- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:29 am to Meauxjeaux
You've taken a pragmatic position. It is ok to punish innocent people if they are likely to become a problem later.
I'm pro jailing everyone who earns less than 50k along with their children. That's where most of the violent crime comes from.
I'm pro jailing everyone who earns less than 50k along with their children. That's where most of the violent crime comes from.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:07 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You are the one saying there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of God. You don't even understand the concept of evidence, and why it's factually incorrect for you to make such a claim of lack of evidence, just because you are not persuaded by them.
There’s no evidence, at least none that I’m aware of. Baseless assertions, proven falsehoods, and fallacious arguments don’t constitute evidence.
And there you go - again - admitting I am not persuaded by your fallacious arguments I’ve heard thousands of times from you and others. Every now and then a liar can mouth a kernel of truth, apparently. So because you admit that I am unconvinced in the existence of your deities, you can just stop writing that I am “suppressing the truth” or that “God has made himself clear” to me or that I am “without excuse”. Any attempt to use Romans 18-20 against me now will be a lie, and I will call you out on it.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:43 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:There is plenty of evidence, just none you will accept because of your self-defeating empiricism-only epistemology. You haven't even attempted to defend that, but have only ignored it.
There’s no evidence, at least none that I’m aware of. Baseless assertions, proven falsehoods, and fallacious arguments don’t constitute evidence.
quote:
And there you go - again - admitting I am not persuaded by your fallacious arguments I’ve heard thousands of times from you and others. Every now and then a liar can mouth a kernel of truth, apparently. So because you admit that I am unconvinced in the existence of your deities, you can just stop writing that I am “suppressing the truth” or that “God has made himself clear” to me or that I am “without excuse”. Any attempt to use Romans 18-20 against me now will be a lie, and I will call you out on it.
you need to re-read what I wrote if you think that's true. Talk about being self-deceived... Yes, you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That's clear to see.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:58 am to loogaroo
quote:
I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s between you and god. No different than pulling the trigger.
This is a really rare moment here online, but not only do I agree w this man but I think this is the truth.
Who am I to weigh in on something as personal as a decision that is between the Man Upstairs and that particular individual?? On what basis should I involve myself??
Kudos to that post.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 1:01 pm to czechtiger
quote:The argument is that abortion is not merely between the mother and God, but also includes the baby.
Who am I to weigh in on something as personal as a decision that is between the Man Upstairs and that particular individual?? On what basis should I involve myself??
If I were to see a woman being raped, I would be ashamed of myself if I just walked away and said, “welp, that’s between that rapist and God”.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 1:03 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There is plenty of evidence, just none you will accept because of your self-defeating empiricism-only epistemology.
No, there isn’t. That’s why what you have is “faith”. Your apologetics would not exist nor need to exist if faith was rational and reasonable. Faith is an assertion of unreasonable conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
When Paul wrote that we walk by faith, not by sight, he acknowledged that he had no evidence for what he preached but that his followers should believe anyway. When the author of Hebrews (who the hell knows who the author is - not even William Lane Craig) wrote that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, he too is stated clearly there is no evidence for their beliefs. By saying you have evidence, or proof, of God’s existence, you are shitting on the NT authors and their theology. When John wrote blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe, you are telling him no I don’t need faith to believe because I have the evidences for God and I can give them to an atheist and if the atheist was honest, he would begin to believe. You’re a mess, Foo.
Take the loss, you
. quote:
you need to re-read what I wrote if you think that's true. Talk about being self-deceived... Yes, you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That's clear to see.
What you wrote was preserved by me and only Chicken can erase it, and what was preserved was the clear admission that you believe I am unconvinced of your arguments. Like I said, take the L, Foo.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 1:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Yes, there is. I listed some of them previously.
No, there isn’t.
quote:I think you need to pick a different definition of "faith", because sticking with believing something that you know isn't true is certainly not what any Christian means by faith, nor is that the typical understanding.
That’s why what you have is “faith”. Your apologetics would not exist nor need to exist if faith was rational and reasonable. Faith is an assertion of unreasonable conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
For instance, when you have faith that your normally reliable friend is going to do what he says by coming to pick you up when you're stranded on the side of the road, you are not believing something that you "know ain't so", nor is it an unreasonable trust based on no evidence, but it's a trust based on a history of reliability.
