ignorant/racist remark speaks for itself. If you want to prove religious people are just as smart as atheists, I suggest you refrain from such stupid comments.

Nobody cares what they claim to be. You judge a fig tree by it's product. I just got done telling you how if you live your life in depravity then you can't live your life in God. When faith doesn't act, it's not faith at all, is it?

It was not racist or prejudiced at all. Just generalized. Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white. Of course there are exeptions(duh), but generally that's how it is. Am i wrong?

Therefore, white people are smart and black people are dumb. You are exactly right.

You are missing the point entirely. What you are saying has nothing to do with anything. Religious people, like you, are dumb, like you, because they consider the existence of an old white guy in the sky a likely possibility. I don't care what your definition of faith is; the fact that you believe a god exists is stupid. As such, dumb people are more likely to believe a god exists because they are dumb. I am right. You are wrong. I am smart. You are dumb.

I never said that.

No, this has everything to do with the argument that Atheists are smarter than Christians. And I don't beleive in an "old white guy in the sky", I beleive in God.

That's exactly what you are saying.

Again, I'm saying generally. take a random drug addict in the hood that probably dropped out of high school, and a random white guy from the suburbs, who is smarter

Generally, people in hoods are black. Generally, people in rich suburban communities are white

Even though that might be what you got from those two quotes, I never said white people are smarter than black people, because it's not true and I didn't say that. You can't deny any of those points either, but you're trying to make me look like I'm saying ALL white people are smarter than ALL black people.

CT Track wrote:And generally, heroin is a white predominant drug. What of it? My point is you can take a small sample of anything and compare it to a complete opposite and call it a generalization. And GENERALLY, using the word GENERAL can also be used as STEREOTYPING.

It doesn't seem worth arguing with you, although it is fun, because your narrow mind can't accept anything besides what your reverend says.

You have two piles of marbles. Lots of marbles. Pile one pile is blue. The other pile is white with little pretty pink poka-dots.

Now in the first pile, the one with the blue marbles, there are several stragglers. You find a couple white-with-poka-dots marbles in the large cluster of blue marbles. And in the second pile, the one with the white, poka dotted marbles, there might be a good amount of blue marbles.

Would it still be fair to say, even with the odd marbles in each group, that generally pile one is blue and pile 2 is white with poka dots? Yes it would. You call me a racist for saying every marble in pile one is blue, or that every marble in pile two is whit with poka dots, but that is wrong.

You say that "generally" and "stereotyping" are the same, but that is wrong. Generalizing is what I just did with the marbles. Stereotyping is saying that in pile one, they are ALL blue marbles, even the marbles that are clearly white with polka dots. It is like saying in pile two that they are all white with poka dots, even the ones that are clearly blue.

I get all of what I know right now from books, and if beleiving the bible makes me narrow minded, I guess I'm narrow minded.

I get all of what I know right now from books.

You obviously haven't read many books.

That was a terrible example. It is confusing and marbles do not straggle or stereotype. And yes believing everything the bible takes literally you are narrow minded.

Hmm, I thought this was meant to be about God instead of using terrible parodies to attempt to explain why you are not racist maybe focus on the subject instead of getting side tracked on pointless lines

Haha I love how all of you are making fun of the argument instead of actually arguing with it.

And Wgrt, I was only defending my previous points.

Because your argument is retarded.

CT Track wrote:Because your argument is retarded.

Well if it's "retarded" then it must be easy to argue with, right?