Recent Comments

1. about 15 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   Pardon my frustration but you made the same error so many times in this thread, with both my comments and the comments of others, that it needed pointing out. If you read a comment and think that someone is both denying god and blaming god simultaneously, then rephrase the comment following the template above and it should make more sense. Now, I’ll confess confusion on my part. You talk about “prophesy” and in nearly the same breath talk about the flood. Are you calling the story of the flood “prophesy”? Because “prophesy” has to do with predicting the future, not stories of the past. And since you repeatedly cite the flood as evidence, I argue that it fails as any sort of proof. There are many reasons that the flood as described in the Bible is a physical impossibility. E.g the almost incomprehensible mass of water involved. Where did it come from and where is it now? If you say “god created them removed it” then that is just another claim with zero evidence to back it up.

2. about 20 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   “We have seen people presume to judge God himself as evil and wicked for bringing the flood on mankind… when they claim to not even believe in God or the flood.” I’m surprised this needs to be spelled for you, but let me rephrase it to hopefully make it clearer. They are saying “Believers present the story of the God and the flood as historical fact. If, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that this is correct, then God would be evil and wicked for bringing the flood on mankind”. Does this help?

3. about 20 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   If the two people you suggest above were to have a discussion, then first they would need to agree upon a specific, concrete definition of what person B means by “bible prophecy” (to prevent moving the goalposts), and then person B would need to present extraordinary evidence to prove their extraordinary claim. (And yes as you can tell, I dispute the idea that “bible prophecy” is 100% correct, no matter how you choose to define it.)

4. 2 days ago on Non Sequitur

   I absolutely reject circular references. So yes, if you “use scripture to prove scripture” then I’m not buying it. I will disregard scripture until there is evidence to do otherwise. So far, everything I’ve found shows the Bible consistent with a collection of bronze-age creation myths by different authors at different times, compounded with millennia of accretions and reinterpretations. I don’t “reject everything” but I’ve seen a lot in my many tens of circuits around the sun, and I’ve yet to see a convincing argument for the existence of a supreme being— yours or any of the others. It’s not that I’m closed minded, rather I’ve seen plenty of unconvincing “evidence”. If you have something novel, please present it. But it’s like the Theory of Gravity. Yes there’s more to be learned, but it would take extraordinary evidence to upset the fundamental understanding.

5. 3 days ago on Non Sequitur

   And the only support you’ve provided for your claims is to cite scripture — scripture for which you have failed to provide any evidence of validity. Give me evidence why I should believe your book. Convince me I should believe YOUR book over any of the hundreds of other “holy” books. They can’t ALL be right, so why is yours more special than any of the others?

6. 3 days ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Unfortunately in the trumpside down it doesn’t work that way

7. 3 days ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   I’m terrified of what he and his deranged cult members will do if he wins (deity forbid) and I’m terrified of what they’ll do when he loses

8. 3 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   I’ve found the most close-minded people believe themselves to be open-minded, and those around them closed. Dunning-Kruger

9. 4 days ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   His intent was completely unambiguous, and it wasn’t to be peaceful. I would almost think he said that just for plausible deniability but I don’t think he’s smart enough to plan ahead. But the fact that it took him THREE HOURS to tell his minions to knock it off, when he could have done so immediately, shows that what was happening was exactly what he intended. There’s no denying it. It’s patently obvious.

10. 4 days ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

    “they aren’t here to hurt me.” demonstrating his complete disregard for anyone but himself. He didn’t think an angry mob which he riled up would hurt him, so it’s fine. No matter if other people get hurt, which given the circumstances was guaranteed!