Christians believe the Bible is true and have many reasons for why it isn't a "blind trust", but it is reasonable. Again, I provided some reasons previously, but the point is that I do not believe in something unreasonable, and neither have Christians for 2,000 years. You made a "baseless assertion" about what faith is that isn't representative of what I or other Christians actually agree with for our own religion and our own beliefs.
You are making stuff up again.
quote:Every one of those examples does not say what you are claiming they say. For instance, Paul said that an evidence of the truth of the resurrection is that Jesus was seen by hundreds of witnesses, including himself. Even the author of Hebrews goes on to ground his claims about the reliability of the truth claims in the historical record, citing example after example. They weren't merely making a "baseless assertion" as you keep doing, but they were making arguments and providing evidence to support their claims. It wasn't an unreasonable, blind faith as you are incorrectly saying.
When Paul wrote that we walk by faith, not by sight, he acknowledged that he had no evidence for what he preached but that his followers should believe anyway. When the author of Hebrews (who the hell knows who the author is - not even William Lane Craig) wrote that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, he too is stated clearly there is no evidence for their beliefs. By saying you have evidence, or proof, of God’s existence, you are ******** on the NT authors and their theology. When John wrote blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe, you are telling him no I don’t need faith to believe because I have the evidences for God and I can give them to an atheist and if the atheist was honest, he would begin to believe. You’re a mess, Foo.
quote:If you are trying to hand your 'L' to me, you can keep it. You've earned it.
Take the loss
quote:I thought that was deleted, as I couldn't find a record of it anywhere.
What you wrote was preserved by me and only Chicken can erase it, and what was preserved was the clear admission that you believe I am unconvinced of your arguments
Regardless, I explained myself. If you refuse to accept the truth, that's on you. You can still keep that hard-earned 'L'.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 3:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I think you need to pick a different definition of "faith", because sticking with believing something that you know isn't true is certainly not what any Christian means by faith, nor is that the typical understanding.
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
quote:
Christians believe the Bible is true and have many reasons for why it isn't a "blind trust"
Paul, John, and Hebrews and Jesus himself blesses those that believe in what they can’t see nor verify is real or true. To them it is a virtue. I think you’re mistaken. It needs to be a “blind trust” because blindness is all you have to start with.
quote:
For instance, Paul said that an evidence of the truth of the resurrection is that Jesus was seen by hundreds of witnesses, including himself
But he blesses those that believe but “weren’t there”. None of them were there. Paul wasn’t there. Best case he was parroting what he had heard about the “500 brethren”.
In Surah 54:1, Mohammmed and the entire population of Mecca witnessed the moon split in half. Tell us if you do or do not believe the historicity of that story without special pleading.
quote:
Regardless, I explained myself. If you refuse to accept the truth, that's on you. You can still keep that hard-earned 'L'.
Dude can’t even come up with his own insult.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 3:58 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
No pro-life people are aborting their kids... just the libs and undesirables.
This is a very pragmatic position.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 7:04 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
It just took some deeper thinking to realize this is really a better stance.
No pro-life people are aborting their kids... just the libs and undesirables.
This reasoning is perplexing.
Presumably you were pro-life because abortion is an issue of justice and morality concerning the industrialized murder of innocent infants.
You seem to be personally pro-life but now wholeheartedly support abortion for others for utilitarian reasons and social engineering?
Put another way-you’d never have an abortion yourself but the unborn children of “libs and undesirables” are fair game for the abortion abattoirs to hasten the attrition of those undesirables.
This slaughter of innocents is not only acceptable to you now, but desirable as well?
Coming from you that’s hard to believe.
It seems more frustration and anger at the current successes of the enemy talking rather than deep thought.
If we go down that road the enemy wins. We will have become little better than them. Molech and his undesirables don’t care if we’re pro-life conservatives or not. They just want our votes. Absent our active support of abortion, our silence will do.
I pray you rethink the matter. Stand fast.
The poet’s words seem appropriate-
quote:
Things fall apart;
the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed,
and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 11:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:It's a fact that Christians have not historically understood "faith" to be blind and unreasonable, nor is it believing something that is not so (untrue).quote:Facts don’t care about your feelings.
I think you need to pick a different definition of "faith", because sticking with believing something that you know isn't true is certainly not what any Christian means by faith, nor is that the typical understanding.
Facts don't care about your feelings (or false understandings), as Ben Shapiro likes to say.
quote:Trusting God is a virtue for sure, but Paul, John, the author of Hebrews, and Jesus all provided reasons for what we are to believe. In fact, Peter even tells Christians to be prepared to do just that:
Paul, John, and Hebrews and Jesus himself blesses those that believe in what they can’t see nor verify is real or true. To them it is a virtue. I think you’re mistaken. It needs to be a “blind trust” because blindness is all you have to start with.
"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" -1 Pet. 3:15
quote:Yes, Paul says that it's good for people to trust the sure testimony of what they received from the Apostles, who were doing signs among them to support the message they provided.
But he blesses those that believe but “weren’t there”. None of them were there. Paul wasn’t there. Best case he was parroting what he had heard about the “500 brethren”.
Faith in those whom are trustworthy is praised, but it isn't absolutely "blind" and unreasonable, as you are saying. What you are saying is actually false, and not what Christianity teaches. It's also why Protestants like me criticize Roman Catholics who teach an implicit faith in the Church as a magisterial authority.
quote:It's not the same claim. Not only do Christians not believe blindly, but we don't believe all accounts equally. We have no reason to believe the claims of Mohammad, since he taught things that contradict what we believe to be true already from God in His Word. In this case, since we have someone claiming something that goes against trusted testimony, we have reason not to believe him.
In Surah 54:1, Mohammmed and the entire population of Mecca witnessed the moon split in half. Tell us if you do or do not believe the historicity of that story without special pleading
quote:You started your response by plagiarizing Ben Shapiro. I don't think you have a leg to stand on here
Dude can’t even come up with his own insult.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 11:53 am to Adam Banks
I think abortion is murder.
But society murder's humans every day. Legally. With the consent of the governed. Because there's a lot of things we don't want to be part of society.
And while even one abortion is the death of a potential extraordinary human being, it's probably not. And there will be more.
The point of planned parenthood was eugenics. Keeping blacks and browns from swarming the population and destroying the west with their genetalia and lack of IQ. That's an evil that I also agree with. If the only way we can stave off Idiocracy becoming the global government, then so be it. Without it, we'd already be there and we'd be in a low level race war right now. With it, it might take long enough something could happen to circumvent it.
But I doubt it.
Does that admission make me evil?
Yeah probably a little bit. But it's not a new evil. It's a feature of the tribalism of this meat eating murder ape we're riding around in. If you want the world to become fully third world and worse, then continue on. Get outbred. Get outvoted. And eventually get genocided and eliminated. Because that's how this ends eventually either way unless something intervenes soon.
But society murder's humans every day. Legally. With the consent of the governed. Because there's a lot of things we don't want to be part of society.
And while even one abortion is the death of a potential extraordinary human being, it's probably not. And there will be more.
The point of planned parenthood was eugenics. Keeping blacks and browns from swarming the population and destroying the west with their genetalia and lack of IQ. That's an evil that I also agree with. If the only way we can stave off Idiocracy becoming the global government, then so be it. Without it, we'd already be there and we'd be in a low level race war right now. With it, it might take long enough something could happen to circumvent it.
But I doubt it.
Does that admission make me evil?
Yeah probably a little bit. But it's not a new evil. It's a feature of the tribalism of this meat eating murder ape we're riding around in. If you want the world to become fully third world and worse, then continue on. Get outbred. Get outvoted. And eventually get genocided and eliminated. Because that's how this ends eventually either way unless something intervenes soon.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 11:58 am to billjamin
“Free 55” TV with play station" for anyone willing to self sterilize would be a hit.
Posted on 8/21/26 at 10:19 am to FooManChoo
quote:quote:It's not the same claim. Not only do Christians not believe blindly, but we don't believe all accounts equally. We have no reason to believe the claims of Mohammad, since he taught things that contradict what we believe to be true already from God in His Word. In this case, since we have someone claiming something that goes against trusted testimony, we have reason not to believe him.
In Surah 54:1, Mohammmed and the entire population of Mecca witnessed the moon split in half. Tell us if you do or do not believe the historicity of that story without special pleading
Two sets of secondhand claims of eyewitnesses to an event. You believe one claim because you already believe it. You don’t believe the other claim because you already know it’s false.
Idiot
Posted on 8/21/26 at 1:31 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:The nature and context of the claims are actually very different, so it's not a great comparison.
Two sets of secondhand claims of eyewitnesses to an event. You believe one claim because you already believe it. You don’t believe the other claim because you already know it’s false.
The claim you provided was not a localized claim like the resurrection, for instance, where hostile witnesses should be expected if it didn't happen, but from a localized group (those who lived in or around Jerusalem, for instance). The claim about the moon splitting in two would have expected to be seen by anyone who also had visibility to the moon at the same time, which would have been much of the Christian world. There are meticulous records kept and preserved from that part of the world at that time, and there isn't a single mention of the moon-split occurring, so it's not really and apples-to-apples comparison in that regard.
In addition, we have the fact that the historical accounts for Christianity are attested to by multiple claimed eye-witnesses and those who and interviewed eye-witnesses. The event you cited from the Qur'an was attested to by only Muhammad, and then codified two hundred years later in Hadith literature. It's the difference between multiple eye-witness testimonies written down within the lifetimes of those who would have seen Jesus, and a couple hundred years of oral tradition written down later.
Another thing to note is that there is strong disagreement in Islam about what type of literature Muhammad was referring to about the moon splitting. Some believe it was a historical event (as you're describing), while others see it as an end-times event. Christians aren't claiming that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are future events.
Lastly, the entire religion of Islam is founded upon the Qur'an with one prophet who was not an eye-witness to anything that came before it. So, there isn't a line of strong testimony or solid traditional grounding that came before him to support Islam. In fact, the very Scriptures that Muhammad pointed to that the Jews and Christians say is supporting their faiths are said by modern Muslims to be corrupted, so that they have nothing to support their religion prior to Muhammad and the later writing of the Qur'an. Christians at least had a long history of Scripture transmission and tradition by the point Islam came on to the scene.
So again, no, these are not apples-to-apples comparisons, and therefore, there is no special pleading. The scope and weight of the evidences in question are very different, so you can't say they are equal with special consideration being given to one and not the other.
quote:You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself. You're not an idiot, but you are ignorant of a lot of things that you should brush up on if you're going to have these types of conversations, so you don't embarrass yourself so much.
Idiot
This post was edited on 8/21/26 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 8/21/26 at 10:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The nature and context of the claims are actually very different, so it's not a great comparison.
Surah 54 is the divinely inspired word of God, and because that we know everything in it is truthful and accurate and historical, and because we know all that, rest assured it proves it is divinely inspired. Sound familiar?
quote:
In addition, we have the fact that the historical accounts for Christianity are attested to by multiple claimed eye-witnesses and those who and interviewed eye-witnesses.
It’s a great comparison. The Hadiths confirm it was Muhammad who was there and witnessed the moon split and showed many people, and the Quran was written by Muhammad. Both the Hadiths and Quran contain eyewitness accounts of the moon splitting in the sky between two mountains.
Joseph Smith was an eyewitness to the angel Moroni, and he wrote a book of the translation of hidden buried golden plates engraved in “reformed Egyptian”. Martin Harris and two others signed affidavits saying they met the angel Moroni and saw the golden plates. 8 more eyewitnesses signed affidavits that Joseph showed them the plates and they even handled them and saw the engravings. Certainly with all these eyewitness accounts - from less than 200 years ago, would convince you to believe the Book of Mormon.
quote:
The claim about the moon splitting in two would have expected to be seen by anyone who also had visibility to the moon at the same time, which would have been much of the Christian world. There are meticulous records kept and preserved from that part of the world at that time, and there isn't a single mention of the moon-split occurring, so it's not really and apples-to-apples comparison in that regard.
Meticulous records. I agree. And there are no contemporary Roman or Jewish written accounts of some nut or revolutionary named Yeshu or Iesous disrupting commerce in the temple and kicking everyone out. Nor is there a record of a Jesus of Nazareth, nor a solar eclipse or an earthquake in Jersusalem around 30CE nor any records of anyone coming back to life after being dead including people being resurrected out of their graves and appearing to many people. That would have been something. None of the “500 brethren” bothered to write anything down about what they allegedly had seen. Just be honest and consistent just for once Foo - you don’t have to lie. I think you are capable of honesty deep down.
quote:
So again, no, these are not apples-to-apples comparisons, and therefore, there is no special pleading.
False
Posted on 8/22/26 at 12:02 am to Meauxjeaux
Too late. That’s the “conservative” position.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News